CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

UNDER THE OMBUDSMAN RULES OF PROCEDURE AND SECTION 3,

RULE 112 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AN
ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF
THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, TO SUBMIT A COUNTER AFFIDAVIT, AND
TO HAVE ACCESS TO AND EXAMINE ALL OTHER EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT. TO DENY A PERSON'S CLAIM TO A
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WOULD BE TO DEPRIVE HIM THE FULL
MEASURE OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

Johanne Edward B. Labay v. Sandiganbayan [Third Division]

G.R. No. 235937-40, July 23, 2018
Velasco, J.

FACTS:
The case arose from the complaint dated May 11, 2015 filed by the Field
Investigation Office I (FIO I) of the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner
Labay for his participation in the alleged anomalous utilization of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of former Representative of the 1 District
of Davao del Sur, Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV (Rep. Cagas IV). The complaint was

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

for violation of Article 217 (Malversation of Public Funds or Property), Article

171 (Falsification of Public Documents), paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (7), Article
217 in relation to Article 171 (Malversation thru Falsification of Public
Documents), all of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as well as Section 3,
paragraphs (a) and (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended.
The complaint alleged that Rep. Cagas IV, in conspiracy with other public
officials and private individuals such as petitioner Labay, through the
Technology Resource Center (TRC), sought the release and transfer of his PDAF
in the total amount of Php6,000,000.00 to Farmer-business Development
Corporation (FDC), which was led by its then president, petitioner Labay.
However, upon field verification conducted by the FIO I, it appears that the
livelihood projects funded by Rep. Cagas IV's PDAF were never implemented
and were considered to be "ghost projects."
The Ombudsman directed those charged to file their respective counter-
affidavits, but copies of this Order could not be served on Labay. It appears that
the Ombudsman attempted to serve copies of the September 1, 2015 Joint
Order on petitioner Labay at his office at the National Anti-Poverty Commission
(NAPC) and at his last known residence. However, the copies were returned
unserved because he was no longer employed in that office and he was

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

unknown at the given residential address. As such, the Ombudsman proceeded

with the preliminary investigation without any counter-affidavit or participation
from Labay.
Thereafter, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and
his corespondents for conspiracy in the commission of two counts of Violation
of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, one count of Malversation of Public Funds, and one
count of Malversation thru Falsification.
Upon learning from press releases of the Ombudsman about the criminal
charges against him, petitioner Labay, through his daughter, Atty. Labay,
attempted to secure information on the cases from the Central Records of the
Ombudsman. Upon being advised to submit a written request, Atty. Labay sent
the Ombudsman a letter dated October 4, 2016 in compliance with the said
directive. In response to Atty. Labay's letter request, the Ombudsman replied to
Atty. Labay's request through a letter dated October 10, 2016 and served on her
copies of its May 10, 2016 Resolution. In the letter, the Ombudsman directed
Atty. Labay to file a motion for reconsideration of the said Resolution within five
days from receipt thereof.
Labay filed an Omnibus Motion for Reinvestigation and Deferment of Filing
of Information with Request for Copies of Complaint-Affidavit and Supporting

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

Documents dated November 16, 2016, praying, among others, that a

reinvestigation be conducted on his behalf, asserting that he was not afforded
an opportunity to present his defense and to participate during the preliminary
investigation since he had neither been notified that a complaint had been filed
against him nor was furnished a copy of the same. Labay also prayed that he be
furnished copies of the complaint-affidavit and other supporting documents and
that he be given time to gather his evidence and submit his answer to the
complaint.
However, the Ombudsman denied Labay's Omnibus Motion, ruling that his
right to due process had not been violated since he had the opportunity to be
heard when he filed the Omnibus Motion.
Aggrieved, Labay filed another Omnibus Motion essentially reiterating his
arguments in his first omnibus motion, but additionally argued that the filing of
the first omnibus motion did not cure the defects in the Ombudsman's failure
to observe due process when it failed to serve on him copies of the complaint
affidavit.
The Ombudsman treated this second Omnibus Motion as a second motion
for reconsideration and denied the same for lack of merit in its Order dated
February 1, 2017.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

