REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

LAMPAS PERALTA, F., Chairperson

-versus-
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, N. G., and
PAYOYO-VILLORDON, T. M. B., JJ.

DANTE SAN JOSE y ANGEL,

KENNETH EDWARD PEREZ y Promulgated:
DELA CRUZ, CORAZON
ANTONIO y SISON and MARIA August 26, 2020
AIZA YSABEL y VILLARBA,
Accused,

DANTE SAN JOSE y ANGEL,

Accused-Appellant.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

LAMPAS PERALTA, J.:

Assailed in this appeal is the Decision dated March 22, 2019 1 in

Criminal Cases Nos. 19874, 19875 and 19876 of Branch 76,
Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal convicting accused-appellant

1
pp. 295-306, Original Records
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 2
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

Dante San Jose y Angel of violation of Sections 5 2 and 11,3 Article II,
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and accused Kenneth Edward Perez y
Dela Cruz, Corazon Antonio y Sison and Maria Aiza Ysabel Alfonso y
Villarba of violation of Section 14,4 RA No. 9165.

THE ANTECEDENTS

About 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of January 12, 2018, PO2

Loyd Anos and PO3 Rommel Ramos were at the Provincial
Intelligence Branch, Philippine National Police (PNP), Taytay, Rizal
when a confidential informant arrived and informed them and the
other police officers therein that alias “Dante” was openly selling
illegal drugs at Barangay Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal. Alias “Dante”
was a resident of Sumulong Street, Barangay Guinayang, San
Mateo, Rizal.5

Thereafter, PO2 Loyd Anos relayed the information to Team

Leader SPO1 Rolando Chrisostomo and Chief Police Superintendent
(PSUPT) Christopher Dela Pena who directed PO2 Loyd Anos to
conduct a buy-bust operation against alias “Dante” at Barangay
Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal.6 PO2 Loyd Anos then coordinated
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which issued
PDEA Control Number 10005-012018-0155, per Pre-Operation
Report dated January 12, 2018. 7 During the briefing, PSUPT
Christopher Dela Pena designated PO2 Loyd Anos as poseur-buyer
and PO3 Rommel Ramos as immediate back-up. It was agreed upon
that PO2 Loyd Anos would remove his hat as pre-arranged signal that
he had completed the purchase. PO2 Loyd Anos prepared three (3)
100-peso bills, which he marked with his initials “LMA,” “LMA-1” and
2
Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
3
Possession of Dangerous Drugs
4
Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings
5
p. 174, Original Records
6
p. 174, Ibid.
7
p. 178, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 3
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

“LMA-2” to be used as buy-bust money. PO2 Loyd Ano and PO3

Rommel Ramos then had the desk officer record the buy-bust
operation.8

PO2 Loyd Anos and PO3 Rommel Ramos, accompanied by the

confidential informant, proceeded to Sumulong Street, Barangay
Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal using a private vehicle driven by PO3
Rommel Ramos. When they arrived, the police officers observed the
area and the confidential informant pointed out the spot near alias
“Dante’s” house where the latter regularly sells illegal drugs. PO3
Rommel Ramos then parked the private vehicle around five (5)
meters away from the house of alias “Dante.” PO2 Loyd Anos and
the confidential informant walked towards the house of alias “Dante,”
while PO3 Rommel Ramos positioned himself within viewing distance
thereof.9

As PO2 Loyd Anos and the confidential informant neared the

house of alias “Dante,” the latter saw them, waved and asked, “Boss,
magkano kukunin niyo?” to which PO2 Loyd Anos replied, “Tres lang,
Boss” while handing the buy-bust money to alias “Dante.” Alias
“Dante” put the buy-bust money inside his left pocket and retrieved
several plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from
his right pocket, selecting therefrom a plastic sachet of white
crystalline substance corresponding to the value of P300.00. Alias
“Dante” then handed said plastic sachet of white crystalline
substance to PO2 Loyd Anos, who made the pre-arranged signal by
removing his hat and PO3 Rommel Ramos rushed to the scene in
order to help PO2 Loyd Anos. PO2 Loyd Anos held the arm of alias
“Dante” and introduced himself as a police officer. Alias “Dante” was
startled and he immediately broke free of PO2 Loyd Anos’ grasp and
fled towards his house. PO2 Loyd Anos ran after alias “Dante” and
was able to subdue him inside his house. There, PO2 Loyd Anos
also saw a man and two (2) women in the act of consuming illegal
drugs using various drug paraphernalia. The man was holding a
small piece of aluminum foil, which he held above a lit disposable
8
p. 174, Ibid.
9
Id.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 4
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

lighter, causing the aluminum foil to emit smoke. He held said

aluminum foil in front of the two (2) women, one of whom was holding
an aluminum foil used as a tooter. PO2 Loyd Anos, assisted by PO3
Rommel Ramos, introduced himself as a police officer and
immediately arrested them. PO2 Loyd Anos informed all the accused
of their Constitutional rights.10

