PEOPLE v. ABDULWAHID PUNDUGAR, GR No.

214779, 2018-02-07

Facts:
It was shortly after 4:30 p.m. A police informant claimed on May 24, 2008, that a certain "Tatay" (later identified as
appellant Abdulwahid Pundugar) was dealing with illicit substances at Purok 7, Brgy. to the Muntinlupa City Anti-Illicit
Narcotics Unit. Muntinlupa City's Alabang. Following the discovery of this information, a group was formed with PO2
Domingo Julaton III (PO2 Julaton) serving as the designated poseur-buyer in order to undertake surveillance and maybe a
buy-bust operation. PO2 Julaton was handed five 100-peso notes to serve as buy-bust money after their strategy was
approved by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)[3].

PO2 Julaton and the informant went to the target area, while PO2 Elbert Ocampo (PO2 Ocampo) was assigned as "back-
up." They noticed appellant chatting with two others from a distance of 10 meters away. When the informant
approached them, he introduced PO2 Julaton to the appellant as a seaman looking to score. Appellant asked PO2 Julaton
how much he would pay, and the latter responded with 500 pesos. After PO2 Julaton delivered the buy-bust money,
appellant gave the former a packet of shabu. PO2 Julaton observed appellant handing a plastic sachet to each of the
latter's companions throughout their transaction.

When the prearranged signal to his backup that the sale transaction had been completed had arrived, PO2 Julaton
rubbed his chin. PO2 Julaton grabbed the appellant's hand, identified himself as a police officer, and arrested him until
PO2 Ocampo arrived. PO2 Julaton asked the appellant to show his pocket contents. After Appellant concurred, PO2
Julaton retrieved four more plastic sachets containing white crystalline powder along with the buy-bust cash. Two plastic
sachets were taken from the appellant's companions when PO2 Ocampo detained them. The confiscated items were
brought with the appellant and his accomplices to the police station for questioning.

Following that, PO2 Julaton immediately marked the items with the markings "AB" for the items that had been sold and
"AB-1," "AB-2," "AB-3," and "AB-4" for the items that had been taken from the appellant's pocket.[4] He then
photographed the items in front of the appellant and created an inventory of the drugs that had been seized.

The specimen and the request for laboratory examination were personally delivered by PO2 Julaton to PSI Mark Alain B.
Ballesteros (PSI Ballesteros), a forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City. Report on
Chemicals No. Methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a lethal narcotic, was discovered in PSI
Ballesteros's D-219-08[7] samples that were taken from the appellant. The appellant was subsequently charged with
breaching Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 before the Muntinlupa City RTC.

The appellant denied possessing shabu sachets or selling shabu to a poseur-buyer. He claims that at approximately 4:00
p.m. On May 24, 2008, he and his daughter Noramida "Lily" Pundugar (Noramida) were in their business when he
overheard people shouting that police officers were approaching. He was handcuffed and transported to the police
station as soon as he exited. Noramida supported his father's account of his detention, claiming that he was shown
plastic sachets containing shabu at the police station and told to pay P600,000 or be charged and imprisoned. She
further stated that nothing was found on her father or in their store after an investigation by authorities.

Issues

Because the arresting police officers disregarded Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the
chain of custody for the seized drugs was broken.
Rullling

The appeal is devoid of merit.

Along with the production of the corpus delicti as proof, a transaction or sale was really made. The illegal transaction is
thus completed when the illegal substance is delivered to the pretend buyer and when the seller receives the money
from the buy-bust.

The prosecution in this instance has proven each of the aforementioned elements. The prosecution's witnesses provided
an honest and transparent account of the transaction. It was established that PO2 Julaton was the poseur-buyer of the
sachet of shabu for the sum of P500.00, and the appellant was positively recognized as the vendor. PO2 Julaton
recognized the white crystalline drug obtained from the appellant as being contained in the trial-presented sachet.