On March 24, 2017, the Ombudsman filed four (4) Informations before the
Sandiganbayan against Labay and his co -accused.
It was only on March 28, 2017 that Labay was furnished a copy of the
Complaint-Affidavit and its supporting evidence. Upon receiving copies of the
Informations filed by the Ombudsman, petitioner Labay immediately filed an
Extremely Urgent Motion with the Sandiganbayan arguing that he is entitled to
a reinvestigation of the case to prevent injustice against him brought about by
the wrongful filing of charges without affording him his right to a complete
preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan, however, sustained the
Ombudsman's position in the assailed Resolution dated July 10, 2017, ruling
that petitioner's right to due process was not violated since he was afforded
reasonable opportunity to address the charges against him when he filed two
motions with the Ombudsman.
Labay imputes grave abuse of discretion to the Sandiganbayan’s order
declaring the existence of probable cause and denying Labay’s Motion For
Reinvestigation and To Defer the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest for lack of
merit.

ISSUE:

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in

denying Labay’s Motion For Reinvestigation

RULING:
YES. There is no dispute that the Ombudsman was unable to serve
copies of the complaint or of its September 1, 2015 Joint Order on
petitioner Labay prior to or even during the preliminary investigation of
the case.
While the Ombudsman was correct in resolving the complaint based
on the evidence presented in accordance with Paragraph (e), Section 4 of
the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure, the situation, however, effectively
changed when petitioner made himself available to the Ombudsman
when he requested access to the case records. The Ombudsman had a
clear opportunity to furnish petitioner with copies of the complaint
affidavit and its supporting documents. Instead, it merely decided to
furnish petitioner with a copy of its May 10, 2016 Resolution.
Even assuming that the Ombudsman was merely complying with
Atty. Labay's request for information when it responded with the case
titles and docket numbers of the cases pending against petitioner Labay,

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

it should have exercised its duty to inform petitioner of the charges filed
against him by furnishing him copies of the complaint affidavit and its
supporting documents. Or at the very least, it should have directed and
allowed petitioner to access these records at its office. This, however, was
not done by the Ombudsman.
We also cannot subscribe to the Sandiganbayan's justification that
petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to address the charges
against him since he was able to file a motion for reinvestigation with the
Ombudsman. By the mere fact that petitioner was not yet even furnished
a copy of the complaint affidavit at the time he received the
Ombudsman's May 10, 2016 Resolution, it is clear that he could not
effectively and sufficiently address the allegations against him. Petitioner
Labay should not be blamed for being unable to raise any substantive
defense in either the omnibus motions he filed with the Ombudsman
since he had not even seen any of the allegations filed against by the FIO.
More importantly, he could not have been expected to seek appropriate

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

evidence to support his defense when he was not even given any access
to the documents submitted by the FIO in support of its complaint.
In fact, the violation of petitioner's constitutional right to due process
is made even more evident when the Ombudsman unceremoniously
denied his request to be furnished copies of the complaint affidavit and
its supporting documents in the first omnibus motion that he filed, and
reiterated in his second omnibus motion. In both orders denying the two
omnibus motions, the Ombudsman seemingly ignored petitioner's
requests and effectively denied petitioner of his right to secure copies of
the complaint affidavit. This should not be tolerated.
Unfortunately, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion when it failed to grant petitioner Labay's Extremely Urgent
Omnibus Motion despite the glaring violations committed by the
Ombudsman. The Sandiganbayan should have recognized these patent
violations and ordered the remand of the case to the Ombudsman for the
conduct of a proper preliminary investigation with respect to petitioner

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

Labay's participation in the crimes charged. Instead, it chose to turn a

blind eye towards the injustice committed against petitioner.
It was not only the prosecution's evidence which was withheld from
petitioner. In denying petitioner Labay's multiple requests for copies of
the complaint affidavit, the Ombudsman deprived him of his right to
sufficiently and reasonably know the charges and accusations against
him. This is a patent violation of his constitutional right to due process.
While the Duterte case is not on all fours with the case before Us, We
find that the Ombudsman's failure to furnish petitioner Labay with
copies of the complaint affidavit In the present and its supporting
documents despite the latter's numerous attempts and requests to
secure the same is more severe as it gravely endangers petitioner's right
to liberty through no fault of his own. Undeniably, petitioner Labay's
receipt of the May 10, 2016 Resolution is not equivalent to receipt of the
complaint affidavit and its supporting documents.
The OSP's assertion in its comment that petitioner deliberately
evaded the Ombudsman's attempts to serve its orders on him is purely

