Updated Jurisprudence on Drugs:

Elements of Sale (Sec 5)

People vs. Tumulak1
“In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction took
place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug as evidence. To prove that a sale transaction had taken
place, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs
requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction which
happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. So
long as the police officer went through the motion as a buyer and
his offer was accepted by the seller and the drug was delivered to
the police officer, the crime was consummated by the delivery of
the goods. In other words, what is important is that the poseur-
buyer received the drug from the accused.”

People vs. Torio2

“To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, it is necessary that the prosecution
duly prove the identities of the buyer and the seller, the delivery of
the drugs, and the payment in consideration thereof. “

1
G.R. No. 206054, July 25, 2016
2
GR. No. 225780, December 03, 2018
Elements of Possession
People vs. Torio3
“On the other hand, in cases where an accused is charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165,
the prosecution must establish the following elements: (a) the accused
was in possession of dangerous drugs; (b) such possession was not
authorized by law; and ( c) the accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.”

Corpus Delicti / Chain of Custody

People vs. Malana 4
“The Court emphasizes that while it is laudable that police officers exert
earnest efforts in catching drug pushers, they must always be advised
to do so within the bounds of the law. Without the insulating presence
of the representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official during the seizure and marking of the sachet of
shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the
evidence again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity
and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachet of shabu
that was evidence herein of the corpus delicti. Thus, this adversely
affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have
preserved an unbroken chain of custody.
“Concededly, Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 provides that
"noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items." For this
provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must (1)
recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and (2) be able

3
GR. No. 225780, December 03, 2018
4
G.R. No. 233747, December 05, 2018.
 to justify the same. In this case, the prosecution neither recognized,
much less tried to justify, its deviation from the procedure
contained in Section 21, RA 9165.
Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the
police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State,
militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against
the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti had been compromised.”

People vs. Medina 5

“As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for
these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or,
at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were
exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their presence. Here,
while P03 Rana requested the presence of a media representative and
an elected public official to witness the conduct of inventory and
photography of the seized item, he admitted that only a media
representative arrived, without any justification as to the absence of the
two (2) other required witnesses, i.e., an elected public official and a
DOJ representative. In fact, it may even be implied from P03 Rana's
aforesaid statement that he did not even bother to secure the presence
of a DOJ representative during the conduct of inventory and
photography. In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of
custody rule, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized
from Medina was compromised, which consequently warrants his
acquittal.”

People vs. Dela Cruz 6 / People vs. Medina 7

“In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug
5
G.R. No. 225747, December 05, 2018
6
G.R. No. 225741, December 05, 2018
7
G.R. No. 225747, December 05, 2018
 be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug
itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failing
to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for
the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal.”

People vs. Ilagana 8

“After a review of the records, the Court resolves to acquit accused
appellant Christopher as the prosecution utterly failed to prove
that the buybust team complied with the mandatory requirements
of Section 21 of RA 9165; thus resulting in its failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.”

People vs. Ilagana 9

“The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that
the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended
by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the IRR
of RA 9165 allows the inventory and photographing to be done as soon
as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team. In this connection, this also
means that the three required witnesses should already be
physically present at the time of the conduct of the physical
inventory of the seized items which, as aforementioned, must be
immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation - a
requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team
considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned
activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has enough time to
gather and bring with them the said witnesses”

8
G.R. No. 227021, December 05, 2018
9
G.R. No. 227021, December 05, 2018
People vs. Ilagana 10
“Clearly, the buy-bust team failed to comply with the requirements of
Section 21(1) of RA 9165.
First, no photographs of the seized drugs were taken at the place of
seizure. Even if there were photographs taken at the barangay hall, this
is still not what the law contemplates as the photographing should be
done at the place of apprehension, unless a justifiable reason to do it in
some other place has been established.
Second, neither was the inventory and marking of the alleged seized
items done at the place of apprehension. There was no justifiable
ground offered by the prosecution on why the marking of the seized
drugs was done in the barangay hall and not at the place of apprehension
of accused-appellant Christopher.
Lastly, there was no compliance with the three-witness rule. Based
on the narrations of the buy-bust team, not one of the witnesses
required under Section 21 was present at the time the plastic
sachets were allegedly seized from accused-appellant Christopher.
The media representative and barangay captain were only present
during the conduct of the inventory in the barangay hall. Moreover,
there were only two witnesses present - a barangay official and a media
representative - when the law explicitly requires three witnesses.
Neither did the police officers nor the prosecution - during the trial -
offer any viable or acceptable explanation for the police officers'
deviation from the law.”

Regularity of Performance of Duty

People vs. Ramirez & Lachica11
“Under these circumstances, we cannot apply the presumption of
regularity of performance of official duty. The presumption may only
arise when there is a showing that the apprehending officer/team
followed the requirements of Section 21 or when the saving clause
10
G.R. No. 227021, December 05, 2018
11
G.R. No. 225690 January 17, 2018
 found in the IRR is successfully triggered. Judicial reliance on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite
the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is
fundamentally unsound because the lapses themselves are affirmative
proofs of irregularity.
More importantly, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail
over the constitutional presumption of innocence and it cannot by
itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
presumption of regularity is just a mere presumption disputable by
contrary proof. Without the presumption of regularity, the
testimonies of the police witnesses must stand on their own merits
and the defense cannot be hurdled having to dispute these
testimonies.”

Link of Chain of Custody

People vs. Zaragoza12
“The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that
should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item:
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.”

People vs. Malana 13

“In this connection, it was error for both the RTC and the CA to convict
accused-appellant Malana by relying on the presumption of regularity
in the performance of duties supposedly extended in favor of the police
officers. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty

12
G.R. No. 223142 January 17, 2018
13
G.R. No. 233747, December 05, 2018.
 cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of
the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the
constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent.
xxx
In this case, the presumption of regularity cannot stand because of
the buy-bust team's blatant disregard of the established procedures
under Section 21 of RA 9165.”

People vs. Ilagana 14

“The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
is a constitutionally protected right. The burden lies with the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by establishing
each and every element of the crime charged in the information as to
warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime
necessarily included therein.
Here, reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by
the buy-bust team is fundamentally unsound because the lapses
themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity. The presumption
of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the
stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally
enshrined right to be presumed innocent.”

SEARCH WARRANT QUASHAL CASE

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/dec2018/pdf/gr_235348_20
18.pdf

14
G.R. No. 227021, December 05, 2018