crimes relative to opium & other prohibited drugs

7/23/2019 Crimes Relative to Opium & Other Prohibited Drugs

1/12

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.PABLITO ANDAYA y

REANO,Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 183700

October 13, 01!

FA"TS #

The non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness does not

ordinarily weaken the State's case against the accused. However, if the

arresting lawmen arrested the accused ased on the pre-arranged signal

from the confidential informant who acted as the poseur uyer, his

nonpresentation must e credily e!plained and the transaction estalished

y other ways in order to satisfy the "uantum of proof eyond reasonale

dout ecause the arresting lawmen did not themselves participate in the

uy-ust transaction with the accused.

Antecedents

#n $eruary %, &(, an information for violation of Section ) of *epulic Act

+o. )/*A )0 was filed charging Palito Andaya y *eano /Andaya0.

1pon arraignment, Andaya pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial

on the merits ensued.

The 2A summed up the versions of the parties, as follows3

SP#& 4elfin Alea testified that at aout 53 o'clock in the evening of

4ecemer , &&, their asset who was conducting surveillance of Palito

Andaya in 6arangay San 7ose Sico, 6atangas 2ity, arrived at their station.Said asset reported that he had arranged to uy shau from Palito. A team

composed of SP# Aguila, SP# 2aungcal, 8ric de 2have9, P# :inderg

;ap, 8dwalerto = were recorded in

the police lotter. Alea gave the marked ills to the asset. 1pon reaching the

designated place, the team memers alighted from their vehicles and

occupied different positions where they could see and oserve the asset. The

asset knocked on the door of Palito's house. Palito came out. Palito and

the asset talked riefly. The asset gave Palito the marked money. The asset

received something from appellant. The pre-arranged signal signifying

consummation of the transaction was given. The team memers approached

Palito and the asset, introduced themselves as police officers and arrested

accused. He was rought to the police station. The arrival of the team was

recorded in the police lotter. The merchandise handed y accused to the

asset was sent to the *egional 2rime :aoratory in 2amp


2/12

police station and detained. After three /(0 days he was released. He

received a supoena from the Pulic Prosecutor afterwards.

His wife 2risanta, corroorated appellants' testimony. She added having told

her husand aout the loss of their cellphone and the money in his wallet.

She was asked to produce P),. which she was unale to do. She wasale to raise only P&,..

7udgment of the *T2

#n $eruary &, &, the *egional Trial 2ourt, 6ranch @, in 6atangas 2ity

/* T20 rendered its udgment convicting Andaya as charged, and meted him

the penalty of life imprisonment.

4ecision of the 2A

1pon appeal, the 2A promulgated its assailed decision affirming the

conviction.

ISS$ES

?#+ the search of his house and his person and his arrest y the police

officers violated his constitutional right against unreasonale searches and

sei9uresB

?#+ the Prosecution's nonpresentation of the confidential informant was

adverse to the Prosecution, indicating that his guilt was not proved eyond

reasonale dout.

R$LING

To secure the conviction of the accused who is charged with the illegal sale

of dangerous drugs as defined and punished y Section ), Article CC of

*epulic Act +o. ) /2omprehensive 4rugs Act of &&0, the State must

estalish the concurrence of the following elements, namely3 /a0 that the

transaction or sale took place etween the accused and the poseur uyerB

and / 0 that the dangerous drugs suect of the transaction or sale is

presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.

?e reiterate that a uy-ust operation is a valid and legitimate form of

entrapment of the drug pusher. Cn such operation, the poseur uyer transacts

with the suspect y purchasing a "uantity of the dangerous drug and paying

the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug pusher turns over or delivers the

dangerous drug suect of their agreement in e!change for the price or other

consideration. #nce the transaction is consummated, the drug pusher is

arrested, and can e held to account under the criminal law. The ustificationthat underlies the legitimacy of the uy-ust operation is that the suspect is

arrested in flagranti delicto, that is, the suspect has ust committed, or is in

the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence

of the arresting police officer or private person. The arresting police officer or

private person is favored in such instance with the presumption of regularity

in the performance of official duty.