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

hypothetical and is not supported by any concrete proof. There is also no

merit in the OSP's position that it was incumbent on petitioner Labay to
justify his whereabouts during the time that the Ombudsman was
attempting service of the subpoena on him since no law or regulation
requires an accused in a preliminary investigation to submit himself to
the Ombudsman or at the very least update the latter of his latest
address.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

IT IS FUNDAMENTAL IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BASIC IN THE

RULES OF COURT THAT THE ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL CASE
ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY. LIKEWISE, IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED IN
JURISPRUDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION BEARS THE BURDEN
TO OVERCOME SUCH PRESUMPTION. 1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

People of the Philippines v. Marilou Hilario y Diana & Laline Guadayo y

Royo
G.R. No. 210610, July 11, 2018
Leonardo-De Castro, J.

FACTS:
The Information in Crim. Case No. 10-2008 accused Hilario of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Hilario was also charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs under the Information in Crim. Case No.
11-2008.
The Information in Crim. Case No. 13-2008 was similarly worded
to that in Crim. Case No. 11-2008, except that it incriminated Guadayo
for illegal possession of “one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as

‘shabu,’ weighing 0.04 gram, a dangerous drug.” When arraigned on
April 29, 2008, Hilario and Guadayo pleaded not guilty to the charges
against them.
The RTC promulgated its Decision, finding Hilario and Guadayo
guilty of all the charges against them. The RTC highlighted that this was
a case of a buy-bust operation and adjudged that the prosecution was
able to prove all the elements of the offenses charged, to wit, the
prosecution witness, PO1 de Sagun, testified on how the buy-bust
transaction took place and properly identified the poseur-buyer and
seller, plus the illegal drug was presented as evidence in court.
The Court of Appeals partially granted the appeal. The CA affirmed
the conviction of Hilario for illegal sale of dangerous drugs in Crim. Case
No. 102008, finding PO1 de Sagun’s testimony on the completed buy-
bust operation credible. It was amply proven by PO1 de Sagun’s
testimony that a sale of shabu transpired between Hilario as the seller
and PO1 de Sagun as the poseur-buyer. The appellate court also cited

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

the presumption of regularity in PO1 de Sagun’s performance of his

official duties; the absence of proof of ill motive on PO1 de Sagun’s part
to falsely impute a serious crime against Hilario; and substantial
compliance with the procedure on custody of evidence in drug cases
since PO1 de Sagun took custody of the sachet of shabu seized from
Hilario and personally delivered the same to the crime laboratory for
examination, wherein it was tested positive for shabu. The Court of
Appeals though, in the same Decision, acquitted Hilario in Crim. Case
No. 11-2008 and Guadayo in Crim. Case No. 13-2008.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Hilario should be acquitted.

RULING:
Yes, Hilario should be acquitted.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

The identity and integrity of the sachet of shabu allegedly seized by

PO1 de Sagun from Hilario were not preserved, despite PO1 de Sagun’s
assertion that he had been in possession of the said sachet from its
seizure from Hilario until its turnover to the crime laboratory. The
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, much
less, the identity of the corpus delicti with moral certainty. When there
are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance
examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no
crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug. The
prosecution’s failure to prove that the specimen allegedly seized from
Hilario was the same one presented in court is fatal to its case.
It is fundamental in the Constitution and basic in the Rules of Court
that the accused in a criminal case enjoys the presumption of innocence
until proven guilty. Likewise, it is well-established in jurisprudence that
the prosecution bears the burden to overcome such presumption. If the
prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the accused deserves a
judgment of acquittal. On the other hand, if the existence of proof beyond

