71. People of the Philippines v.

Nila Malana y Sambolledo

G.R. no. 233747 December 5, 2018
FACTS:
An Information was filed against Malana for violating Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 for the sale of
shabu. During the entrapment operation, a civilian poseur buyer ordered shabu from Malana. An
exchange was made between the buyer and Malana but SPO1 Urian could neither identify the things
being exchanged by the two nor can he overhear their conversation. After the use of the pre-
arranged signal, Malana was frisked, recovering the marked money. P/C Insp. Cablarda took
possession of the sachet handed over by Malana to the buyer. The assistance of the barangay captain
and two kagawads were sought as witness for the inventory of the seized items.

ISSUE:
Whether the chain of custody was complied with.

HELD:
No. The three-witness rule required by Section 21 of RA 9165 was not complied with – a requirement
that can be easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is,
by its nature, a planned activity. The presence of the three witnesses at the time of the inventory is
mandatory, and that he law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential
purpose: protect against the possibility of planting, contaminating, or loss of the seized drug. The
officers had one whole day to secure the attendance of all the required witnesses. They could thus
have complied with the requirements of the law had they intended to.
72. People of the Philippines v. Christopher Ilagan y Bana alias “Weng”
G.R. No. 227021, December 5, 2018
Facts:
An Information was filed against Christopher Ilagan for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for
sale of marijuana on September 11, 2012. During a buy-bust operation, police caught Ilagan selling
marijuana at a flower shop. He was arrested and brought to the barangay hall where marking,
inventory and photography were made in the presence of the barangay captain and a media
representative. Thereafter, Ilagan was brought to the police station and the sachets confiscated from
his person was brought for testing.

ISSUE:
Whether the chain of custody was complied with.

HELD:
No. Prosecution failed to prove that the buy-bust team complied with the mandatory requirements
of Section 21 of RA 9165. In all drug cases, compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial. It
means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals
from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction.
The prosecution failed on the following:
1. No photographs of the seized drugs were taken at the place of seizure.
2. Neither inventory nor marking of the alleged seized items were done at the place of
apprehension.
3. There was no compliance with the three-witness rule. The presence of the three witnesses at
the time of the seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at
the time of the buy-bust arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and
photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs “immediately after seizure and
confiscation.”
73. People of the Philippines v. Brandon Dela Cruz and James Francis Bautista
G.R. 225741, December 5, 2018
FACTS:
An Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Brandon Dela Cruz and James
Francis Bautista of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. A buy-bust operation was done by
Bambang Police Station against accused during which 0.029gram of white crystalline substance was
recovered from them. They were taken, alongside the seized item, to the station where the marking,
inventory and photography were done in the presence of the municipal mayor and an employee of
the Department of Justice (DOJ).

ISSUE:
Whether the chain of custody was complied with.

HELD:
No. In cases of Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential
that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the
dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delict of the crime. Failure to do so
warrants the acquittal of the accused.
The identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty can be established through accounting of the
chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence
of the crime. As part of the chain of custody, marking, physical inventory, and photography of the
seized items must be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. Such
marking and photography must be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom
the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses,
namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 (approved July 15, 2014), a
representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the
amendment, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR
the media. The law requires these witnesses to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and
remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence. Upon review of the
proceeding, the Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the requirement due to the
failure to conduct the inventory and photography in the presence of a media representative.
74. People of the Philippines v. Emmanuel Oliva y Jorjil, Bernardo Barangot y Pilais and Mark Angelo
Manalastas y Gapasin, G.R. no. 234156, January 7, 2019
FACTS:
An Information was filed against appellants for violations of Section 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. A
buy-bust operation was conducted against Oliva. Barangot and Manalastas were also arrested as they
were around the area and had shabu on their persons. The three arrested persons were then
brought to the barangay hall where inventory was conducted. The confiscated items were
photographed and examined by the PNP Crime Laboratory.

ISSUE:
Whether the chain of custody was complied with.