2


3/12

Proof of the transaction must e credile and complete. Cn every criminal

prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that ears the urden of proving the

illegal sale of the dangerous drug eyond reasonale dout. This

responsiility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of

innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence

until and unless the presumption of innocence in his favor has een

overcome y sufficient and competent evidence.

Here, the confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated

to e the poseur uyer himself. Ct is notale that the memers of the uy-ust

team arrested Andaya on the asis of the pre-arranged signal from the

poseur uyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the memers of the uy-

ust team that the transaction had een consummated etween the poseur

uyer and Andaya. However, the State did not present the confidential

informantDposeur uyer during the trial to descrie how e!actly the

transaction etween him and Andaya had taken place. There would have

een no issue against that, e!cept that none of the memers of the uy-ust

team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, etween Andaya and the

poseur uyer due to their eing positioned at a distance from the poseur

uyer and Andaya at the moment of the supposed transaction.

The 2A did not find anything wrong or odd in the non-presentation of the

poseur uyer as a witness against the accused. Cn fact, it ustified the non-

presentation as follows3

Appellant also "uestioned the failure of the prosecution to present the

informer. The court is aware of the considerations why confidential

informants are usually not presented y the prosecution. There is the need to

hide their identity and preserve their invaluale service to the police. /People

v. Ehor, (% S2*A &) FG, citing People v. ireng, &@ S2*A F)G.0

$oremost is the desire to protect them from eing oects or targets of

revenge y the criminals they implicate once they ecome known. /People

vs. #ng, .*. +o. (%(@5, 7une &, &@.0

Cn People vs :ope9 /&@ S2*A (&(0, it was held that there was no need for

the prosecution to present the confidential informer as the poseur uyer

himself positively identified the accused as the one who sold to him one deck

of methamphetamine hydrochloride or =shau.= The trial court then properly

relied on the testimonies of the police officers despite the decision of the

prosecution not to present the informer.)

The foregoing ustification y the 2A was off-tangent and does not help the

State's cause any. Ct is ovious that the rulings cited to suppi the need to

conceal the confidential infonnants' identities related to the confidential

informants who gave information against suspected drug dealers. The

presentation of the confidential informants as witnesses for the Prosecution

in those instances could e e!cused ecause there were poseur uyers who

directly incriminated the accused. Cn this case, however, it was different,

ecause the poseur uyer and the confidential informant were one and the

same. ?ithout the poseur uyer's testimony, the State did not credily

incriminate Andaya.

Cndeed, Section ) of *epulic Act +o. ) punishes =any person, who,

unless authori9ed y law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give

away to another, distriute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous

drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the "uantity

and purity involved, or shall act as a roker in any of such transactions.=1nder the law, selling was any act =of giving away any dangerous drug

andDor controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any

other considerationB=while delivering was any act =of knowingly passing a

dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and y any means, with

or without consideration.=%iven the legal characteri9ations of the acts

constituting the offense charged, the memers of the uy-ust team could

not incriminate Andaya y simply declaring that they had seen from their

positions the poseur uyer handing something to Andaya who, in turn, gave

something to the poseur uyer. Cf the transaction was a sale, it was

3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_183700_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_183700_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_183700_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_183700_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_183700_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_183700_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_183700_2014.html#fnt17


4/12

unwarranted to infer from such testimonies of the memers of the uy-ust

team that what the poseur uyer handed over were the marked P. ills

and that what Andaya gave to the poseur uyer was the shau purchased.

Another mark of suspicion attending the evidence of guilt related to the

reliance y the memers of the uy-ust team on the pre-arranged signal

from the poseur uyer. To start with, the record does not show what the

prearranged signal consisted of. Ct is fundamental enough to e!pect the Stateto e clear and definite aout its evidence of guilt, particularly here where the

conviction of Andaya would re"uire him to spend the rest of his natural life

ehind ars. +othing less should e done here. Secondly, the reliance on the

supposed signal to estalish the consummation of the transaction etween

the poseur uyer and Andaya was unwarranted ecause the unmitigatedly

hearsay character of the signal rendered it entirely ereft of trustworthiness.