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

reasonable doubt is established by the prosecution, the accused gets a

guilty verdict. 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 evidence for the prosecution were insufficient in material details
and fraught with discrepancies and contradictions. PO1 de Sagun
himself, who claimed to have seized, marked, and kept custody of the
sachet of shabu seized from Hilario, could not positively identity which
between the two sachets of shabu he was presented with at the trial,
marked as “NBS-1” and “NBS-2,” was the one he actually seized from
Hilario. Absent proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court cannot merely
rely on the presumption that PO1 de Sagun regularly performed his
official duties.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL

PROVEN GUILTY CAN ONLY BE OVERTHROWN BY PROOF BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT IS, THAT DEGREE OF PROOF THAT
PRODUCES CONVICTION IN AN UNPREJUDICED MIND. HENCE, WHERE
THE COURT ENTERTAINS A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE GUILT OF
THE ACCUSED, IT IS NOT ONLY THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE
FREED; IT IS THE COURT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ACQUIT THEM.
Jasper Gonzales y Dolendo v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 225709, February 14, 2018
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

FACTS:
This case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 269 (RTC) accusing Gonzalez of
violating: (1) Section 261(p) (q) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), as
amended by Section 32 of RA 7166; and (2) Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 or
the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".

The prosecution alleged that in the early morning of February 23, 2012, an

operative of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID), Special Operation Task Group
(SOTG), Valenzuela City, was informed of the rampant selling of illegal drugs at
a wake in Tamaraw Hills, Barangay Marulas, Valenzuela City, which thus led to
the conduct of an anti-illegal drug operation. At about 3:30 a.m., certain Police
Officer 2 Lim, PO2 Recto, and PO1 Raya, together with PO1 Julius R. Congson,
proceeded to surveil the area near No. 75 Tamaraw Hills Street. While in the
area, PO2 Recto and PO1 Congson saw a person coming out of an alley about
four meters away, with a fan knife in his right hand.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

Since there was a ban issued by the Commission on Elections on the

carrying of deadly weapons at that time, PO2 Recto and PO1 Congson
approached the person and introduced themselves as police officers. The
person, who they later identified as Gonzalez, immediately ran away, prompting
the police officers to chase and eventually, arrest him. PO1 Congson recovered
the knife from Gonzalez, frisked the latter, and ordered him to bring out the
contents of his pocket, which revealed one heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing what PO1 Congson believed to be shabu. PO1 Congson
further recovered another heat-sealed transparent plastic pack, labeled
"Calypso", containing several plastic sachets. Thereafter, Gonzalez started
shouting, causing several persons from the wake to approach him. The police
officers then decided to bring Gonzalez to the nearby barangay hall, where the
seized items were inventoried and turned over. After duly receiving the
submitted specimen, the forensic chemist examined the same which tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

In his defense, Gonzalez denied the charges against him and instead,

claimed that on February 23, 2012, at around 3:00 a.m., he was just at their
house in No. 75 Tamaraw Hills Street. He was about to go to sleep when four

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

male persons arrived and arrested him. The men then tied his hands with his
wife's brassiere, and thereafter, showed him a sachet of shabu and took the
knife that was on top of the table. They then dragged him down from their
house, bringing with them his child, while he shouted for someone to call his
mother. Many of his neighbors who heard or were awakened by his shouts and
the crying of his child came out of their houses and saw his arrest. At the
ground floor, he was photographed with the knife placed on the top of a small
table. Thereafter, the arresting persons boarded him on a vehicle. They drove
around Ugong for thirty minutes, fetched Senior Police Officer 3 Ronald C.
Sanchez at his office at the third floor of the city hall, and then proceeded to the
Manilas Barangay Hall to wait for the barangay kagawad. When the kagawad
arrived, he just signed a paper about the seized evidence. Gonzalez was then
brought to Camp Crame for drug testing, and afterwards to the detention cell at
the new city hall.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Gonzalez' conviction for violation of Section 261 (q) of the
OEC, as amended by Section 32 of RA 7166, should be upheld.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

RULING:

The petition is meritorious.

It must be emphasized that the constitutional right to be presumed

innocent until proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable
doubt, that is, that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind. Hence, where the court entertains a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of
the accused, it is not only the right of the accused to be freed; it is the court's
constitutional duty to acquit them.