Opinion

In the case you've described, it seems that the appellant, Abdulwahid Pundugar, was found guilty of violating Sections 5
and 11 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which pertain to the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs
(specifically, shabu) in the Philippines. The court imposed the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine for the illegal sale
of shabu, and a prison sentence and fine for the illegal possession of shabu, in accordance with the provisions of RA
9165. It's worth noting that the court's decision appears to be consistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165,
which lays out the penalties for these offenses based on the quantity of the drugs involved. Additionally, the reference to
Republic Act No. 9346 indicates the prohibition of imposing the death penalty for these offenses. Legal judgments are
typically based on the interpretation and application of the law, as well as the evidence presented during the trial. If
you're seeking a legal perspective on this case, it's important to consult legal experts who are well-versed in Philippine
law and have access to all the relevant information and context surrounding the case.

G.R. No. 216062 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

On February 20, 2008, a confidential informant informed Police Inspector John Guiagi, the head of Station Anti-
Illegal Drugs (SAID) of Police Station 3, that a person going by the alias "Bok" was selling drugs on Felix Huertas
St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. He gave the order to P02 Boys Nino Baladjay and David Gonzales to watch the target while
carrying the covert informant. After validating the facts, Gonzales prepared a pre-operation report and a
coordination form with the PDEA to carry out a buy-bust operation the next day.

about February 21, 2008, Guiagi briefed Baladjay, SP03 Morales, and POI Cabocan about the buy-bust operation.
Assigned as the poseur buyer, Baladjay produced three hundred peso (Phpl100.00) bills that were marked three (3)
times. They left the police station about 3:30 p.m. Nearby Fabella Hospital, they traveled to Felix Huertas Street.
The confidential informant approached the target with Baladjay after pointing to the appellant when he arrived.
Baladjay was presented to appellant by the informant (sic) as a customer. Appellant asked Baladjay, "Magkano?"
Baladjay said, "three hundred pesos (Php300.00)". Then, the appellant ordered Baladjay to select one of two (2)
little plastic sachets containing white crystalline material that were in his pocket.

Baladjay selected one (1) sachet, handed the appellant thirty-nine (39) pesos (Php300.00), and then signaled.
Baladjay detained the appellant after introducing himself as a police officer. Baladjay recovered the other sachet
and the marked cash. Many people tried to halt the arrest, so they had to transport the appellant to the police station
before marking the money and sachets.
Following additional laboratory testing, the material in the sachets was identified as methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, also known as shabu.

The following facts are true, according to his brief:

Bok (Appellant), a welder, was returning home from work on February 21, 2008, around 4:00 p.m. when two men on
a motorcycle asked him, "Where is the house of Hilario?" Bok responded that it was he and was asking them,
"Why," when he noticed five (5) other men, three (3) of whom were in civilian clothing and the other two (2) were in a
police uniform, on board a car. Bok was informed by the men on the motorcycle that they would like to question him
at the police station and would like to invite him there.

Bok was shocked when he was unexpectedly held inside the cell at the police station. Bok questioned the
policeman several times why he was being held, but no one responded. Bok later learned that despite the fact that
no illegal drugs were ever discovered on him or retrieved from him, he was being accused of being a pusher.

Issues

The Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney's Office have adopted their respective briefs submitted to
the CA for this appeal.

In light of this, the accused-appellant continues to contend that the apprehending officers' failure to follow Section 21
of R.A.'s procedural requirements gave rise to his right to an acquittal. No. 9165; that the prosecution failed to
provide a defense for the arresting officers' failure to adhere to Section 21 of the R.A.'s post-arrest procedures. No.
9165; and that this non-compliance was sufficient cause to question the reliability of the dangerous medicines that
were seized as the substances that were taken from him.

The OSG argues that non-compliance with procedural post-operation requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
did not cause doubts about the integrity of confiscated dangerous drugs

Rulling

The State is obligated to prove the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs in violation of
Section 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165. To do so, the State must establish the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime
itself. Corpus delicti refers to the fact that a crime was actually committed, and it is a compound fact made up of two
elements: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge and the existence of a
criminal agency as the cause of the act or result.

