G.R. No.

239635, July 22, 2019

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN, JR. Y

Facts:

1. A buy bust-team was organized to entrap appellant. Appellant arrived on board a motorcycle.  He
alighted from the motorcycle and got introduced to PO2 Baldevia. Appellant asked PO2 Baldevia
how much she was going to buy. Appellant quoted P 100.00 per tea bag of marijuana. She replied
eight (8) tea bags. Appellant retrieved eight (8) tea bags from his pocket and handed them to PO2
Baldevia who, in turn, paid him P800.00. Thereupon, PO2 Baldevia announced she was a police
officer and she was arresting appellant. The latter immediately turned away and ran toward his
house.

2. Meantime, not far from the locus criminis, PO2 Rocky Luzarita, PO2 Mateo Villavert, and PO2
Franklin Alonsagay alighted from their parked car and ran after appellant.  After getting hold of
appellant, PO2 Alonsagay did a body search on appellant and recovered from his pocket a tea bag of
marijuana leaves and a P50.00 bill.

3. The police, thereafter, proceeded with the marking and inventory of the seized items in the presence
of Provincial Prosecutor Cezar Dan T. Alecando, John Pagunsan of 106.9 Hot PM, Peter Zaldivar of
Barbaza Coop TV, and Barangay Kagawad Arman Leong-on.17 PO2 Rocky Luzarita took photos of
appellant. PO2 Franklin Alonsagay also took photos of the witnesses while signing the inventory
receipt. Appellant was later brought to the San Jose Police Station.

Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove appellant's guilt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of
RA 9165?

Ruling: No, the chain of custody requires that law enforcers or any person who came in possession of the
seized drugs must observe the procedure for proper handling of the seized substance to remove any
doubt that it was changed, altered, modified, or planted before its presentation in court as evidence. The
chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labeling, and recording, and must
exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.

Here, The Court keenly notes that here, the second link had been seriously breached. In her
Sworn Statement, PO2 Baldevia stated that after the marking and inventory of the seized marijuana tea
bags, she personally brought them to the crime laboratory for forensic analysis, On cross, PO2 Baldevia
reiterated she personally submitted the seized items to the crime laboratory. Conspicuously, missing
from PO2 Baldevia's sworn statement and testimony are the material details of the supposed turn-over of
the seized drugs to the investigating officer at the police station before their submission for laboratory
examination. Here, there was no clear testimony about these crucial details. 
 G.R. No. 239872. March 11, 2019
Heirs of Jose Rosario, Jr., represented by Victoria H. Rosario [substituted by Patricia Angela Rosario,
Ma. Sophia LourdesRosario and Jose Victor Rosario] and Jose Rosario, Sr. Vs. Danilo Sabugo, et al.

Facts:

1. Rosario was traversing a highway in Ilocos Sur by his car when a Farinas Bus, manned by Sabugo
suddenly appeared from the opposite lane and tried to encroach upon his lane while overtaking a
cargo truck. In an effort to avoid a collision with the bus, Rosario tried to swerve his car to the right
shoulder of the road.
2. However, he was forced to swerve back to the left causing a head-on collision with the Farinas bus
because of the presence of the people therein. The collision resulted in physical injuries to Rosario
and his two companions. They were brought to a hospital wherein Rosario was pronounced dead.

Issue: Whether petitioners are entitled for actual damages.

Ruling: No

As, a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for
loss of earning capacity.

According to the heris of Rosario, the deceased, a businessman who studied in the University of
Northern Colorado in the United State of America, was giving his family P50,000.00 a month as their
allowance excluding the expenses for the education of his children and their household.

However, based on such testimony, the court cannot conclude that this case falls under the exception as
the supposed earnings of Rosario greatly exceeded the prevailing minimum wage. Hence, in the absence
of documentary evidence to prove the claim for loss of earning capacity, the court is constrained to affirm
the deletion of such award.
 G.R. No. 232496, October 08, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR ABADILLA Y VERGARA
Facts:

1. Abadilla was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. On arraignment, Abadilla pleaded "not
guilty" to the charge.
2. The trial court opined that the accused was validly caught in flagrante selling  shabu through a buy-
bust operation conducted by members of the LCPS. The poseur-buyer, PO2 Ganir, positively
identified him as the seller and testified that in the course of the buy-bust operation, the sale
transaction took place.
3. It likewise opined that since the integrity of the seized item has been maintained, the absence of an
elected public official, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the
marking, inventory and photography of the seized items is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
4. Abadilla insists that his warrantless arrest being illegal, the allegedly confiscated  shabu  should not
have been admitted in evidence for being fruit of the poisonous tree.

Issue: Whether or not Abadilla’s warrantless arrest being illegal, the allegedly confiscated shabu should
not have been admitted in evidence.