In order to secure a conviction of an accused based on these provisions, the

prosecution must prove that: (a) the person is bearing, carrying, or transporting
firearms or other deadly weapons; (b) such possession occurs during the
election period; and (c) the weapon is carried in a public place. Notably, it is
essential that possession of the deadly weapon in a public place be established
beyond reasonable doubt. In his petition, Gonzalez prayed for his acquittal in
view of the serious doubts on the prosecution's evidence. Particularly, he claims

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

that PO1 Congson's narration of events was uncorroborated and in fact

contradicted by the physical evidence submitted in court, as well as by the
testimonies of his witnesses, corroborating his version of the events, which
thereby puts into question PO1 Congson's credibility.

The Court agrees, as the prosecution failed to dispel all reasonable doubts
surrounding Gonzalez' arrest.

In particular, the prosecution failed to establish its allegation that,

immediately before and at the time of his arrest, Gonzalez was holding a knife
in a public place - the critical elements of the crime of violation of Section 261
(p) (q) of the OEC, as amended by Section 32 of RA 7166. Records show that
aside from the testimony of PO1 Congson, the prosecution did not present any
other evidence that would corroborate his version leading to Gonzalez' arrest.
PO1 Congson claimed that at around 4:00 a.m., he and the other police officers
saw Gonzalez holding a fan knife in his right hand as he was walking out of an
alley where they eventually arrested him after a chase. Gonzalez, on the other
hand, presented three (3) witnesses - neighbors who lived below and across his
house where he was arrested and who were there at the time of his arrest. All

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

these witnesses corroborated Gonzalez' version, particularly on five (5) critical

points, namely: (a) Gonzalez and his child were brought downstairs from his
house located at the second floor by the arresting persons; (b) his hands were
tied behind his back as he was being dragged downstairs; (c) his photograph
was taken soon after the arrest took place at around 3:00 a.m.; and (d) there
were a total of four (4) male persons who conducted the arrest. One of the
witnesses even confirmed that Gonzalez' hands were tied by a brassiere. In
other words, all three (3) witnesses rendered more credible the defense's claim
that Gonzalez was arrested at his home; at the very least, their testimonies
rendered doubtful the prosecution's claim that police officers arrested Gonzalez
on the street in the regular performance of their duties. Unfortunately, the RTC
simply brushed these aside, thus leading to the erroneous conclusion that "no
one actually saw the factual circumstances immediately preceding his arrest."

Moreover, while the information and the physical evidence presented before

the lower court both revealed a kitchen knife, PO1 Congson categorically
testified that he saw a fan knife. A fan knife, locally known as "balisong" or
"Batangas", is a folding pocket knife with two handles counter-rotating around
the tang so that, when the knife is closed, the blade resides concealed inside

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

the grooved handles. In contrast, a kitchen knife has one handle that does not
fold, with its blade clearly visible. Obviously, a fan knife is far from being the
same as a kitchen knife. To the Court's mind, there is doubt as to whether PO1
Congson had actually seen Gonzalez come out of an alley holding a fan knife.

Given the difference in the prosecution and defense's versions of Gonzalez'

arrest, including the variance regarding the physical evidence presented in
court, it behooved the lower court to examine and calibrate more carefully the
evidence presented by both sides. As it was, the defense's evidence weighed
more than the prosecution's evidence. At the very least, their evidence were
evenly balanced such that the appreciation of such evidence called for the
tilting of the scales in favor of Gonzalez. After all, the burden is on the
prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE

CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND IT CANNOT BY
ITSELF CONSTITUTE PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT. THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IS JUST A MERE 1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

People of the Philippines v. Gerald Arvin Elinto Ramirez

& Belinda Galienba Lachica
G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018
Martires, J.

FACTS:
Lachica and Ramirez were charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
259, Parañaque City, in Criminal Case No. 08-1386 for violation of Section 5, in
relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
During arraignment, Lachica and Ramirez, assisted by counsel, pleaded not
guilty. Pre-trial and trial on the merits followed.
The prosecution's evidence can be summarized as follows:

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

On 30 October 2008, at around 3:00 P.M., a confidential informant went to

the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Metro Manila Regional Office and
reported that a certain "Linda" was engaged in illegal drug activity in Parañaque
City and in Pasay City. Acting on this information, Intelligence Officer 1
Johnrico Magdurulang, the leader of Team Delta, instructed the informant to
call this person so that they could meet. The informant then called Linda and
made arrangements for them to meet in the afternoon of the following day at SM
Bicutan in Parañaque City.
Immediately thereafter, IO1 Magdurulang organized his team composed of
seven members, among whom was IO1 Marjuvel Bautista to act as the poseur-
buyer. IO1 Bautista was given the boodle money consisting of two genuine pre-
dusted P500.00 bills placed inside a white envelope. The necessary buy-bust
documents were likewise prepared before the operation.
The following day or on 31 October 2008, the buy-bust team, along with the
confidential informant, proceeded to the target area. IO1 Bautista and the
informant waited inside a green Mitsubishi Adventure vehicle, while the rest of
the team were strategically positioned around the parking lot. At about
5:00P.M., the informant called Linda who replied that she was on her way.
Almost half an hour later, two (2) persons started to approach their vehicle. IO1

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

Bautista verified with the confidential informant who these people were; the
latter confirmed that one of them was Linda.
After a brief chat with the confidential informant, Linda was introduced to
IO1 Bautista, the prospective buyer. Linda then asked for the payment but IO1
Bautista told her that he needed to see the items first. Linda complied and went
inside the vehicle together with her male companion. IO1 Bautista then showed
Linda the buy-bust money, so Linda instructed her male companion to hand
the shabu to IO1 Bautista. Linda's companion gave IO1 Bautista a cigarette
pack which, when examined by IO1 Bautista, contained two heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing crystalline substances. Suspecting that
the sachets contained shabu, IO1 Bautista gave the buy-bust money to Linda to
consummate the transaction, while he tapped the confidential informant to give
the pre-arranged signal. The informant then turned on the hazard lights as
signal to their backup.
The rest of the buy-bust team quickly arrived and arrested Linda and her
male companion. They identified themselves as PDEA agents and apprised them
of their constitutional rights. After the arrest, they all proceeded to Barangay
Pinyahan in Quezon City, where the physical inventory and the taking of
photographs of the seized items were done before Barangay Kagawad Melinda Z.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

Gaffud. At the barangay hall, the buy-bust team learned that Linda's last name
was Lachica and that her male companion was Ramirez.
Lachica and Ramirez were then brought to the PDEA along with the seized
drugs and the inventory documents. After IO1 Magdurulang prepared the
request for laboratory examination, IO1 Bautista brought the seized drugs to
the PDEA laboratory. The chemistry report shows that the two heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets contained 3.9632 grams and 4.4596 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
As to their defense, Lachica and Ramirez denied the prosecution's version
and claimed that the PDEA operatives made a mistake in arresting them. In his
judicial affidavit, Ramirez alleged that they were going to the parking lot coming
from the mall when one of the operatives asked them if Lachica was one Linda
from Taguig City. He replied that Lachica's name was actually Belinda and that
they were from Laguna. This PDEA agent then walked away toward his
companions but returned to ask for "the keys of a Mitsubishi Pajero." Ramirez
said, "Boss, mali po kayo ng taong kinakausap. Hindi ko po alam kung ano yung
sinasabi ninyo." This did not sit well with the PDEA operatives so they forced
Lachica and Ramirez to enter the car.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

While inside the car, the PDEA operatives asked Lachica and Ramirez about
a certain "Bakla" who was a known drug dealer in Parañaque City. Ramirez
pleaded that they be set free because they did not know this person.
Nevertheless, they were brought to Quezon City and there detained.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Lachica and Ramirez are guilty as charged.