PO2 Loyd Anos frisked alias “Dante” and retrieved from his
right pocket six (6) small plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance. PO2 Loyd Anos also recovered from alias “Dante’s” left
pocket the three (3) marked 100-peso bills used as buy-bust money.
PO3 Rommel Ramos called Barangay Kagawad Benjamin San Jose
and media representative Edwin Moreno to witness the marking and
inventory by PO2 Loyd Anos of the seized items, but only Barangay
Kagawad Benjamin San Jose arrived as media representative Edwin
Moreno’s cellular phone could not be reached. The plastic sachet
subject of the buy-bust was marked by PO2 Loyd Anos with “DAS,”
while the six (6) plastic sachets retrieved from alias “Dante” were
marked by PO2 Loyd Anos with “LMA-3,” “LMA-4,” “LMA-5,” “LMA-6,”
“LMA-7” and “LMA-8.” The aluminum foil with traces of white
crystalline substance and the aluminum foil used as improvised
tooter, as well as the two (2) lighters recovered from the man and two
women using drugs inside alias “Dante’s” house were marked by
PO2 Loyd Anos with “LMA-9,” “LMA-10,” “LMA-11” and “LMA-12,”
respectively. Thereafter, PO2 Loyd Anos conducted an inventory of
the seized items. The marking and inventory were made in the
presence of accused-appellants and Barangay Kagawad Benjamin
San Jose, who signed the “Receipt/Inventory of Evidence
Seized/Photograph of the Drugs in the Presence of the Accused or
Person/s From Whom Seized Items Were Confiscated,” at the place
of arrest.11 Photographs of the seized items, the conduct of the
inventory and the witnesses thereto were taken by PO3 Rommel
Ramos.12 According to the police officers, they tried their best to

10
p. 175, Original Records
11
pp. 175, 185, Ibid.
12
p. 183, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 5
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

secure the presence of media representative Edwin Moreno, but he

was not available.13

PO2 Loyd Anos and PO3 Rommel Ramos brought alias

“Dante,” the man and two women, as well as the seized items to the
police station, where they gave their respective identifications. Alias
“Dante” was identified as accused-appellant Dante San Jose y
Angel,14 while the man gave his identification as accused Kenneth
Edward Perez y Dela Cruz. 15 The two women were identified as
accused Corazon Antonio y Sison 16 and accused Maria Aiza Ysabel
Alfonso y Villarba.17 PO2 Loyd Anos prepared the Request for
Laboratory Examination of the plastic sachets of white crystalline
substance, as well as the marked drug paraphernalia, and Request
for Drug Test of the accused and accused-appellant both signed by
PSUPT Christopher Dela Pena.18 On the same day, PO2 Loyd Anos
personally turned over all the accused and accused-appellant, the
marked plastic sachets, the marked drug paraphernalia and the
Requests for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test, to the Rizal
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office.19 The marked plastic sachets and
drug paraphernalia were received by “PCI JOANNE DC ROSALES”
at “9:00 PM 12 JAN 2018,” while the accused and accused-appellant
were turned over to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office at
“9:10 PM 12 JAN 2018.”20

Upon examination by Forensic Chemist PCI Joanne DC

Rosales, the “[s]even (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
each containing white crystalline substance with the following
markings and net weights: A1 – (DAS) = 0.03 gram, A2 – (LMA-3) =
0.03 gram, A3 – (LMA-4) = 0.04 gram, A4 – (LMA-5) = 0.02 gram, A5
– (LMA-6) = 0.02 gram, A6 – (LMA-7) = 0.03 gram, A7 – (LMA-8) =
0.02 gram x x x [t]wo (2) aluminum foil strips each containing traces
13
p. 175, Ibid.
14
p. 54, Ibid.
15
p. 58, Ibid.
16
p. 62, Ibid.
17
p. 66, Ibid.
18
p. 146, 149, Ibid.
19
p. 175, Ibid.
20
pp. 146, 149, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 6
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

of white crystalline substance with the following markings: A8-(LMA-

9), A9-(LMA-10) x x x gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the
presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, a
dangerous drug,” per Chemistry Report No. D-024-18 dated January
12, 2018.21

The urine samples taken from accused-appellant and the

accused were also subjected to laboratory examination and all the
samples gave “POSITIVE result for the presence of
Methamphetamine,” per Chemistry Report No. RCRIMDT-040-18 to
RCRIMDT-043-18 dated January 16, 2018.22

However, accused-appellant claimed that the other accused

merely visited him at his house and as they were eating, two (2)
unidentified men barged in. They later found out that the two (2) men
were PO2 Loyd Anos and PO3 Rommel Ramos. Allegedly, accused-
appellant had just finished eating and was fixing his beddings upstairs
when PO2 Loyd Anos and PO3 Rommel Ramos followed him and
repeatedly told him “llabas mo na.” Accused-appellant asked them
what he was supposed to bring out, but they started ransacking his
house. PO2 Loyd Anos and PO3 Rommel Ramos ordered accused-
appellant and the accused to look for something and “[w]hen the shirt
was raised,” a “crumpled paper came out and it was grabbed by
Rommel.” The crumpled paper contained “[s]ix (6) sachets.”
Thereafter, they were made to go down and PO3 Rommel Ramos
laid an aluminum foil on the table and took their pictures. 23

Accused-appellant was charged with “Violation of Section 5,

Article II of R.A. 9165” in an information24 which reads:

“That on or about the 12th day of January 2018, in the

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
21
p. 145, Ibid.
22
p. 148, Ibid.
23
pp. 4-8, TSN dated September 19, 2018
24
pp. 1-2, Original Records
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 7
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

not being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly sell, give and deliver to PO2 Loyd M. Anos, a poseur
buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, marked 'DAS'
containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, in exchange for
a consideration of Php300.00, which after the corresponding
laboratory examination conducted by the Rizal Provincial Crime
Laboratory Office, Hilltop, Tikling, Taytay, Rizal, gave positive result
to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”25