The State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the corpus delicti if the subject drugs are
missing or if substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, raising doubts about the authenticity
of the evidence presented in the trial court. The dangerous drug is itself the corpus delicti, and the only way to lay
the foundation of the corpus delicti is to establish beyond reasonable doubt the illegal sale or illegal possession of
the dangerous drug by preserving the identity of the drug offered as evidence against the accused.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, sets specific procedures in the handling of confiscated substances. The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered. The apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph
them in the presence of the accused, their representative or counsel, an elected public official, a representative of
the National Prosecution Service, or the media. Noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds will
not render the seizures and custody over said items void and invalid.
Opinion

The passage you've provided appears to be discussing a legal case involving the prosecution of an accused
individual named Hilario Nepomuceno. The excerpt seems to focus on the lapses and irregularities in the
procedures followed by the arresting officers, particularly related to the handling of evidence in a drug-related case.
The court seems to be critical of the failure to follow proper procedures, such as the failure to take photographs of
the confiscated drugs and the lack of compliance with the requirements for preserving the chain of custody.

The passage also emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items in
drug-related cases. While acknowledging that a perfect chain of custody might not always be achievable, the court
highlights the need to ensure the proper preservation of the evidence's integrity.

In the end, the court arrives at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt due to the issues with the chain of custody and procedural lapses. As a result, the court orders
the acquittal of the accused, Hilario Nepomuceno, and his immediate release from confinement unless there are
other lawful reasons for his detention.

Overall, this passage seems to reflect the court's careful consideration of the evidence, procedural irregularities, and
legal principles in arriving at a decision to acquit the accused due to insufficient proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

G.R. No. 213914, June 06, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL FERRER Y REMOQUILLO A.K.A.

Facts

Accused-appellants were charged with Violation of Section (Sec.) 5, in relation to Sec. 26 of Article (Art.) II, of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 91655 in an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-761, the accusatory portion of
which reads as follows:

That on the 12th day of August 2006, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above� named accused, conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping and
aiding one another, not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, deliver, and
give away to another Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 98.29 grams, contained in two
(2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, in violation of the above-cited law.

IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.6

The accused-appellants7 pled not guilty to the accusation against them when they were arraigned. As a result, a
trial was held.

The prosecution presented PO1 Benito F. Viernes, Jr.8 (Viernes), who was an intelligence operative assigned to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Calabarzon during the time material to the case.9 The testimony of
Police Inspector Ruben M. Apostol (Apostol) was dispensed with after the parties stipulated that he was a forensic
chemist assigned at the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory (laboratory), Camp Vicente Lim
(Camp Lim

Manuel Ferrer (Manuel), Kiyaga Macmod (Kiyaga), and Dimas Macmod (Dimas), the accused-appellants, testified to
contest the charge leveled against them.

Issue

THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIABLE GROUND FOR NONCOMPLIANCE THEREWITH AND SEC. 21 OF R.A. NO.
9165 WAS GROSSLY DISREGARDED.

Rulling

The presumption of an accused's innocence is a constitutional right in all criminal cases, as stated in the
fundamental law of the land. The accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise and has the right to be heard
by themselves and counsel, have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, meet witnesses face-to-face, and have
compulsory process to secure their attendance and production of evidence. Case law maintains that the conviction
of an accused must rest on the strength of the prosecution, not the weakness of the defense. The quantum of proof
required in criminal cases charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty,
which appeals to a person's conscience. Thus, the conviction of an accused can only be justified if his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt.

The court is aware that the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect
when the findings are sustained by the CA. However, this general rule is not cast in stone as not to admit
recognized exceptions, as an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the
reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned.

The prosecution failed to prove that the apprehending team complied with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which requires
the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and its
consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. It is crucial that the sale transaction of
drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is
shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.

The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) has expressly defined the chain of custody involving dangerous drugs and
other substances in Sec. 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002. The court has ruled that noncompliance with
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 on justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure and custody of confiscated items, as
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items were properly preserved by the apprehending team.

The Court lauds the untlnng and unrelenting efforts of the drug enforcement agencies and the
prosecutorial service in their arduous task to lessen if not totally eradicate the proliferation of
prohibited drugs in the country and to arrest their pernicious effects on our countrymen, especially
the youth. Notwithstanding, it will not be tiresome for the Court to tenaciously call the attention of
these agencies to be prudent in the performance of their duties and to scrupulously observe the laws
as they do so. It must be emphasized that the Court will not hesitate to uphold the accused's
constitutional right to be presumed innocent over his conviction for a crime which has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Opinion