The arresting memers of the uy-ust team interpreted the signal from the

anonymous poseur uyer as the sign of the consummation of the transaction.

Their interpretation, eing necessarily suective without the testimony of the

poseur uyer, unfairly threatened the lierty of Andaya. ?e should not allow

that threat to perpetuate itself. And, lastly, the reliance on the signal woulddeprive Andaya the right to confront and test the crediility of the poseur

uyer who supposedly gave it.

?e should look at the situation of Andaya with utmost caution ecause of

what our udicial e!perience through the years has told us aout

unscrupulous lawmen resorting to stratagems of false incrimination in order

to arrest individuals they target for ulterior reasons. Cn this case, the arrest

did not emanate from proale cause, for the formless signal from theanonymous poseur uyer did not estalish eyond reasonale dout the

elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section ) of *epulic Act

+o. ).

Cn affirming the *T2's conviction of the accused, the 2A oserved that the

defense of frame-up put up y the accused was discredited y the asence

of proof of =any intent on the paii of the police authorities to falsely impute

such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty stands.=5Such outright reection y the lower

courts of Andaya's defense of frame-up is not outrightly inding. $or sure, the

frame-up defense has een commonly used in prosecutions ased on uy-

ust operations that have led to the an-est of the suspects.Cts use might e

seen as e!cessive, ut the failure of the accused to impute any ill motives to

falsely incriminate them should not deter us from scrutini9ing the

circumstances of the cases rought to us for review. ?e should remindourselves that we cannot presume that the accused committed the crimes

they have een charged with. The State must fully estalish that for us. Cf the

imputation of ill motive to the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them,

then that would e the end of our dutiful vigilance to protect our citi9enry from

false arrests and wrongful incriminations. ?e are aware that there have een

in the past many cases of false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that

should heighten our resolve to strengthen the ramparts of udicial scrutiny.

+or should we shirk from our responsiility of protecting the lierties of our

citi9enry ust ecause the lawmen are shielded y the presumption of the

regularity of their performance of duty. The presumed regularity is nothing uta purely evidentiary tool intended to avoid the impossile and time-

consuming task of estalishing every detail of the performance y officials

and functionaries of the overnment. 2onversion y no means defeat the

much stronger and much firmer presumption of innocence in favor of every

person whose life, property and lierty comes under the risk of forfeiture on

the strength of a false accusation of committing some crime.&The criminal

accusation against a person must e sustantiated y proof eyond

reasonale dout. The 2ourt should steadfastly safeguard his right to e

presumed innocent. Although his innocence could e douted, for his

reputation in his community might not e lily-white or lustrous, he should notfear a conviction for any crime, least of all one as grave as drug pushing,

unless the evidence against him was clear, competent and eyond

reasonale dout. #therwise, the presumption of innocence in his favor

would e rendered empty.

?H8*8$#*8, the 2ourt *8


5/12

*eano for failure to prove his guilt eyond reasonale doutB and #*48*S

his immediate release from confinement at the +ational Penitentiary in

Juntinlupa 2ity.

The 2ourt 4C*82TS that the 4irector of the 6ureau of 2orrections to

implement the immediate release of Palito Andaya y *eano, unless he isconfined for any other lawful causeB and to report his compliance within ten

days from receipt.

S# #*48*84.

G.R. No. 07%%3, &'()'ry 1, 01*PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Appellee, v.GERARDO EN$+ERABLE Y

DE ILLA,Appellant.