Accused-appellant was also charged with “Violation of Section

11, 2 par. No. 3, Art. II of R.A. 9165” in an information 26 which reads:
nd

“That on or about the 12th day of January 2018, in the

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
not being lawfully authorized to possess/use any dangerous drug,
did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his
possession, custody and control six (6) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets marked 'LMA-3' containing 0.03 gram, marked
'LMA-4' containing 0.04 gram, marked 'LMA-5' containing 0.02
gram, marked ‘LMA-6’ containing 0.02 gram, marked ‘LMA-7’
containing 0.03 gram and marked ‘LMA-8’ containing 0.02 gram or
a total weight of 0.16 gram of white crystalline substance, which
after the corresponding laboratory examination conducted by the
Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, gave positive result to the
tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”27

For their part, accused Kenneth Edward Perez y Dela Cruz,

Corazon Antonio y Sison and Maria Aiza Ysabel Alfonso y Villarba
were charged with “Violation of Section 14 in relation to Section 12 1 st
par. Article II of R.A. No. 9165” in an information 28 which reads:
25
p. 1, Ibid.
26
pp. 38-39, Ibid.
27
p. 38, Ibid.
28
pp. 42-43, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 8
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

“That on or about the 12th day of January 2018, in the

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
each being in the proximate company of two (2) persons,
conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually
helping and aiding with one another, without being authorized by
law to use and/or possess any dangerous drug or drug
paraphernalia, and having in their possession, custody and control
during a pot session or gathering, the following paraphernalia, to
wit: two (2) aluminum foil strips marked 'LMA-9' and 'LMA-10' and
two (2) disposable lighters marked ‘LMA-11’ and ‘LMA-12’ which
are instruments, equipment, apparatus and paraphernalia fit or
intended for sniffing or consuming shabu, in violation of the above-
cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”29

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant and the other accused

executed written waivers of the reading of the informations and
entered their respective pleas of “not guilty” to the charges. 30 During
the pre-trial,31 the prosecution and the defense entered into the
following stipulation of facts:

“1. That the Hon. Court has jurisdiction over the persons of the
accused and over these cases – Admitted.

2. That the names of the accused are: Dante San Jose y Angel,
Kenneth Edward Perez y Dela Cruz, Corazon Antonio y
Sison and Maria Aiza Ysabel Alfonso y Villarba, and
whenever the said names are mentioned at any stage of the
proceedings, it would refer to both the accused – Admitted.” 32

29
p. 42, Ibid.
30
p. 125, Ibid.
31
pp. 125-133, Ibid.
32
p. 125, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 9
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

Trial ensued. The prosecution presented PO2 Loyd Anos, 33

PO3 Rommel Ramos34 and Forensic Chemist PCI Joanne DC
Rosales35 as witnesses. The defense presented accused-appellant
Dante San Jose y Angel,36 and accused Kenneth Edward Perez y
Dela Cruz,37 Corazon Antonio y Sison38 and Maria Aiza Ysabel
Alfonso y Villarba39 as witnesses.

During the trial, the prosecution and the defense “stipulated on

the testimony of PO3 Rommel Ramos that he assisted PO2 Loyd
Anos in the drug operation and in the arrest of the accused as well as
calling for the media representative and a Barangay Kagawad” and
“during the inventory, he served as back-up or perimeter security.” 40

The prosecution and the defense also stipulated “on the

testimony of the Forensic Chemist, x x x, that she is an expert
witness in the examination of dangerous drugs; that she received the
specimens in this case along with the Request for Laboratory
Examination and Request for Urine Drug Test; that she conducted
examination on the specimens submitted as well as on the urine
samples from all the accused; that after examination, the specimens
yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug while the urine samples of all the accused proved positive for
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
That she reduced her examination in writing under the Initial
Laboratory Report as well as the Final Chemistry Report and for the
results of the Urine Drug Test under Chemistry Report No. RCRIMDT-
040-18 to RCRIMDT-043-18 and that she submitted the same along
with the specimens in this Court.” 41 The defense counter-stipulated

33
TSN dated March 7, 2018
34
TSN dated March 7, 2018
35
TSN dated March 7, 2018
36
TSN dated September 19, 2018
37
TSN dated April 30, 2018
38
TSN dated October 15, 2018
39
TSN dated November 28, 2018
40
p. 2, TSN dated March 7, 2018; p. 12, TSN dated April 30, 2018
41
p. 2, TSN dated March 7, 2018
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 10
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

that “the Forensic Chemist had no personal knowledge as to the

source and origin of the specimens she examined.” 42

After the prosecution and the defense had presented their

respective evidence, the trial court rendered a Decision dated March
22, 201943 convicting accused-appellant and the other accused as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered as follows:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 19874, finding accused

DANTE SAN JOSE y Angel GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Sale of Dangerous Drugs
(Section 5, R.A. 9165). The Court hereby sentences
the accused to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE in the amount of
FIVE MILLION PESOS (P5,000,000.00);

(2) In Criminal Case No. 19875, finding accused

DANTE SAN JOSE y Angel GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Possession of Dangerous Drugs
(Section 11, R.A. 9165). The Court hereby sentences
the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY
(20) YEARS and to pay the FINE in the amount of
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P300,000.00); and

(3) In Criminal Case No. 19876, finding

accused(s) KENNETH EDWARD PEREZ y dela Cruz,
CORAZON ANTONIO y Sison and MARIA AIZA
YSABEL ALFONSO y Villarba GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Possession of Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs during Party or Pot Session
(Section 14, R.A. 9165). The Court sentences the
accused(s) to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
SIX (6) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4)

42
p. 3, Ibid.
43
pp. 295-306, Original Records
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 11
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

YEARS and to pay a FINE in the amount of FIFTY

THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00).

