PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

NOEL CATENTAY
G.R. No. 183101 | July 6, 2010
Abad, J.

Facts: Noel Doroja Catentay was apprehended in a buy-bust operation. PO1 Reyno Riparip
prepared the referral letter for inquest, the joint affidavit of the arresting officers, and the request
for laboratory examination though he had no personal knowledge as to the circumstances of the
arrest of Catentay or the source of the specimens. Leonard M. Jabonillo, a forensic chemical
officer, received the request for laboratory examination of the specimen and found it positive for
shabu. Jabonillo did not properly close or reseal the plastic sachets containing the drugs to
preserve the same. Catentay was convicted.

Issue: Whether or not the evidence established the unbroken chain of custody

Held: No. The burden of the prosecution in a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is to prove
(1) the identities of the buyer and the seller; (2) the sale of dangerous drugs; and (3) the
existence of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. The prosecution has to establish
the integrity of the seized article in that it had been preserved from the time the same was
seized from the accused to the time it was presented in evidence at the trial. In this case,
although the plastic sachets that the forensic chemist received were heat-sealed and
authenticated by the police officer with his personal markings, the forensic chemist broke the
seal, opened the plastic sachet, and took out some of the substances for chemical analysis. The
plastic sachets apparently showed up at the pre-trial, not bearing the forensic chemist's seal,
and was brought from the crime laboratory by someone who did not care to testify how he came
to be in possession of the same.
The People of the Philippines vs. Zaida Kamad y Ambing
G.R. No. 174198 | January 19, 2010
Brion, J.

Facts: SPO2 Sanchez acted as poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation that arrested Zaida
Kamad y Ambing along with her boyfriend Leo Ramirez y Acosta. Kamad was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. Kamad appealed the decision and pointed out the material inconsistencies in the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses that cast doubt on their credibility. Moreover, the
forensic chemist who examined the specimen testified to a specimen dated October 12, 2002,
or one secured way before the buy-bust of October 16, 2002, but marked as evidence
documents relating to the specimen of October 16, 2002. 

Issue: Whether or not the chain of custody rule was complied with

Held: No. The prosecution was fatally remiss in establishing an unbroken link in the chain of
custody of the seized shabu; its evidence is simply incomplete in establishing the necessary
links in the handling of the seized prohibited drug from the time of its seizure until its
presentation in court. The discrepancy in the prosecution evidence on the identity of the seized
and examined shabu and that formally offered in court cannot but lead to serious doubts
regarding the origins of the shabu presented in court. This discrepancy and the gap in the chain
of custody immediately affect proof of the corpus delicti without which the accused must be
acquitted.
People of the Philippines vs. Narciso Agulay y Lopez
G.R. No. 181747 | September 26, 2008
Chico-Nazario, J.
Topic: Chain of Custody
Facts:

Issue:

Held:
People of the Philippines vs. Mangi Adam y Lumambas
G.R. No. 143842 | October 13, 2003
Callejo, Sr., J.

Facts: Mangi Adam had an agreement with a drug pusher for the purchase of 200 grams of
shabu for P200,000. A buy bust operation was conducted. PO3 Rey Lucido acted as the poseur
buyer. When Adam arrived, the informant introduced him to Lucido as the buyer. Adam showed
to him the transparent plastic tea bag containing white crystalline substances. In turn, Lucido
handed over the envelope containing the marked money bills and boodle money. After this,
Lucido signaled and identified himself as a police officer. Adam then was arrested. The trial
court convicted him with a violation of RA No. 6425.

Issue: Whether or not Adam is guilty of attempted sale of shabu

Held: Yes. Section 21(b) of Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425 provides that in Attempt and
Conspiracy, “The same penalty prescribed by this Act for the commission of the offense shall be
imposed in case of any attempt or conspiracy to commit the same in the following cases: (b) Sale,
chan

administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs; . . .” Thus, an attempt to

Issue:

Held:
People of the Philippines vs. Joel Roa y Villaluz
G.R. No. 186134 | May 6, 2010
Perez, J.

Facts: QCPD Chief Superintendent Raymund Esquival immediately formed a team of police
officers to conduct a buy-bust operation with the objective of apprehending a suspected pusher
in flagrante delicto. Appellant Joel Roa was convicted with a violation of Republic Act No. 9165
for the sale and for possession of dangerous drugs during the buy-bust operation. In this
appeal, the appellant denies that he was caught, in flagrante, selling and possessing shabu and
claims that he was just a victim of a police frame-up. In support of his denial, the appellant
points out that the QCPD never coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) about conducting any buy bust operation, violating in the process Section 86 of
Republic Act No. 9165.

Issue: Whether or not the buy-bust operation should be invalidated due to non-coordination with
PDEA

Held: No. In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement
before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 8634 of
Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of
Customs to maintain “close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters,” the
provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua non for every
buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in
apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation
is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANSON ONG
G.R. No. 175940 | February 6, 2008.
Tinga, J.

Facts: An information accusing Anson Ong of illegal sale of shabu was filed before the Regional
Trial Court following a buy-bust operation. Col. Ziola Lachica and Investigator Oscar Coballes
narrated during trial what transpired during the buy-bust operation. There were inconsistencies
between the two’s testimonies on the informant. The prosecution also did not establish how the
shabu and boodle money were exchanged. Moreover, Lachica and Coballes hesitated in
answering questions on the stand during the trial. However, Ong was convicted.