FA"TS

Aout a deal in shau etween the asset of P#( 8dwalerto


6/12

must the essential elements of the offense e proved eyond reasonaledout, ut likewise the identity of the prohiited drug. The dangerous drugitself constitutes the corpus delictiof the offense and the fact of its e!istenceis vital to a udgment of conviction.chan*olesvirtual:awlirary

+ecessarily, the prosecution must estalish that the sustance sei9ed fromthe accused is the same sustance offered in court as e!hiit. Cn this regard,the prosecution must sufficiently prove the unroken chain of custody of theconfiscated illegal drug. Cn People v. Watamama,the 2ourt held3

Cn all prosecutions for the violation of the 2omprehensive 4angerous 4rugsAct of &&, the e!istence of the prohiited drug has to e proved. T-ec-'( o/ c)toy r)2e re)re t-'t tet4o(y be 5ree(te 'bo)t e6ery2( ( t-e c-'(, /ro4 t-e 4o4e(t t-e te4 ' e9e )5 to t-e t4e t o//ere ( e6e(ce.To this end, the prosecution must ensure that thesustance presented in court is the same sustance sei9ed from theaccused.

?hile this 2ourt recogni9es sustantial adherence to the re"uirements of*.A. +o. ) and its implementing rules and regulations, not perfectadherence, is what is demanded of police officers attending to drugs cases,still, such officers must present ustifiale reason for their imperfect conductand show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the sei9ed items hadeen preserved. ! ! !. /8mphasis supplied0

Cn People v. Climaco,&citing Malillin v. People,(the 2ourt held3 ! ! ! FTGoestalish guilt of the accused eyond reasonale dout in cases involvingdangerous drugs, it is important that the sustance illegally possessed in thefirst place e the same sustance offered in court as e!hiit. This chain ofcustody re"uirement ensures that unnecessary douts are removedconcerning the identity of the evidence. ?hen the identity of the dangerousdrug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug presentedto the forensic chemist for review and e!amination, nor the same dangerousdrug presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is notpreserved due to the roken chain of custody. ?ith this, an element in thecriminal cases for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs,the corpus delicti, is not proven, and the accused must then e ac"uittedased on reasonale dout. $or this reason, Fthe accusedG must eac"uitted on the ground of reasonale dout due to the roken chain ofcustody over the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from him.

Cn this case, there was a glaring gap in the custody of the illegal drug sincethe prosecution failed to sufficiently estalish who had custody of the illegaldrug from the moment it was allegedly transmitted to the 6atangas Provincial

2rime :aoratory on &% Jay &@ until it was allegedly delivered to the*egional 2rime :aoratory on @ 7une &@. There was no evidencepresented how the confiscated sachets of shau were stored, preserved orlaeled nor who had custody prior to their delivery to the *egional 2rime:aoratory and their suse"uent presentation efore the trial court. This isevident from the testimony of P#(


7/12

were entered into during pre-trial only in order to dispense with the testimonyof the forensic chemist and areviate the proceedings. ! ! !.%

Since the failure of the prosecution to estalish every link in the chain ofcustody of the illegal drug gravely compromised its identity and integrity,which illegal drug is the corpus delictiof the offense charged againstappellant, his ac"uittal is therefore in order.

G.R. No. 007!8, &)2y 3, 01!&AI+E D. DELA "R$:, Petitioner, v.PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FA"TS

Petitioner 7aime 4. dela 2ru9 was charged with violation of Section ),Article CC of *epulic Act +o. /*.A.0 ), or The 2omprehensive 4angerous4rugs Act of &&, y the raft Cnvestigation and Prosecution #fficer of the#ffice of the #mudsman L


8/12

he used a dangerous drug.

4isregarding petitionerKs oection regarding the admissiility of theevidence, the lower court also reasoned that Na suspect cannot invoke hisright to counsel when he is re"uired to e!tract urine ecause, while he isalready in custody, he is not compelled to make a statement or testimonyagainst himself. 8!tracting urine from oneKs ody is merely a mechanical act,hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation.M

?e find the ruling and reasoning of the trial court, as well as the suse"uentaffirmation y the 2A, erroneous on three counts.