The Warden of San Mateo, Rizal Municipal Jail is directed to

commit accused(s) DANTE SAN JOSE y Angel and MARIA AIZA
YSABEL ALFONSO y Villarba to the National Bilibid Prison in
Muntinlupa City and to the Correctional Institution for Women in
Mandaluyong City, respectively. Meanwhile, issue a WARRANTS
OF ARREST against accused(s) KENNETH EDWARD PEREZ y
dela Cruz and CORAZON ANTONIO y Sison for them to serve the
penalty herein imposed.

All the accused are credited with the time spent for their
preventive detention in accordance with Article 29, Revised Penal
Code (RPC) as amended. Meanwhile, the Fine herein imposed is
subject to subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency pursuant
to Article 39 of the RPC, as amended.

The illegal drugs and the illegal drugs paraphernalia subject

matter of the instant cases are ordered forfeited in favor of the
government and the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to safely
deliver the same to PDEA for proper disposition.

Finally, furnish a copy of this Decision to the Chief of PDEA

and the Chief of Police of San Mateo, Rizal.

SO ORDERED.”44

Thus, accused-appellant filed the present appeal which is

premised on the following assignment of errors:

“I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PATENT
NULLITY OF THE INFORMATION FILED AGAINST
HIM.

44
pp. 305-306, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 12
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. NO. 9165, IN SPITE OF THE PROSECUTION’S
FAILURE TO PROVE THAT A LEGITIMATE BUY-
BUST OPERATION OCCURRED, CONSIDERING
THE INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE
TESTIMONY OF PO2 LOYD ANOS.

III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE
ELEMENTS THEREOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.”

IV.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. NO. 9165, DESPITE THE APPREHENDING
OFFICER’S FAILURE TO FAITHFULLY COMPLY
WITH THE PERTINENT DRUG ENFORCEMENT
RULES AND REGULATIONS.

V.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING
THE PENALTY OF SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.45

THE ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-

appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II, RA No. 9165.

45
pp. 43-44, Rollo
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 13
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

THE COURT'S RULING

At the outset, accused-appellant assails the validity of the

informations filed against him as the same were allegedly “filed by
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Claro R. Recto, and approved by
Senior Deputy Provincial Prosecutor Gloria T. Marinduque-De
Guzman” who “failed to show that they obtained the prior written
authority from the City Prosecutor himself/herself.”46 Notably,
accused-appellant assails the validity of the informations filed against
him for the first time in the present appeal. Such delay is tantamount
to laches, as reasonable diligence should have prompted accused-
appellant to file a motion to dismiss or to quash the information before
the trial court.

Nonetheless, records bear that Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

Claro R. Recto filed the informations with the approval of the
Provincial Prosecutor and said informations were signed by Senior
Deputy Provincial Prosecutor Gloria T. Marinduque-De Guzman by
authority of the Provincial Prosecutor. The informations clearly
indicated that they were “APPROVED BY AUTHORITY OF THE
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR” specifying “Office Order No. 2017-032
dated 7-24-2017.”47

Apropos is Socorro F. Ongkingko, et al. vs. Kazuhiro Sugiyama,

et al.,48 wherein the Supreme Court held as valid the informations
signed on behalf of the City Prosecutor. Furthermore, petitioners
therein were barred by laches from questioning the validity of the
informations because they failed to raise the same in a motion to
dismiss or quash the informations. Said the Supreme Court:

“In this particular case, there is proof in the records that

Prosecutor II Hirang filed the Informations with prior authority from
the 1st Assistant City Prosecutor. The records-which include those
of the preliminary investigation accompanying the informations filed
46
pp. 50, 53, Ibid.
47
pp. 4, 39, Original Records
48
G.R. No. 217787, September 18, 2019
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 14
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

before the court, as required under Rule 112-clearly show that 1st
Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Jaime A. Adoc, signing in behalf of
the City Prosecutor, approved the filing of four (4) counts of
violation of B.P. 22, after it was recommended for approval by the
Investigating Prosecutor.

xxx xxx xxx

Contrary to the dissent that the prior approval came from the
1st Assistant Prosecutor, who had no authority to file an Information
on his own, the afore-quoted dispositive clearly indicates that ACP
Adoc approved the filing of the case "FOR THE CITY
PROSECUTOR" and not on his own. It would be too late at this
stage to task the prosecution, and it would amount to denial of due
process, to presume that ACP Adoc had no authority to approve the
filing of the subject Informations. Had petitioners questioned ACP A
doc's authority or lack of approval by the city prosecutor before the
Me TC, and not just for the first time before the Court, the
prosecution could have easily presented such authority to approve
the filing of the Information.”

In convicting accused-appellant of violation of Sections 5 and

11, Article II, RA No. 9165, the trial court gave credence to the
testimony of PO2 Loyd Anos, the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust
operation.49 As the trial court ratiocinated:

“PO2 Anos could not be any more direct and categorical.

Said police officer testified that when he and the confidential agent
approached accused San Jose, the latter readily offered them
illegal drugs. Given the offer, PO2 Anos said that they will be
buying Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) worth of illegal drugs. The
accused immediately gave the item corresponding to the said
amount. After the exchange, the witness executed the pre-
arranged signal and arrested the accused.