HELD:
No. The amendatory law, RA 10640, mandates that the conduct of physical inventory and
photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or his counsel, (2) with
an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media
who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
In this case, the absence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media during
the inventory of the seized items was not justifiably explained by the prosecution. The only one
present to witness the inventory and the marking was an elected official, barangay captain.
75. People of the Philippines v. Ariel Manabat Cadenas and Gaudioso Martije
G.R. no. 233199, November 5, 2018
FACTS:
Cadenas and Martije were indicted for Rape with Homicide. Escribano, a witness, testified that he
saw the two running out of the house of the victim at 9 o’clock in the evening. Escribano then went
back for Castillo, victim’s live in partner, before going back to the house of the victim. They saw her
already dead, lying on her back, jogging pants pulled down and her vagina and breasts exposed.

ISSUE:
Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused.

HELD:
No. Conviction may be warranted on the basis of circumstantial evidence only if the following
requisites occur: (1), there is more than one circumstance, (2) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proved, and (3) the combination of all the circumstances are such as to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Jurisprudence provides that for circumstantial evidence to be
sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent
with the hypothesis that he accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis
that he is innocent.
The alleged presence of Cadenas and Martije at the locus criminis does not necessarily mean that
they authored the crime. The prosecution had not completely ruled out the probability that another
person/s may have committed the crime. It was not established that the appellants were with the
victim inside the house at the time the crime was committed. The incident happened at 9 o’clock in
the evening and the house is located in a mountainous area without any electricity. Such clear
identification made by the witness is suspect as there is also the difficulty of seeing the face of a
person running away from their direction.
76. People of the Philippines v. Bong Chan and Elmo Chan
G.R. no. 226836 December 5, 2018
FACTS:
An Information was filed against Chan for the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
During the presentation of witness, prosecution presented the victim’s uncle, daughters and brother.
Victim visited his uncle and during his stay, he mentioned that he was threatened earlier by the Elmo
for quarrelling with Melrose Libadia. Against suggestions to stay the night, victim insisted on going
home. His uncle followed him from behind as victim went home. Passing by the house of Melrose,
the uncle saw appellants hit the victim with bamboo sticks until he went unconscious. The uncle saw
Chans place victim in a sack and drag him to their yard. Uncle went home and had a restless night. At
5:30pm the following day, he met the brother of the victim and he told him that appellants killed the
victim.

ISSUE:
Whether the Uncle is a credible witness.

HELD:
Yes. Discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses pertaining to minor details,
not touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair the credibility of the witnesses; on the
contrary, they even tend to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses since they discount the
possibility of witnesses being rehearsed. In this case, the discrepancies or inconsistencies in the
testimony of the Uncle and the daughter pertaining to minor details that have no bearing on the
elements of the crime, do not affect the veracity and credibility of Uncle’s positive testimony, who
had no ill motive to testify against appellants.
77. People of the Philippines v. Jordan Batalla y Aquino
G.R. no. 234323, January 7, 2019
FACTS:
An Information was filed against Batalla for the crime of rape under Article 266-A in relation to RA
7610. The victim narrated that she was on vacation in the Philippines and she was staying with her
aunt. One night, she was already asleep on a bed in the living room when she was awakened by loud
knocks. She opened the door for her cousin. She went to sleep again only to be awakened by Batalla,
a friend of her cousin, on top of her. She was unable to push him away as he was too strong. Batalla
raped her twice. She chose to remain silent due to fear. Her mother later read her diary detailing the
rape and her mother accompanied her to the police station to report the incident.

ISSUE:
Whether the victim is a credible witness.

HELD:
Yes. The failure to shout for help and to immediately report the incident does not affect her case.
Settled is the rule that delay in the reporting the incident does not weaken the victim’s testimony.
Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not render such charge unworthy of
belief. Only when delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.

Furthermore, denial and alibi are inherently weak defences which cannot prevail over the positive
and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as
between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi
on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.