The drug test in Section 15 does not coverpersons apprehended or arrested for anyunlawful act, but only for unlawful actslisted under Article II of R.A. 915.

Frt, ;


9/12

-e( t-e 5ree(ce o/ '(?ero) r)? o(2y '( o2e2y ( t-e /or4 o/re)e '( t-e co(/r4'tory tet re)re )(er Sec. 1* 5ot6e /or)e o/ '(?ero) r)?. Cn such cases, to afford the accused a chance toe rehailitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession ofdangerous drugs should only e done when another separate "uantity ofdangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the possession of theaccused as provided for in Sec. ). /6mphasis supplied0

$urthermore, making the phrase Na person apprehended or arrestedM inSection ) applicale to all persons arrested or apprehended for unlawfulacts, not only under *.A. ) ut for all other crimes, is tantamount to amandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for any crime.To overe!tend the application of this provision would run counter to ourpronouncement in 4ocial 7ustice 4ociet# v. Dangerous Drugs 8oard andPhilippine Drug 6nforcement Agenc#,&)to wit3

! ! ! FJGandatory drug testing can never e random and suspicionless. Theideas of randomness and eing suspicionless are antithetical to their eingmade defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly pickedBneither are they eyond suspicion. ?hen persons suspected of committing acrime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will.The persons thus charged, y the are fact of eing haled efore theprosecutorKs office and peacealy sumitting themselves to drug testing, ifthat e the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alonewaive their right to privacy. To 45oe 4'('tory r)? tet(? o( t-e'cc)e ' b2't'(t 'tte45t to -'r(e ' 4ec'2 tet ' ' too2 /orcr4('2 5roec)to(, co(tr'ry to t-e t'te obect6e o/ RA 1%*. Dr)?tet(? ( t- c'e o)2 6o2'te ' 5ero(C r?-t to 5r6'cy ?)'r'(tee)(er Sec. , Art. III o/ t-e "o(tt)to(. ore t22, t-e 'cc)e5ero( 're 6ert'b2y /orce to (cr4('te t-e4e26e. /6mphasissupplied0

The drug test is not covered byallowable non!testi"onialco"pulsion.

?e find that petitioner never raised the alleged irregularity of his arrestefore his arraignment and raises the issue only now efore this triunalBhence, he is deemed to have waived his right to "uestion the validity of hisarrest curing whatever defect may have attended his arrest.&However, Nawaiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of theinadmissiility of evidence sei9ed during an illegal warrantless arrest.M&%

?e are aware of the prohiition against testimonial compulsion and the

allowale e!ceptions to such proscription. 2ases where non-testimonialcompulsion has een allowed reveal, however, that the pieces of evidenceotained were all 4'ter'2 to t-e 5r(c5'2 c')e o/ t-e 'rret .

The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscriesthe use of physical or moral compulsion to e!tort communications from theaccused and not the inclusion of his ody in evidence -e( t 4'y be4'ter'2. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohiition as theaccused does not therey speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guidinghand of counsel is not re"uired. /People vs. #lvis, &(5 Phil. )( F5%G0 Theessence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, thatis, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. /Peoplevs. 2asinillo, &( S2*A %%% F&GB People vs. Tranca, &() S2*A @))F@GB People vs. *ondero, (%5 Phil. &( FG0 Hence, it has een heldthat a woman charged with adultery may e compelled to sumit to physicale!amination to determine her pregnancyB /


10/12

Cn theGutang et al.case, the 2ourt clarified that Nwhat the 2onstitutionprohiits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to e!tort communicationfrom the accused, ut not an inclusion of his ody in evidence, when it maye material.M The situation in Gutangwas categori9ed as falling among thee!emptions under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what wassought to e e!amined came from the ody of the accused. The 2ourt said3

This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was notmeant to unearth undisclosed facts ut to ascertain physical attriutesdeterminale y simple oservation. Cn fact, the record shows that petitionerand his co-accused were not compelled to give samples of their urine utthey in fact voluntarily gave the same when they were re"uested to undergoa drug test.

Assuming arguendothat the urine samples taken from the petitioner areinadmissile in evidence, we agree with the trial court that the record isreplete with other pieces of credile evidence including the testimonialevidence of the prosecution which point to the culpaility of the petitioner forthe crimes charged.

?e emphasi9e that the circumstances in Gutangare clearly different from thecircumstances of petitioner in the instant case. $irst, utang was arrested inrelation to a drug case. Second, he volunteered to give his urine. Third, therewere other pieces of evidence that point to his culpaility for the crimescharged. Cn the present case, though, petitioner was arrested for e!tortionB heresisted having his urine sample takenB and finally, his urine sample was theonly availale evidence that was used as asis for his conviction for the useof illegal drugs.

T-e r)? tet ' ' 6o2'to( o/5etto(erC r?-t to 5r6'cy '(r?-t '?'(t e2/(cr4('to(.

Ct is incontrovertile that petitioner refused to have his urine e!tracted andtested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He wasadamant in e!ercising his rights, ut all of his efforts proved futile, ecausehe was still compelled to sumit his urine for drug testing under thosecircumstances.

The pertinent provisions in Article CCC of the 2onstitution are clear3

Section &. The right of the people to e secure in their persons, houses,papers, and effects against unreasonale searches and sei9ures of whatevernature and for any purpose shall e inviolale, and no search warrant or

warrant of arrest shall issue e!cept upon proale cause to e determinedpersonally y the udge after e!amination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly descriingthe place to e searched and the persons or things to e sei9ed.

Section %. +o person shall e compelled to e a witness against himself.

Cn the face of these constitutional guarantees, we cannot condone drugtesting of all arrested persons regardless of the crime or offense for whichthe arrest is eing made.

?hile we e!press our commendation of law enforcement agents as theyvigorously track down offenders in their laudale effort to cur the pervasiveand deleterious effects of dangerous drugs on our society, they must,however, e constantly mindful of the reasonale limits of their authority,ecause it is not unlikely that in their clear intent to purge society of itslawless elements, they may e knowingly or unknowingly transgressing theprotected rights of its citi9ens including even memers of its own police force.

HEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed 4ecision dated && 7une& issued y the Twentieth 4ivision, and the *esolution dated & $eruary&& issued y the former Twentieth 4ivision of the 2ourt of Appeals, in 2A-.*. 2.*. +o. % are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is herey A"$ITTED.

SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE 6. +ORILLA

6efore the 2ourt is an appeal assailing the 4ecision dated &5 7anuary &of the 2ourt of Appeals /2A0 in 2A-.*. 2*-H.2. +o. ((. The 2A

affirmed the 4ecision dated Septemer &5 of the *egional Trial 2ourt

/*T20 of 6inangonan, *i9al, 6ranch %, in 2riminal 2ase +o. -%,

convicting appellant *olando :aylo #2epres /:aylo0 of violation of Section

&/0, Article CC /Attempted Sale of 4angerous 4rugs0 of *epulic Act +o.

)@/*A )0 or the 2omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of &&.

10
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote5symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote5symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote5sym


11/12

T-e F'ct

Cn the afternoon of % 4ecemer &), P# *eyes and P# Pastor, oth

wearing civilian clothes, were conducting anti-drug surveillance operations

at :o9ana Street, 2alumpang, 6inangonan,*i9al. ?hile the police officers

were in front of a sari9saristore at around )3@ p.m., appellant :aylo and hislive-in partner, *itwal, approached them and

asked, Gusto mong umis:or ng sha"u P# *eyes

replied, 8a:it ma#roon :a "a :aylo then rought out two plastic ags

containing shau and told the police officers, Dos%P-11.11'ang isa. 1pon

hearing this, the police officers introduced themselves as cops. P# *eyes

immediately arrested :aylo. *itwal, on the other, tried to get away ut P#

Pastor caught up with her. P# Pastor then frisked *itwal and found another

sachet of shau in a SCJ card case which *itwal was carrying.