The Court gives credence to the unequivocal testimony of

PO2 Anos. The defense was unable to attribute ill-will on the part
of the said police officer so as (to) cast doubt on his account of the
incident.

xxx xxx xxx

49
p. 302, Original Records
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 15
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

Accused San Jose was caught in possession of six (6)

plastic sachets of ‘shabu’ in addition to the plastic sachet subject
matter of Criminal Case No. 19874. When the accused was
initially apprehended, he managed to free himself and run away.
After a brief chase, the accused was re-arrested and the
subsequent bodily search upon him resulted in the recovery of six
(6) more plastic sachets of ‘shabu’.

xxx xxx xxx

Accused San Jose was unable to give any justification for

his possession of the plastic sachets of ‘shabu’. X x x Given the
prima facie case against him, the accused is deemed to have
possessed the ‘shabu’ freely and consciously. Thus, he is liable
under the law.”50

However, accused-appellant claims that there were “serious

doubts” on the credibility of PO2 Loyd Anos because his testimony
was filled with the following inconsistencies: (i) PO2 Loyd Anos
alleged that upon seeing him and the confidential informant, accused-
appellant “immediately asked how much drugs they were going to
buy” which was “highly improbable because a dealer in dangerous
drugs would not carelessly deal with a stranger;” (ii) despite claiming
that “the exact address of accused-appellant was already known to
them before the alleged buy-bust operation,” PO2 Loyd Anos
admitted that said address “was not indicated in the pre-operation
report that they prepared;” (iii) PO2 Loyd Anos admitted on cross-
examination that “he failed to execute the pre-arranged signal
because the accused-appellant ran away;” and, (iv) “the only money
recovered from his possession was the Three Hundred Peso
(P300.00) buy-bust money” despite PO2 Loyd Anos’ “allegation that
the accused-appellant was involved in the rampant selling of illegal
drugs.”51

Accused-appellant further posits that “the prosecution failed to

clearly and adequately show the details of the purported sale and
50
pp. 302-303, Ibid.
51
pp. 53-55, Rollo
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 16
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

possession of prohibited drugs” as “no other witness was presented

to prove the initial contact between the accused-appellant and
confidential informant for the sale of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00)
worth of illegal drugs.”52 Allegedly, “the police officers did not conduct
a test buy or surveillance operation” and “failed to subject the plastic
sachets that were allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant to
finger print examination.”53

The asseverations are unfounded.

There is no question that accused-appellant was apprehended

as a result of a buy-bust operation. It is settled that the conduct of a
buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending
those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has
been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug
dealers and of luring them out of obscurity. 54 Unless there is clear
and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were
inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their
duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. 55

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of

drugs are: (i) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration of the sale, and (ii) the delivery of the thing sold and
receipt of the payment therefor.56 The delivery of the contraband to
the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate
the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the
accused.57 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus
delicti.58

52
pp. 57, 58, Ibid.
53
p. 59, Ibid.
54
People of the Philippines vs. Saidamen Macatingag, 576 SCRA 354, January 19, 2009
55
People of the Philippines vs. Erlinda Mali, 712 SCRA 776, December 11, 2013
56
People of the Philippines vs. Jose Cutara, G.R. No. 224300, June 7, 2017
57
People of the Philippines vs. Linda Alviz, et al., 690 SCRA 61, February 6, 2013
58
People of the Philippines vs. Armando Mendoza, G.R. No. 220759, July 24, 2017
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 17
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

On the other hand, the essential elements of illegal possession

of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused is in possession of an item or
object which is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (ii)
such possession is not authorized by law; and, (iii) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the said drug.59

The prosecution evidence positively showed the presence of all

the elements of illegal sale of “shabu” and illegal possession of
“shabu” during the buy-bust operation. Notably, during his direct
examination, PO2 Loyd Anos identified the “Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay” he and PO3 Rommel Ramos executed, and
the same formed part of his direct testimony. 60 In said “Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay,” the poseur-buyer, PO2 Loyd Anos, positively
narrated the details of the sale particularly his act of handing the
three (3) marked 100-peso bills to accused-appellant and the latter's
act of handing him the plastic sachet of “shabu.” PO2 Loyd Anos also
stated therein that during the search he conducted on accused-
appellant, he recovered six (6) plastic sachets of “shabu” from
accused-appellant’s right pocket and the buy-bust money from
accused-appellant’s left pocket. Thus:

“8. NA, habang kami ay papalapit sa sinasabing bahay ng aming

target kung saan umano ito nagbebenta ng iligal na droga at
bago pa man kami makalapit ay nakita agad kami ng aming
target kasunod noon kami ay kanyang kinawayan at kami ay
inalok nito ng, ‘BOSS, MAGKANO KUKUNIN NYO?’ kaya
sumagot ako (PO2 ANOS) ng ‘TRES LANG BOSS’. Kasunod
ng pag-abot ko ng marked money at nilagay niya sa kaliwang
bulsa at kasunod niyon ay may kung anong bagay na dinukot
ito sa kanyang kanang bulsa at pinili nito ang katumbas na
halaga ng tatlong daang pisong marked money at nang mapili
na nito ay iniabot sa akin ang isang maliit na plastic sachet na
may laman na pinag hihinalaan kong Shabu kaya inalis ko na
ang aking suot na sombrero bilang hudyat sa aking kasama
na ako ay nakabili na sabay hawak sa kanyang braso at
nagpakilala akong Alagad ng Batas at siya ay nabigla sa
pangyayari at nag pumiglas, sabay takbo papasok sa loob ng

59
People of the Philippines vs. Rosario Mahinay, G.R. No. 210656, December 7, 2016
60
p. 4, TSN dated March 7, 2018
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 18
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

kanyang bahay at doon ko na siya inabutan x x x at kasunod

noon ay nagpakilala akong alagad ng Batas at kaagad ko
silang inaresto sabay pagsabi ng kanilang karapatan na
naaayon sa ating Saligang Batas (Miranda Doctrine) at Anti-
Torture Law otherwise known as RA 9745.