Ruling: NO, Abadillas’ arrest is legal but the shabu should not be admitted in evidence since the chain of
custody rule was violated

The prosecution must prove with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, considering
that the dangerous drug itself forms part of the corpus delicti of the crime. The prosecution has to show an
unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs so as to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the
identity of the dangerous drugs on account of switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.
Accordingly, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody from the
moment that the illegal drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. In
addition to the requirements of venue of physical inventory and photography of the seized items, Section
21 also requires the presence of three witnesses during the actual inventory,  i.e., (1) an elected public
official, (2) a representative from the DOJ and (3) a representative from the media.

Here, the unjustified absence of these witnesses during the inventory constitutes a substantial
gap in the chain of custody. This procedural lapse cannot be cured by the simple expedient of invoking
the saving clause found in Section 21 or the presumption that the arresting officers performed their duties
in a regular manner. Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, the presumption of
regularity cannot stand. There being a substantial gap or break in the chain, it casts serious doubts on the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself.
 G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MARIO MANABAT Y DUMAGAY, Accused-
Appellant
Facts:

1. The police received information through a text message from a confidential informant (CI) that a
certain alias Mario is engaged in the selling of prohibited drugs and decided to conduct [a]
buybust operation because alias Mario arrived from Ozamis and he had already (sic) stocks of
shabu. They instructed the CI to negotiate with Mario with Barral acting as the poseur buyer. The
CI agreed. At around 6 pm, the CI texted that he and Mario are together and that Mario accepted
the request. They agreed to meet at ABC Printing Press.
2. Barral proceeded to the place on board his motorcycle while Vertudes, who acted as back-up,
followed in his four-wheeled tinted vehicle. Barral positioned near the entrance of the printing
press while V ertudes was near El Garaje establishment, a few meter (sic) from the printing press.
3. At about 6:30 pm, the CI and Mario arrived on board a motorcab. The CI introduced Barral to
Mario as the buyer of shabu. After a short conversation, Mario agreed to sell to Barral. Barral
handed a P500 bill marked money to Mario, who received the same and in turn handed to Barral
a sachet of shabu from inside a small container in his pocket. Mario, placed the P500 inside his
wallet. Upon receiving the shabu, [Barral] immediately held Mario. Vertudes came and assisted
Barral in the arrest of Mario. They informed Mario that they were police officers of Dipolog City
Police Station. Mario was told of his constitutional rights in Visayan dialect.

Issue: Whether the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Manabat beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes. As held in the fairly recent case of People v. Tomawis, the Court explained that the presence of
the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of
the warrantless arrest.  Based from the foregoing, the Court holds that the buy-bust operation
was not conducted in accordance with law.

First, it is not disputed whatsoever that the witnesses were called and eventually arrived at the scene of the
crime only  after  the accused-appellant was already apprehended by PO2 Barral. On cross-examination, PO2
Barral readily admitted that during the apprehension of accused-appellant Manabat, the witnesses were
not present

Second, the Certificate of Inventory28 itself reveals that the document was not signed by accused-appellant
Manabat or by his counsel or representative. 

Third, The time and place of the buy-bust operation were not indicated in the markings, in clear
contravention of the PNP's own set of procedures for the conduct of buy-bust operations.

Lastly, it was an error for the RTC to convict accused-appellant Manabat by relying on the presumption
of regularity in the performance of duties supposedly extended in favor of the police officers. The
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcom the stronger presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused.
 G.R. NO. 136466 : November 25, 2009
THE HEIRS OF AURELIO REYES, Petitioners, v. HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, et.al, Respondents.

Facts:
1. Petitioners are the registered co-owners of a parcel of land known. Said property was originally
owned by the spouses Antonia Reyes and the late Aurelio Reyes (Aurelio), who died in January 21,
1972 (before the effectivity of Presidential Decree No 27).
2. Upon the death of Aurelio, said property passed by succession to petitioners, who divided the same
as shown above. On September 21, 1988, emancipation patents were issued to respondents as farmer-
beneficiaries over the entire landholding in question.
3. Petitioners lodged a petition for the cancellation of the emancipation patents issued to the
respondents before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board San Fernando,
Pampanga, which is now pending and docketed as DARAB Case No. 118-BAT-93.

Issue: Whether there is no substantial evidence to support the finding of respondent Secretary that
petitioners own other lands devoted to non-agricultural uses from which they derived adequate income
to support their family.

Ruling: No, petitioners contend that even on the assumption that Administrative Order No. 4 or even
LOI No. 474, may be applied to the retention rights under RA No. 6657, still there is no substantial
evidence to support the finding of respondent Secretary that petitioners own other lands devoted to non-
agricultural uses from which they derived adequate income to support their family.

On this point, the DAR Secretary made the following findings, to wit:

Be that as it may, records however disclosed that Antonia Reyes, the surviving spouse, owned 55.0602
has. tenanted riceland as of October 21, 1972 representing her - and 1/9 shares of the landholding in
question. Records further show that each compulsory heir owns, aside from the 5.5060 has. representing
their 1/9 share of the said property, other landholdings presumably used either as residential,
commercial, industrial, or for other urban purposes located at Makati and Manila