People v De Los Santos

Facts: A security guard halted defendant as he was bringing a wrapped box.

Upon examination, it was determined that the box contained shabu. The security
guard proceeded to report the incident to the security manager, who in turn
reported the incident to the NBI. Counsel of the NBI testified that upon receipt of
the call, he immediately proceeded to the condominium where he asked
defendant to proceed to Room ,706. When defendant De Los Santos was asked to
go out, he refused and tried to escape. Later on defendant was apprehended and
was charged with possession of illegal drugs. Defendant argues that he cannot be
convicted by the mere testimonies offered by the NBI Agent and Building
Manager.
RTC: Defendant is guilty
CA: Affirmed the RTC’s ruling

Issue: Whether defendant is guilty as charged

Ruling: The proof of animus possidendi is indispensable in the prosecution for

illegal possession. Once animus possidendi is established by the State, through
the evidence it has produced, it is incumbent upon the defense to rebut the
presumption and establish that he did not exercise power and control of the illicit
thing in question, and did not intend to do so. Animus possidendi is presumed
to exist on the accused when he has performed the act that is prohibited and
punished by the law.

Because of defendant’s failure to rebut the presumption he should be convicted.

People v Relato

Facts: After receiving a tip from his asset, PO3 Evasco informed Intelligence
Department head SPO1 Masujer that defendant was peddling drugs in Barangay
Aquino, thus prompting the latter to form a team to conduct a buy-bust. SPO1
Masujer prepared a 500.00 bill marked with his initials.

At around midnight Relato and his companion arrived via motorcycle and after
the transaction were apprehended by the buy-bust team. Recovered from Relato
were the marked money and two transparent sachets of crystalline substances,
which were marked by SPO1 Masujer with his initials. Subsequent testing
revealed that the substance was shabu. Thus defendant was charged with selling
of illegal drugs.

RTC: Defendant is guilty

CA: Affirmed the RTC’s ruling

Issue: Whether defendant should be acquitted on the ground that the RTC’s
decision is contrary to established facts, law and jurisprudence.

Ruling: The buy-bust was not in consonance with RA 9165 and its IRR.
To start with, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-
bust team did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime
and in the presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was

1
testimony about the marking of the seized items being made at the police station,
the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Relato or
his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media and the
Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the taking of the physical
inventory and to sign the inventory.

The marking of the seized drug is the starting point of the custodial link and
serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other evidence
seized. The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team underscored the
uncertainty about the identity and integrity of the shabu admitted as evidence
against the accused.

In the prosecution of the sale and possession of illegal drugs, the State not only
carries the heavy burden of proving the elements but also has the burden to
prove the corpus delicti. The state does cannot establish the corpus delicti when
the prohibited substance is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of
custody raises grave doubts about the authenticity of those presented in court.

Thus, defendant should be acquitted.

People v Arriola

Facts: A buy-bust was constituted where SPO4 Taruc was designated as the
poseur-buyer. Before the operation, they prepared a marked money which had
the “AT” initials on the bills. When the team reached defendant’s house, the
civilian asset told defendant that Taruc wanted to buy drugs. When the money
was handed to defendant, she immediately gave the civilian asset 4 sachets
containing a crystalline substance. After the exchange defendant was arrested by
SPO4 Taruc.

After the buy-bust the team brought defendant to the police station where the
sachets were marked with “AT” and “FA”. Then, the sachets were submitted to
the crime lab, where it was discovered that the sachets contained shabu.

RTC: Convicted the defendant for the sale of the illegal drug.

CA: Affirmed the RTC’s decision noting that SPO4 Taruc’s testimony
corroborated in every material detail by the affidavits executed by the buy-bust
team.

Issue: (a) Whether defendant is guilty as charged; (b)Whether the chain of

custody rule has been properly observed; (c) Whether non-compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165 is detrimental to the case.

Ruling: (a) In the prosecution for illegal drugs the identities of the buyer and
seller, the object and consideration is essential and that the delivery of thing sold
and payment thereof occurred, both of which elements were proven by the
prosecution warranting the verdict of guilty against defendant.

(b) Chain of custody includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a
way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from

2
whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.