9. NA, kaagad kong nirikisa si alyas ‘DANTE’ mula sa kanyang

kanang bulsa ay nakuha ko ang anim (6) pirasong maliit na
plastic sachet na may lamang maliit naputing butil o SHABU at
mula sa kanyang kaliwang bulsa ng suot niyang pantalon ay
aking nakuha ang marked money na tatlong (3) pirason ng
isang (1) daang piso na ginamit kong pambili at akin muli
siyang isina ilalim sap ag aresto at sabay sinabihan ng
kanyang karapatan na naaayon sa ating Saligang Batas
(Miranda Doctrine) at Anti-Torture Law otherwise known as RA
9745.”61

Significantly, the alleged inconsistencies in the statements of

PO2 Loyd Anos, which include the improbability of accused-appellant
to carelessly deal with a stranger, the failure to execute the pre-
arranged signal because accused-appellant suddenly ran away, and
the fact that only the buy-bust money was recovered from accused-
appellant despite allegedly being a regular seller of illegal drugs, do
not pertain to the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. Said inconsistencies do not detract from the fact
that a buy-bust operation was conducted and accused-appellant was
caught in the act of illegally selling “shabu” and during the search
conducted right after accused-appellant was lawfully arrested, he was
found in possession of six (6) more plastic sachets of “shabu” without
being authorized to do so.

It is hornbook that discrepancies on minor matters do not impair

the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or
reflect on the witnesses’ honesty. These inconsistencies, which may
be caused by the natural fickleness of memory, even tend to
strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
What is important is that the testimonies agree on the essential facts
61
p. 175, Original Records
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 19
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

and that the respective versions corroborate and substantially

coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole. 62

As to accused-appellant’s claim that the address was not

specified in the Pre-Operation Report, records bear that the Pre-
Operation Report dated January 12, 2018 clearly stated the specific
area of operation as “Sumulong Street, Barangay Guinayang, San
Mateo, Rizal,”63 which is the address of accused-appellant.

Furthermore, contrary to accused-appellant’s allegation that a

test buy should have been conducted by the police officers, it is basic
that in as much as there is no textbook method of conducting buy-
bust operations, a prior surveillance is not necessary, especially
where the police operatives are accompanied by their confidential
informant during the entrapment,64 as in the present case.

It is noteworthy that accused-appellant failed to show that the

members of the buy-bust team were impelled by any improper motive
or that they did not properly perform their duty. The law disputably
presumes that official duty has been regularly performed. 65 This
presumption was not overcome, there being no evidence showing
that PO2 Loyd Anos and PO3 Rommel Ramos were impelled by
improper motive. In fact, based on his own testimony, accused-
appellant did not know the police officers who arrested him prior to
the incident.66

In addition to testimonial evidence, the prosecution also

presented the (i) Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by
PO2 Loyd Anos and PO3 Rommel Ramos; 67 (ii) Certification dated
January 15, 2018 of PSUPT Christopher Dela Pena that he had
examined and reviewed all documents and pieces of evidence
62
People of the Philippines vs. Marilyn Santos, et al., G.R. No. 193190, November 13, 2013
63
p. 178, Original Records
64
People of the Philippines vs. Rose Edward Ocampo, G.R. No. 232300, August 1, 2018
65
People of the Philippines vs. Calexto Fundales, Jr., 680 SCRA 181, September 5, 2012
66
p. 5, TSN dated September 19, 2018
67
pp. 174-176, Original Records
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 20
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

pertaining to the case;68 (iii) Pre-Operation Report with PDEA Control

Number 10005-042017-1085 dated January 12, 2018; 69 (iv) Authority
to Operate dated January 12, 2018; 70 (v) Request for Laboratory
Examination dated January 12, 2018 signed by PSUPT Christopher
Dela Pena;71 (vi) Request for Drug Test dated January 12, 2018
signed by PSUPT Christopher Dela Pena; 72 (vii) Verification Slip
dated January 15, 2018 executed by PO2 Loyd Anos stating that he
was the duly assigned seizing officer in the case and he prepared the
inventory of the property seized; 73 (viii) photographs of the marked
buy-bust money, the seized plastic sachets of “shabu,” as marked,
and PO2 Loyd Anos while conducting the inventory of seized
evidence in the presence of accused and accused-appellant; 74 (ix)
Chain of Custody Form;75 (x) Receipt/Inventory of Evidence
Seized/Photograph of the Drugs in the Presence of the Accused or
Person/s From Whom Seized Items Were Confiscated signed by
Barangay Kagawad Benjamin San Jose as witness; 76 (xi) Chemistry
Report No. D-024-18 dated January 12, 2018 77 of Forensic Chemist
PCI Joanne DC Rosales showing that the items seized from accused-
appellant all gave positive results to the tests for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride; and, (xii) BADAC Watch List of
Barangay Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal.78

Accused-appellant further argues that PO2 Loyd Anos “failed to

explain the steps he took to preserve the integrity of the seized items”
and the police officers also “failed to indicate the weight of the seized
items in the inventory and the chain of custody form.” 79 Allegedly,
there were lapses “in the observance of the chain of custody”
because “only one (1) of the required witnesses” attended the
68
p. 177, Ibid.
69
p. 178, Ibid.
70
p. 179, Ibid.
71
p. 180, Ibid.
72
p. 181, Ibid.
73
p. 182, Ibid.
74
p. 183, Ibid.
75
p. 184, Ibid.
76
p. 185, Ibid.
77
p. 145, Ibid.
78
p. 187, Ibid.
79
pp. 60, 62, Rollo
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 21
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

marking, the plastic sachet subject of the buy-bust operation “was not
marked with the initials of the apprehending officer,” and all the plastic
sachets “allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant did not bear
the signature of the seizing officer.” Furthermore, “the investigating
officer x x x was not identified” and “the stipulated testimony of the
forensic chemist failed to describe how she ensured the integrity of
the seized items.”80

Notably, the Receipt/Inventory of Evidence Seized specifically

stated that the quantities of the seized drugs are “to be filled up after
laboratory report.”81 This only means that at the time of inventory,
PO2 Loyd Anos did not have the means to weigh said plastic sachets
of “shabu.” It bears stressing that the plastic sachets of “shabu” were
immediately submitted to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office
where the same were weighed. Clearly, there could be no
discrepancy in the respective weights of the plastic sachets of
“shabu” because the same were specifically indicated in Chemistry
Report No. D-024-18 dated January 12, 2018 of Forensic Chemist
PCI Joanne DC Rosales.82

Likewise bereft of merit is accused-appellant’s contention that

“only one (1) of the required witnesses” attended the marking, the
plastic sachet subject of the buy-bust operation “was not marked with
the initials of the apprehending officer,” and all the plastic sachets
“allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant did not bear the
signature of the seizing officer.”

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165

provide for exceptions to the rule on inventory of the seized drugs.
Thus:

"SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized

and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
80
pp. 65,66, Ibid.
81
p. 185, Original Records
82
p. 145, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 22
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The

PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items. x x x" (Underlining
supplied.)

Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA No.

9165 does not necessarily render the arrest of accused-appellant
illegal or the items seized and confiscated from him inadmissible in
evidence as "substantial compliance with the legal requirements on
the handling of the seized item" is sufficient. 83 Even if the arresting
officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section
21 of RA No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not
render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. 84 What is essential
is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused."85

83
People of the Philippines vs. Rustico Ygot, 797 SCRA 87, July 18, 2016
84
People of the Philippines vs. John Happy Domingo, G.R. No. 211672, June 1, 2016
85
People of the Philippines vs. Rico Enriquez, G.R. No. 214503, June 22, 2016
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 23
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

It must be noted that as explained by PO2 Loyd Anos and PO3

Rommel Ramos in their Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay, they
intended to bring with them media representative Edwin Moreno, but
despite attempts to contact him through his cellular phone, he could
not be reached.86 Nevertheless, the fact remains that an inventory
was actually conducted at the place of arrest and it was made in the
presence of accused-appellant and Barangay Kagawad Benjamin
San Jose.

The Receipt/Inventory of Evidence Seized prepared by PO2

Loyd Anos specified the plastic sachet of “shabu” subject of the buy-
bust, the six (6) other plastic sachets of “shabu” confiscated from
accused-appellant, the various drug paraphernalia seized from the
other accused, as well as the respective markings made by PO2
Loyd Anos on all said seized evidence. The Receipt/Inventory of
Evidence Seized was signed by PO2 Loyd Anos in the presence of
Barangay Kagawad Benjamin San Jose who also signed the same. 87
PO3 Rommel Ramos took photographs of PO2 Loyd Anos while
conducting the inventory in the presence of accused-appellant and
the other accused at the place of arrest. PO3 Rommel Ramos also
took photographs of the marked buy-bust money and the marked
plastic sachets of “shabu” and drug paraphernalia in the presence of
accused-appellant and the other accused. 88 This should be deemed
substantial compliance with the requirement of the law.

The alleged lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs

are readily belied by the prosecution evidence showing that the chain
of custody requirement was complied with.

It is basic that in prosecutions involving narcotics and other

illegal substances, the substance itself constitutes part of the corpus
delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution
must prove that what was seized by police officers is the same item
86
p. 175, Original Records
87
p. 185, Ibid.
88
p. 183, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 24
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

presented in court. This identification must be established with moral

certainty89 and is a function of the rule on chain of custody. The chain
of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding
the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to
the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. 90

Records bear that the chain of custody requirement was

complied with. PO2 Loyd Anos stated in the Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay91 that after he had seized and confiscated the
illegal drugs from accused-appellant during a buy-bust operation
conducted on January 12, 2018, PO2 Loyd Anos immediately marked
the plastic sachet subject of the buy-bust with “DAS.” Thereafter,
PO2 Loyd Anos marked with “LMA-3,” “LMA-4,” “LMA-5,” “LMA-6,”
“LMA-7” and “LMA-8” the six (6) plastic sachets of “shabu” seized
from accused-appellant. The marking and inventory were done in the
presence of accused-appellant at the place of arrest and witnessed
by Barangay Kagawad Benjamin San Jose. Photographs were also
taken by PO3 Rommel Ramos while PO2 Loyd Anos was marking
and conducting the inventory of the seized items in the presence of
accused-appellant at the place of arrest.92

Notably, the contents of the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang

Salaysay were affirmed by PO2 Loyd Anos during his direct
testimony.93 He also testified that the object evidence remained in his
custody until the same were delivered by him to the Rizal Provincial
Crime Laboratory Office.94

Accused-appellant’s claim that PO2 Loyd Anos failed to

mention the duty investigator at the police station, is unfounded. It
bears stressing that it was PO2 Loyd Anos who prepared the Request
for Laboratory Examination and the Request for Drug Test both
89
People of the Philippines vs. Monalyn Cervantes, 581 SCRA 762, March 17, 2009
90
People of the Philippines vs. Ruiz Garcia, 580 SCRA 259, February 25, 2009
91
pp. 175, Original Records
92
p. 183, Ibid.
93
p. 4, TSN dated March 7, 2018
94
pp. 10-12, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 25
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

signed by PSUPT Christopher Dela Pena. Clearly, the seized drugs

never left the custody of PO2 Loyd Anos until he turned over the
same to Forensic Chemist PCI Joanne DC Rosales.