Issue: Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
appellant

Held: No. In determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-
bust operation, the "objective test" is utilized. It is the duty of the prosecution to present a
complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation — from the initial contact between the poseur-
buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until
the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. Applying this in the
case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution failed to prove all the material details of the buy-
bust operation. The details of the meeting with the informant, the alleged source of the
information on the sale of illegal drugs, appear hazy as Lachica kept saying he cannot recall or
remember some details and his testimonies were contrary to that of Coballes. The witnesses'
hesitation in answering questions on the stand, as aptly observed by the trial court, only
compounded their lack of credibility.
People of the Philippines vs. Victorio Pagkalinawan
G.R. No. 184805 | March 3, 2010
Velasco, Jr., J.

Facts: After a report from an informant, a buy-bust team with PO1 Memoracion as the poseur-
buyer was formed. The informant introduced Memoracion to Pagkalinawan as a taxi driver who
wanted to buy shabu. Pagkalinawan immediately took the Php 500 buy-bust money from
Memoracion and showed three plastic sachets containing shabu in his palm, and asked the
poseur-buyer to pick one. The RTC found Victorio Pagkalinawan guilty of violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. Appellant contended that what actually
happened was an instigation and not a buy-bust operation.

Issue: Whether or not the buy-bust operation was valid

Held: Yes. In order to determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, the Court has consistently
applied the “objective” test. In applying the “objective” test, the details of the purported
transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the initial
contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, and the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal
drug subject of the sale. In the instant case, the evidence clearly shows that the police officers
used entrapment, not instigation, to capture appellant in the act of selling a dangerous drug. It
was the confidential informant who made initial contact with appellant when he introduced PO1
Memoracion as a buyer for shabu. Appellant immediately took the Php 500 buy bust money
from Memoracion and showed him three pieces of sachet containing shabu and asked him to
pick one. Once Memoracion got the shabu, he gave the prearranged signal and the appellant
was arrested.
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 161658 | November 3, 2008
VELASCO, JR., J.:

Facts: COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6486 prescribing rules and regulations for mandatory
drug testing as per Sec. 36(g) of RA9165. The testing was to be a requirement for candidates
for public office in line with the May 10, 2004 national elections. Petitioner Pimentel, Senator of
the Republic and Candidate for Re-Election assails the constitutionality of Sec. 36(g) of RA
9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486. He claims that the requirement of a drug test
imposes additional requirements for a senatorial candidate in addition to those already provided
in Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution. It is tantamount to COMELEC adding Senatorial
Qualifications to the Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not candidates for public office should undergo mandatory drug testing

Held: No. COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or
promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36(g), validly impose qualifications on
candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. Sec. 36(g) effectively
enlarges the qualification requirements enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution.
The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by
unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution. Whether or
not the drug-free bar set up under the challenged provision is to be hurdled before or after
election is really of no moment, as getting elected would be of little value if one cannot assume
office for noncompliance with the drug-testing requirement.
Social Justice Society vs. PDEA
G.R. No. 157870 | November 3, 2008
Velasco, Jr., J.
Topic: Mandatory Drug Testing
Facts:

Issue:

Held:
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. vs. PDEA
G.R. No. 158633 | November 3, 2008
Velasco, Jr., J.
Topic: Mandatory Drug Testing
Facts:

Issue:

Held:
MICHAEL PADUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 168546 | July 23, 2008
Quisumbing, J.

Facts: Petitioner Michael Padua was charged with a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", for
selling dangerous drugs. He was convicted and he filed for probation, which the trial court, after
a report and recommendation from the city’s Probation Officer, denied. The Court of Appeals
dismissed Padua’s petition for certiorari assailing the trial court's order denying his petition for
probation.

Issue: Whether or not Padua can avail the privilege of probation

Held: No. Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No.
9165 for selling dangerous drugs. It is clear under Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 that any
person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation. Hence, the Court
of Appeals correctly dismissed his petition for certiorari assailing the trial court's order denying
his petition for probation.
The People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Santos y Macol and Ramon Catoc y Picayo
G.R. No. 176735 | June 26, 2008
Chico-Nazario, J.
Topic: Limited Applicability of the RPC on R.A. No. 9165
Facts:

Issue:

Held:
People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo F. Nicolas
G.R. No. 170234 | February 8, 2007
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Facts: Bernardo Felizardo Nicolas was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 for the sale of one heat-sealed sachet containing .42 grams of shabu to PO2
Damasco. The RTC found the accused guilty and was sentenced to the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 which was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 was properly
imposed on Nicolas

Held: Yes. Section 98 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the limited application of the provisions
of the Revised Penal Code on said law. With the aforesaid section, the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code shall no longer apply to the provisions of the Drugs law except when the offender is a
minor. Thus, Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code shall not be used in the determination of the
penalty to be imposed on the accused. Since Section 98 of the Drugs Law contains the word "shall,"
the non-applicability of the Revised Penal Code provisions is mandatory, subject only to the
exception in case the offender is a minor. Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.00 were properly imposed on Nicolas.
Salvador Estipona, Jr. y Asuela vs. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo and People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 226679 | August 15, 2017
Peralta, J.
Topic: Plea Bargaining
Facts:

Issue:

Held: