ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A.

LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

I. CASE DIGESTS
1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- APPELEE
V. DAVE CLAUDEL Y LUCAS, ACCUSED-APPELANT
April 03,2019, GR No. 219852

FACTS:

The information was filed against Dave Claudel for violation of

Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 “Sale, Trading, Administration,
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.”
through a buy bust operation conducted on February 26, 2009 in the
City of Muntinlupa Philippines and that before the buy bust
operations, he was engaged in illegal drug activities.
The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established that
Dave was caught in flagrante delicto of selling drugs to a poseur-
buyer during a buy-bust operation. 
The CA ruled that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs have been amply proven by the prosecution to affirm the
conviction of Dave. It held that non-compliance with the strict
requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the
prosecution's case. 

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dave's guilt for violation of Section 5 of
RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
No, In the present case, the buy-bust team failed to strictly
comply with the mandatory requirements under Section 21,
paragraph 1 of RA 9165.The Supreme court held that there was no
buy bust that happened and the indictment against the accused will
have no leg to stand on. The supreme Court states that, the
procedure outlined in Section 21 is straightforward and easy to
comply with.  Compliance with Section 21 being integral to every
conviction, the appellate court, this Court included, is at liberty to
review the records of the case to satisfy itself that the required proof
has been adduced by the prosecution whether the accused has
raised, before the trial or appellate court, any issue of non-
compliance. If deviations are observed and no justifiable reasons are
provided, the conviction must be overturned, and the innocence of
the accused affirmed.

2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v. MARK ANDREW PAZ Y ROCAFORD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

1
ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A. LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

G.R. No. 233466, August 07, 2019

FACTS:
Paz was indicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 in an Information dated May 10, 2013.
That on or about the 9th day of May, 2013 in Caloocan City,
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to REAGAN
B. SILVERIO, who posed as buyer, Two heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets each later marked as RBS-1 05/09113 and RBS-2
05/09/13 containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE
(Shabu) weighing 4.1001 grams & 3.2714 grams, which when
subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the
tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and
knowing the same to be such.
Paz claimed that he was framed-up when three men accosted
and forced him into a vehicle. They threatened him, to which he
denied producing anything. They brought him to the Quezon City
Memorial Circle where they asked him for money. Then, they directed
him to call anyone who could help him produce the money. He was
brought to Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City, and later to the PDEA
office. In the office, two plastic sachets of white crystalline substance
on a plate and a bundle of money, which were both allegedly seized
from him, were shown to him. Paz was charged with the crime of
Illegal Sale of shabu.
Paz appealed and he argues that the prosecution failed to
establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized sachets
of shabu from the moment of their seizure until their presentation
before the court. The marking, inventory and photographing of the
confiscated items were not executed at the place of seizure in
Caloocan City, but at the PDEA office in Quezon City and the
inventory was not done in the presence of a representative from the
DOJ and the media.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Accused is guilt for violation of Section
5 of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
No, Non-observance of the mandatory requirements under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 casts doubt on the integrity of the
sachets of shabu supposedly seized from, in this case, the accused.
The prosecution's failure to comply with the chain of custody rule is
equivalent to its failure to establish the corpus delicti. The accused is
acquitted.

2
ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A. LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

3. JESSIE TOLENTINO Y SAMIA

Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
February 12, 2020, GR 227217

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs,
defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On
or about February 13, 2009 at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, in
the City of Tarlac the accused sold, trade and delivered three (3)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing dried Marijuana
fruiting tops, a dangerous drugs to a poseur buyer, weighing 2.700
grams more or less. On cross examination, SPO1 Navarro admitted
that although he did not actually witness the drug deal, he was
positioned approximately 50 meters away from them and that he saw
Dela Pena grab the petitioner which was the pre-arranged signal that
an exchange took place.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner should be convicted for violation
of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002?

RULING:
No, the accused as guaranteed in the constitution, should be
presumed innocent until contrary is proved. In this instant case, the
chain of custody was not followed. In order to merit conviction, the
prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on
the weakness of evidence presented by the defense.
The Supreme Court finds the errors committed by the
apprehending team as sufficient to cast serious doubts on the guilt of
the petitioner. Absent faithful compliance with Section 21, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 which is primarily intended to, preserve the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items in drugs cases, to

3
ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A. LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

safeguard accused persons from unfounded and unjust convictions,

an acquittal becomes the proper recourse.

4. People vs. Ranilo Suarez

Gr no.249990, July 8, 2020

Facts:
It was alleged that in the afternoon of July 16, 2008, operatives
of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office,
Davao City implemented a buy-bust operation in Panabo city, Davao
Del Norte, against accused-appellant, during which, one (1)
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was
recovered from him. The seized item was then placed inside a sealed
evidence pouch. The PDEA operatives alighted the vehicle to
conduct the marking of the seized item. Upon reaching the PDEA
office, they turned over the seized item and the buy-bust money, and
presented accused-appellant, to the duty desk officer. Since the
witnesses for the inventory and photography were not available at
that time, Investigating Officer 2 Hazel B. Ortoyo (IO2 Ortoyo) took
custody of the seized item and put it inside her locker at the office,
with only she having accessed thereto. The seized items were only
brough to the crime laboratory the next day where the inventory and
photography took place in the presence of the representatives from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), an elected barangay
official, and a photographer. Thereafter, the arresting officers brought
accused-appellant and the seized item to the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Provincial Crime Laboratory in Tagum City, Davao Del
Norte where, after a qualitative examination, the seized item tested
positive for 0.1524 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, a dangerous drug.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld accused-appellant’s
conviction for the crime charged.

Ruling:
No, the Court of appeals incorrectly upheld the conviction of the
accused. Having unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule,
the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the dangerous drug purportedly seized from accused--
appellant was compromised, thereby warranting his acquittal.

5. Sayson Vs. People

GR NO. 249289, September 28, 2020

4
ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A. LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged in two separate Informations with the
offenses of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs,
respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II
of RA 9165.
On July 25, 2016, acting on the information received from a
confidential inform2.nt, members of Police Station 11, Quezon City
formed a buy-bust te1.m and successfully conducted a buy-bust
operation against petitioner at ROTC Hunters, Tatalon, Quezon City.
During the buy-bust operation, one sachet of suspected shabu was
·recovered from him. When the police officers arrested and frisked
petitioner, they recovered five more sachets of suspected shabu from
his possession. Because a crowd gathered at the place of arrest,
Police Officer I Florante Lacob, one of the members of the buy-bust
team, brought the confiscated items to the Barangay Hall of Tatalon,
Quezon City for the making and inventory. Ex-Officio Conrado M.
Manalo (Manalo), who was then the duty desk officer at: the
barangay hall, witnessed the marking and inventory. Subsequently,
the police officers brought petitioner and the seized. item to the police
station. Thereafter, the police officers brought the confiscated item; to
the crime laboratory where, after examination, their contents test if
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous
drug. In defense, petitioner denied the accusations against him. He
claimed that at the time of the incident, he was in his Ate Rose’s
house waiting for his nephew, CJ Abdul, when five police officers
suddenly showed up, frisked him and his neighbors, and searched
the area. Thereafter, the police officers brought him and his
neighbors to the police station where they were forced to confess
their alleged drug activities.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction
for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

5
ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A. LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

RULING:
No,  Records show that the requisite inventory was in the
presence only of Manalo, the duty desk officer at the Barangay Hall of
Tatalon, Quezon City. For obvious reasons, there was a total lack of
compliance with the witness requirement. The sheer allegation that
the police officers tried to contact the mandatory witnesses but that
no one arrived cannot be deemed reasonable enough to justify a
deviation from the mandatory directives of the law. As aforesaid,
mere claims of unavailability, absent a showing that actual and
serious attempts were employed to contact the required witnesses,
are unacceptable as they fail to show that genuine and sufficient
efforts were exerted by police officers.

II: CASE SYNTHESIS

Section 21 of the RA 9165: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act of the Philippines establishes the Chain of Custody rule. Non-
compliance on this rule is fatal on the part of the prosecution. The
strict implementation of this chain of custody leads to establishment
of the corpus delicti of the case. If there be any gaps or deviation on
the said rule, it casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence and would
result to the acquittal of the accused. The following cases involves
violation of Sec 5, of the RA 9165 which reads:
“Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals…..”
Buy-bust operations where made on similar cases to which the
Supreme court held for the acquittal of the Accused:

MANDATORY PRESENCE OF THREE WITNESSES DURING

MARKING OF EVIDENCE- The presence of the witnesses from the
DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect
against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized
drug.

In the case of Jessie Tolentino V. PP (February 12, 2020), it

elucidates the requirement of Section 21 of RA 9165 of the
Mandatory presence of the Three witnesses. In here, as culled from
the records and highlighted by the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses themselves, only one of the required witnesses was
present during the inventory stage - the barangay captain of Ungot.
Neither was it shown nor alleged by the police officers that earnest

6
ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A. LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

efforts were made to secure the attendance of these witnesses.