On the same day as the buy-bust operation, or January 12,

2018, PO2 Loyd Anos personally turned over accused and accused-
appellant, the marked plastic sachets, the marked drug paraphernalia
and the Requests for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test, to the
Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. 95 The marked plastic
sachets and drug paraphernalia were received by “PCI JOANNE DC
ROSALES” at “9:00 PM 12 JAN 2018,” while accused and accused-
appellant were turned over to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office at “9:10 PM 12 JAN 2018.”96

Upon examination by Forensic Chemist PCI Joanne DC

Rosales, the “[s]even (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
each containing white crystalline substance with the following
markings and net weights: A1 – (DAS) = 0.03 gram, A2 – (LMA-3) =
0.03 gram, A3 – (LMA-4) = 0.04 gram, A4 – (LMA-5) = 0.02 gram, A5
– (LMA-6) = 0.02 gram, A6 – (LMA-7) = 0.03 gram, A7 – (LMA-8) =
0.02 gram x x x [t]wo (2) aluminum foil strips each containing traces
of white crystalline substance with the following markings: A8-(LMA-
9), A9-(LMA-10) x x x gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the
presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, a
dangerous drug,” per Chemistry Report No. D-024-18 dated January
12, 2018.97

Significantly, the testimony of Forensic Chemical Officer PCI

Joanne DC Rosales, who conducted qualitative examinations of the
seized drugs, was dispensed with in view of the stipulations made by
the prosecution and the defense that she “that she is an expert
witness in the examination of dangerous drugs; that she received the
specimens in this case along with the Request for Laboratory
Examination and Request for Urine Drug Test; that she conducted
95
p. 175, Original Records
96
pp. 180, 181, Ibid.
97
p. 145, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 26
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

examination on the specimens submitted as well as on the urine

samples from all the accused; that after examination, the specimens
yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug while the urine samples of all the accused proved positive for
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
That she reduced her examination in writing under the Initial
Laboratory Report as well as the Final Chemistry Report and for the
results of the Urine Drug Test under Chemistry Report No. RCRIMDT-
040-18 to RCRIMDT-043-18 and that she submitted the same along
with the specimens in this Court.” 98 Clearly, the evidence remained
with Forensic Chemist PCI Joanne DC Rosales at the Rizal Provincial
Crime Laboratory Office until she had turned it over to the trial court.

Ineluctably, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-

up, which are unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot
overcome the categorical and positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.99 It has been consistently held that courts invariably view
with disfavor denials and allegations of frame-up for these are easily
concocted.100 They are the usual and standard defenses in
prosecutions involving violation of the dangerous drugs law. 101

Anent the penalties, the life imprisonment imposed by the trial

court on accused-appellant for the sale of dangerous drugs is correct,
being in accordance with Section 5,102 Article II, RA No. 9165.
However, the fine must be reduced from P5,000,000.00 to
P500,000.00, pursuant to recent jurisprudence. 103

98
p. 2, TSN dated March 7, 2018
99
People of the Philippines vs. Asir Gani, et al., 711 SCRA 78, November 27, 2013
100
People of the Philippines vs. Belban Sic-Open, 804 SCRA 94, September 21, 2016
101
People of the Philippines vs. Gerry Yable, 721 SCRA 91, April 7, 2014
102
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled, Precursors and Essential Chemicals. —
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
103
People of the Philippines vs. Joy Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 27
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

However, accused-appellant's claim that the “imposition upon

him of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency is illegal,” 104 has
merit. Notably, the principal penalty imposed by the trial court upon
accused-appellant is life imprisonment. Thus, subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency is improper in view of the
proscription thereon under paragraph 3, Article 39 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, which provides that "(w)hen the principal
penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit." 105

The penalties of “imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and

ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS” and a “FINE of THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00)” for the possession
of dangerous drugs are also correct, pursuant to Section 11, 106 Article
II, RA No. 9165.

In sum, the Court finds no justification to deviate from the

factual findings of the trial court which deserve great weight and
respect on appeal as it had the unique position of observing the
witnesses’ deportment on the stand, and there is no showing that
material circumstances have been overlooked, misunderstood or

104
p. 68, Rollo
105
People of the Philippines vs. Jehlson Aguirre, et al., 845 SCRA 227, November 20, 2017
106
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death
and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be
graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited
to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 28
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

disregarded by the trial court, which if considered will vary the

outcome of the case.107

WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated March 22, 2019

convicting accused-appellant of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article
II, RA No. 9165 is affirmed, subject to the modification that the fine
imposed upon accused-appellant for the sale of dangerous drugs is
reduced to P500,000.00, and the subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency is deleted. In all other respects, the trial court's Decision
dated March 22, 2019 is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice

TITA MARILYN B. PAYOYO-VILLORDON

Associate Justice

107
People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Suyu, et al., 499 SCRA 177, August 16, 2006
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 29
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division