The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a

showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered. This
is consistent with the presumption of regularity in the performance of the
arresting officer’s duty.

(c) Arrests without proper coordination with the PDEA is not detrimental as in
flagrante delicto arrests are consistent with Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court.

Thus, defendant is convicted.

People v Posada

Facts: Police authorities conducted a buy-bust operation, wherein they were able
to come in contact with a certain Emily. When the marked money was handed,
Emily went to her house to obtain a coin purse and went back to the place where
the sale was consummated. Upon arrival, Emily opened the purse and handed a
sachet containing a crystalline substance, it was also during this moment that his
husband Roger approached Emily and placed 12 sachets inside the purse. When
the said was consummated, police authorities arrested Emily, while Roger
escaped.

Both were charged with the illegal sale and possession of the drug.

Issue: Whether defendants are guilty of both charges.

Ruling: The arresting officers were noted to have observed the proper procedure
in the chain of custody of the seize items. However, the Court dismissed the
charge, which alleged that Emily sold 15 sachets, as evidence would only point
that only one sachet was sold. The Court also readily affirmed the charge of
possession committed by Emily as the 12 sachets were found to be in her
possession. Roger was also convicted for illegal possession, notwithstanding the
fact that he was not in physical possession of the drug. The Court noted that
possession not only pertains to actual physical possession, but also those, which
are under his control and management and subject to his disposition. Thus, the
Court ruled that constructive possession of the drug was the ground for which
Roger was convicted of possession.

Mallilin v People

Facts: Petitioner was charged with the possession of shabu after certain police
officers of the Sorsogon Police Station raided his home. Petitioner challenges the
regularity of the search noting that he was asked to do an errand for the police

3
when the search ensued. When he went back, he was apprehended as the police
allegedly discovered shabu conceal under his pillow.

RTC: Convicted petitioner

CA: Affirmed the RTC’s ruling.

Issue: Whether the search was valid.

Ruling: The dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense
and its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential therefore in these
cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.
More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally
possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must
also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to
make a finding of guilt. An unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensible
and essential.

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily

identifiable, thus the Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likeliehood
that links in the chain of custody over the same could be tampered.

In the present case, the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs
allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the manner by
which the same were placed under police custody before offered in court,
strongly militates a finding of guilt.

Thus, petitioner was acquitted.

People v. Medenceles

Facts: Defendants were charged with the sale of ecstasy after being apprehended
via buy-bust.

RTC: The buy-bust was valid corroborated by the consistent testimonies of the
buy-bust team members, thus defendants were convicted.

CA: Affirmed the RTC’s ruling

Issue: Whether defendants are guilty.

Ruling: To obtain a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drug, like ecstasy,
the State must prove the following: a) the identity of the buyer, and the seller, the
object of the sale and the consideration; and b) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment thereof. What is decisive is the proof that the sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.

Because, the buy-bust team established the above requisites, the Supreme Court
affirmed defendants’ conviction.

People v. Fundales

4
Facts: Defendant was charged with the sale of illegal drugs after being
apprehended via buy-bust. As a defense, defendant raised the argument that the
prosecution’s failure to present the testimony of the forensic chemist does not
sufficiently establish his guilty.

RTC: Convicted defendant of the illegal sale of shabu

CA: Affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Issue: Whether the absence of a forensic chemist’s testimony amounts to the

failure to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Primarily, the Court noted that the elements needed for the prosecution
of the illegal sale of drugs were proven in the trial.

The Court also ruled that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal
drugs cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. It is the identity of the illegal
drug that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt otherwise, acquittal would
be proper.

Thus, defendant’s conviction was upheld.

People v. Musa

Facts: Defendant were charged with the sale of illegal drugs being apprehended
via buy-bust. Principally, defendants argued that the buy-bust was unlawful as it
was not conducted pursuant to Section 21 of RA 9165.

RTC: Convicted defendants

CA: Affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Issue: (a) Whether defendants may be acquitted for the failure of the buy-bust
team to photograph and inventory the drugs seized; (b) Whether defendants
should be considered as a drug syndicate.

Ruling: Primarily, the Court noted that the existence of the elements of illegal
sale was ascertained from the credible testimonies of the buy-bust team
members.
(a) The requirement (photograph and inventory) is essential to obviate the
possibility of substitution as well as to ensure that doubts regarding the
identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
tracking of the movements and custody of the seized prohibited item,
from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for examination,
and to its presentation in evidence in court. Nonetheless, evidence is
admissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. In the
present case, the testimonies of the police officers of the buy-bust were
able to prove that the shabu seized from Musa was the same shabu
presented as evidence, thus complying with the requirement .

(b) A drug syndicate is any organized group of two (2) or more persons
forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense
prescribed under RA 9165. While the existence of conspiracy among
appellants in selling shabu was established, there was no proof that

5
 appellants were a group organized for the general purpose of committing
crimes for gain, which is the essence of the aggravating circumstance.

Thus, defendant’s guilt was affirmed.

People v. Mariano

Facts: Defendant was charged with the sale and possession of illegal drugs and
paraphernalia, respectively. The charge was a result of the buy-bust operation
conducted against defendant. Principally, defendant argued that seizure of the
drugs was invalid.

RTC: Convicted defendant for the acts noting that the items were seize incidental
to an in flagrante delicto arrest.
CA: Affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Issue: Whether defendant is guilty.

Ruling: In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. This was duly proven in court.

The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other

paraphernalia for dangerous drugs are: (1) possession or control by the accused
of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous
drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. Such
elements were also proven in court.

Thus, defendant’s guilt is affirmed.

SJS v. DDB

Facts: Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Section 36 of the Dangerous

Drugs act noting that it essentially enlarge a candidate’s qualification other than
those prescribed by the constitution. Moreover, petitioners also argued that
random drug tests violate a person’s right to privacy.

Issue: Whether Section 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional.

Ruling: The Court ruled that the portion of Section 36, which required
candidates, including Senators, to undergo a drug test as a condition to be
elected amounts to enlarging the qualification requirements of the constitution.
The conduct of random drug tests does not violate a person’s right to privacy. It
was shown that the intrusion could be justified based on the state’s interest to
protect the youth from incidents to drug use.

Shu v. Dee

Only facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the respondent are
required in the determination of ‘probable cause’ in preliminary investigations.
Thus, it was held that the presentation of an expert evidence, disclaimer of the

6
petitioner that he did not sign any promissory note, the lack of proof of receipt of
the proceeds of the loan offered sufficient evidence that falsification might have
been committed by respondents (case was about falsification committed by
respondent, who made it appear that it was petitioner who executed a
mortgage).

Zafra v. People (Falsified receipts of BIR)

Malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents

Petitioner was deemed to be the forger of the falsified and tampered public
documents by virtue of his submission of copies of falsified MRC and tampered
receipts to the BIR and COA, and that the falsifications of the public documents
had been necessary to commit the malversations of the collected taxes.

OCA v. Hernandez

Falsification was committed when a court employee tampered her entries in the
court’s attendance logbook by inserting her name barely above or almost inside
the “X” bar that separates those who arrived on time from those who arrived
late. This is seen to be a violation of the Civil Service Law which penalizes
falsification of official document such as an employee’s DTR is classified as a
grave offense.

Pagaduan v. CSC (Budget Officer falsified her PDS)

Assuming petitioner had no criminal intent to injure a third person, the same is
immaterial as such intent is not an essential element of the crime of falsificaition
of public document. Intent to gain or the intent to injure a third person is not
material in falsification of public or official documents by public officers or
private persons.

Falsification is punished because of its violation of the public faith and the
destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Thus, the nature of the
crime is classified as a crime involving moral turpitude.

Personal Data Sheet is a public document required of a government employee

and official by the CSC.

In Re: Pactolin ( SP Member who falsified a letter)

The crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and

good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude.

Casimiro v. Rigor (SALN of a DPWH official)

Respondent reconstituted the lost SALN and made it appear that said
reconstituted SALNs were the very same documents executed by the same.
Rigor’s SALN do not have markings or stamps of receipt as proof of filling and
give an impression that these had all been accomplished on a single occasion.
Thus, showing that respondent may be held liable for Falsification of Officail
Documents.

7
Under Service Service Laws, falsification of an official document and dishonesty
are distinct offenses, but both may be committed in one act.

Chua v. People (Clerk was charged with the complex crime of Estafa throgu
falsification of commercial document)

The Court noted that petitioner is only guilty of falsification. Whenever someone
has in his possession falsified documents and “uttered” or used the same for his
advantage and benefit, the presumption that he authored it arises.

Elements of Falsification:
1) Offender is a private individual or public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position; 2) the offender committed any acts of
falsification enumerated in Article 171 and the falsification was committed in a
public or official or commercial document.

Although, petitioner was originally charged with the complex crime of estafa
through falsification of commercial documents, the Supreme Court ruled that the
CA’s decision of convicting petitioner for falsification was valid.

De Los Reyes Vda. Del Prado v. People (Falsification of Deed of Succession

where Corazon Del Prado was excluded)

The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the
RPC, in relations to Article 172 are as follows: a) The offender makes in a public
document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; b) The offender has a egal
obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and c) The facts
narrated by the offender are absolutely false.

The Deed of Succession became a public document when it was notarized.

The defense of good faith is untenable because several documents prove that
they knew of the untruthful character of their statement in the deed of
succession.

People v. Estrada
Sandiganbayan: Defendant is acquitted

The Anti-Alias law is violated when a name or names used by a person or

intended to be used by him publicly and habitually usually in business
transaction in addition to his real name.

The use of the alias, to be considered public, must be made openly, or in an open
manner or place, or to cause it to become generally known.

Acuna v. Deputy Ombudsman (Teacher sued for perjury of complaint)

The elements of perjury under Article 183 are: a) that the accused made a
statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; b) that the
statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive
and administer oath; c) that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a

8
willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and, d) that the sworn statement
or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.

In prosecution for perjury, a matter is material if it is the main fact which was the
subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact.

Third element of perjury requires that the accused willfully and deliberately
assert a falsehood. Good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense.

Merencillo v. People ( Tagbilaran BIR)

RTC: Convicted
SB: Affirmed conviction

One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony

under the RPC for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or
subsequent to being charged with a felony under the RPC.

Section 3 of RA 3019 Article 210 of the RPC

Elements:
a) Offender is a public officer
b) he requested or received a gift,
present, share, percentage or benefit;
c) he made the request or receipt on
behalf of the offender
d) the request or receipt was made in
connection with a contract or
transaction with the government and
e) he has the right to intervene, in an
official capacity under the law, in
connection with a contract or
transaction has the right to intervene.
Mere request or demand warrants
conviction
Limited only to contracts or
transactions involving monetary
consideration where the officer has the
authority to intervene under the law
Elements:
a) Offender is a public officer
b) Offender accepts an offer or
promise or receives a gift or
present by himself through
another;
c) Such offer or promise be
accepted or gift or present be
received by the public officer
with a view to committing some
crime, or incosideration of the
execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime but the act
must be unjust or to refrain from
doing something which it is his
official duty to do and
d) The act which the offender
agrees to perform or which he
executes is connected with the
performance of his official
duties.
Acceptance is needed
(a) performance of an act constituting a
crime; (b) execution of an unjust act
which does not constitute a crime and
(c) agreeing to refrain or refraining
from doing an act which is his official
duty to do

9
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan
RTC: Petitioner is guilty
SB: Acquitted

Acts constituting Direct Bribery

a) Agreeing to perform, or by performing, in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or present an act constituting a crime, in connection with the
performance of official duties; b) by accepting a gift in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute a crime; c) by agreeing to
refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which is his official duty
to do, in consideration of any gift or promise.

Indirect Bribery is commited when a public officer who accepts gifts offered to
him by reason of his office. The essential ingredient must be that the public
officer concerned must have accepted the gift or material consideration.

Calilung v. Judge Suriaga

For judicial officers to enjoy the trust and respect of the people, it is necessary
that they live up to the exacting standards of conduct demanded by the
profession and by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Bayot v. Sandiganbayan

p.3 of Article 24 of the RPC states that suspension from the employment or
public officer during trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be
considered as penalty. Therefore, the suspension from officer, pending trial, of
the public officer charged with crimes mentioned in the amendatory provision
committed before its effectivity does not violate the constitutional provision on
ex post facto law.

10