P# *eyes and P# Pastor marked the three plastic sachets

of shau recovered from :aylo and *itwal and forwarded them to the

Philippine +ational Police 2rime :aoratory for forensic testing. $orensic

2hemist Police Cnspector ;ehla 2.Janaog conducted the laoratory

e!amination on the specimens sumitted and found the recovered items

positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shau, a dangerous drug.

The police officers charged :aylo for attempted sale of illegal drugs and usedthe two plastic sachets containing shau as asis while *itwal was charged

for possession of illegal drugs using as asis the third sachet containing .&

grams of shau.

Cn its 4ecision dated Septemer &5, the *T2

found :aylo and *itwal guilty eyond reasonale dout of violations of *A

). The *T2 gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers, who

were presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.

:aylo filed an appeal with the 2A. Cn a 4ecision dated &5 7anuary &, the2A affirmed the decision of the *T2.

Hence, this appeal.

T-e R)2(? o/ t-e "o)rt

The appeal lacks merit.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are3 /0

the identity of the uyer and seller, the oect, and the considerationB and /&0

the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

$rom the testimonies given, P# *eyes and P# Pastor testified that they

were the poseur-uyers in the sale. 6oth positively identified appellant as the

seller of the sustance contained in plastic sachets which were found to e

positive for shau. The same plastic sachets were likewise identified y the

prosecution witnesses when presented in court. 8ven the consideration

of P&. for each sachet had een made known y appellant to the police

officers. However, the sale was interrupted when the police officers

introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested appellant and his

11
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote10symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote10sym


12/12

live-in partner *itwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated ut merely

attempted. Thus, appellant was charged with attempted sale of dangerous

drugs. Section &/0, Article CC of *A ) provides3

Section &.Attempt or Conspirac#.Any attempt or

conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall epenali9ed y the same penalty prescried for the

commission of the same as provided under this Act3

! ! !

/0 Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,

distriution and transportation of any dangerous drug andDor

controlled precursor and essential chemicalB

! ! !

Here, appellant intended to sell shau and commenced y overt acts the

commission of the intended crime y showing the sustance to P# *eyes

and P# Pastor.&The sale was aorted when the police officers identified

themselves and placed appellant and *itwal under arrest. $rom the

testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution was ale to estalish that there

was an attempt to sell shau. Cn addition, the plastic sachets were presented

in court as evidence of corpus delicti. Thus, the elements of the crime

charged were sufficiently estalished y evidence.

Appellant claims that he was a victim of a frame up. However, he failed to

sustantiate his claim. The witnesses presented y the defense were not

ale to positively affirm that illegal drugs were planted on appellant y the

police officers when they testified that they saw someone place something

inside appellants acket. Cn ;uinicot v. People,(we held that allegations of

frame-up and e!tortion y police officers are common and standard defenses

in most dangerous drugs cases. They are viewed y the 2ourt with disfavor,

for such defenses can easily e concocted and faricated.

Appellant asserts that it is unelievale that he would e so foolish and

reckless to offer to sell shau to strangers. Cn People v. de Guzman,@we

have ruled that peddlers of illicit drugs have een known, with ever

increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the

right price to anyody, e they strangers or not. ?hat matters is not the

e!isting familiarity etween the uyer and the seller, or the time and venue of

the sale, ut the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting the sale and

delivery of the prohiited drugs.

$urther, appellant did not attriute any ill-motive on the part of the police

officers. The presumption of regularity in the performance of the police

officers official duties should prevail over the self-serving denial of

appellant.)

Cn sum, we see no reason to distur the findings of the *T2 and 2A.

Appellant was correctly found to e guilty eyond reasonale dout of

violating Section &/0, Article CC of *A ).

12
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote13symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote13symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote14symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote14symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote15symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote15symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote13symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote14symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote15symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/192235.html#sdfootnote16sym

crimes relative to opium & other prohibited drugs

Documents