Given the time of the surveillance and arrest, the police officers had
more than enough time to secure the attendance of the witnesses
had they really wanted to. Also in PP Vs. Dave Claudel (April 3,
2019), As testified by PO2 Hernaez, the buy-bust team did not secure
any of the required witnesses; yet, he did not offer a justifiable reason
for the absence of the required witnesses especially where, as here,
the buy-bust team had more than sufficient time to secure the
presence of the required witnesses prior to the planned arrest. In the
case of PP V. PAZ (April 03,2019) It is not enough for the
apprehending officers to merely mark the seized sachets of shabu;
the buy-bust team must also conduct a physical inventory and take
photographs of the confiscated item in the presence of the persons
required by law. It was held that police officers are ordinarily given
sufficient time beginning from the moment they have received the
information about the activities of the accused until the time of his
arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and, consequently, make
the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing fully well that they
would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It was reiterated in the case of
Sayson V, PP (September 28, 2020) that there was a total lack of
compliance with the witness requirement as records show that the
requisite inventory was in the presence only of Manalo, the duty desk
officer at the Barangay Hall of Tatalon, Quezon City.

THE MARKING, INVENTORY, AND PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE

SEIZED ITEM MUST BE MADE EITHER IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THE ARREST, OR IF THERE ARE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS, AT
THE NEAREST POLICE STATION OR AT THE NEAREST OFFICE
OF THE APPREHENDING TEAM.

In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous

Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous
drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the
dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the
crime. Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-
buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have
been seized. It is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that
the seized items be marked immediately since the succeeding
handlers thereof will use the markings as reference. 26 The rule also
requires that the marking of the seized contraband be done "(1) in the
presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon
confiscation."
In Sayson V, PP (September 28, 2020) As part of the chain of
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking,
physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be
conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In
this regard, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate

7
ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A. LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station

or office of the apprehending team." Hence, as illustrated In PP Vs
Ranilo Suarez (July 8, 2020), the failure to immediately mark the
confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them
inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs,
as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team ts sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of
custody.

The presence of the three witnesses stated under section 21 of

the RA 9165 is an indispensable requirement as well as the marking
of the evidence immediately after seizure or within 24 hours in the
nearest Police Station to establish that integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved. The law prescribes a strict
procedure for handling object evidence, particularly the custody of
confiscated dangerous drugs by law enforcement agencies and by
the courts. Non-compliance with the said procedure renders the
evidence non-admissible, resulting in the eventual acquittal of the
accused if there is no other sufficient evidence to convict him.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Caguioa, Afredo Benjamin S., PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF- APPELEE V. DAVE CLAUDEL Y LUCAS,
ACCUSED-APPELANT, April 03,2019, GR No. 219852, Supreme
Court of the Philippines, https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4138/15 Pages
2. Peralta, Diosdado, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. MARK ANDREW PAZ Y ROCAFORD, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT, G.R. No. 233466, August 07, 2019, Supreme Court
of The Philippines, https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/6437/14 pages
3. Reyes, Andres Jr., JESSIE TOLENTINO Y SAMIA Vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, February 12, 2020, GR 227217, Supreme
Court of The Philippines, https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/11782//., 14
pages
4. Perlas-Bernabe, Estela, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
RANILO S. SUAREZ, G.R. No. 249990. July 8, 2020, Supreme
Court of The Philippines, https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12670/, 8
pages
5. Perlas-Bernabe, Estela, JOSEPH SAYSON Y PAROCHA VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 249289. September 28,
2020, https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/15073/ , 8 pages

8
ULAYAN, JORGEN MICHAEL A. LEGAL WRITING
JURIS DOCTOR 1 PRELIM EXAM

6. Twelfth Congress, REPUBLIC ACT 9165: Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, June 7, 2002,
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2002/06/07/republic-act-no-
9165/, 66 pages
7. Respicio, Harold., CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE IN DRUG CASES,
March 09, 2017, Philippines,
https://www.respicio.ph/features/chain-of-custody-rule-in-drug-
cases
8. Torres-Tupaz, Tetch, SC ISSUES 4-POINT MANDATORY
POLICY TO ENSURE TIGHT DRUG CASES: Man acquitted due
to procedural lapses, October 2, 2018,
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1038414/sc-issues-4-point-
mandatory-policy-to-ensure-tight-drug-cases