RULING:
The Court reversed a conviction for these reasons: (1) there was a patent
disregard of the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; (2) there
were gaps in the chain of custody over the seized drugs; and (3) the lack of a
valid excuse for noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The presence
of these circumstances quantify as reasonable doubt involving the most
important element in drug—related cases—the existence of the dangerous drug
itself.
It is of prime importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be
established beyond reasonable doubt, and that it must be proven that the item
seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in evidence. As

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

the drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, its preservation
is essential to sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.  Thus, like
any other element of a crime or offense, the corpus delicti must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
Under these circumstances, the court cannot apply the presumption of
regularity of performance of official duty. The presumption may only arise when
there is a showing that the apprehending officer/team followed the
requirements of Section 21 or when the saving clause found in the IRR is
successfully triggered. Judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by
the agents of the law is fundamentally unsound because the lapses themselves
are affirmative proofs of irregularity.
More importantly, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the
constitutional presumption of innocence and it cannot by itself constitute proof
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is just a mere
presumption disputable by contrary proof. Without the presumption of
regularity, the testimonies of the police witnesses must stand on their own
merits and the defense cannot be hurdled having to dispute these testimonies.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

IN ANY CASE, THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY CANNOT BE

STRONGER THAN THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF
THE ACCUSED. OTHERWISE, A MERE RULE OF EVIDENCE WILL
DEFEAT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENSHRINED RIGHT TO BE
PRESUMED INNOCENT.
People of the Philippines v. Richael Luna y Torsilino
G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018
Caguioa, J.

FACTS:
Accused Richael Luna y Torsilino was convicted for violation of Section 5
and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, In arguing for his acquittal, accused
contends that the failure to comply with the Chain of Custody Rule, without
any justifiable reason, calls for his acquittal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure to comply with the Chain of Custody Rule,
without any justifiable reason, calls of the acquittal of accused.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

RULING:
Yes, failure to comply with the Chain of Custody rule, without any
justifiable reason, warrants the acquittal of accused.
Based on the circumstances of the present appeal, however, the saving
clause was not triggered because the first prong was not satisfied - the
prosecution did not offer any justifiable grounds for the noncompliance. No
explanation was proffered as to why none of the insulating witnesses was
present at the place and time of the seizure, or as to the failure to photograph
the drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of such witnesses. There
was likewise no showing of any efforts exerted by the police officers to at least
coordinate with witnesses ahead of the buy-bust operation. In fact, only two out
of the three required witnesses under Section 21 were eventually summoned to
affix their signature on the pre-accomplished Inventory of Confiscated Evidence.
Likewise, as already mentioned above, there was no apparent reason to defer
the photographing of the corpus delicti immediately after seizure because the
buy-bust team was able to perform an inventory at the scene.
In this case, the non-compliance with Section 21 without the triggering of
the saving clause is a showing of irregularity that effectively rebuts the

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

presumption. As previously ruled in People v. Enriquez, any divergence from the

prescribed procedure, when left unjustified, is "an irregularity, a red flag that
casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti.
Verily, the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty
stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the
regularity of the performance of official duty. Applied to dangerous drugs cases,
the prosecution cannot rely on the presumption when there is a showing that
the apprehending officers failed to comply with the requirements laid down in
Section 21. And, in any case, the presumption of regularity cannot be stronger
than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere
rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed
innocent.
All things considered, the evidence, appreciated in its totality,
unequivocally points to an acquittal. Firstly, there were patent breaches of the
mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Secondly, the
prosecution utterly failed to trigger the saving clause as they did not present
justifiable grounds for such non-compliance. Case law has decreed that the
procedure enshrined in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be
brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. This being so, considering
that the State left the lapses of the police officers unacknowledged and
unexplained, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised, thereby creating reasonable doubt as to the guilt of accused-
appellant Luna for the crimes charged. Hence, his acquittal must follow without
delay.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL

PROVEN GUILTY IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT. THE
BURDEN LIES WITH THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT BY ESTABLISHING EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT
OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION AS TO WARRANT A
FINDING OF GUILT FOR THAT CRIME OR FOR ANY OTHER CRIME
NECESSARILY INCLUDED THEREIN.

People of the Philippines v. Narciso Supat y Radoc Alias “Isoy”

G.R. No. 217027, June 6, 2018
Caguioa, J.

FACTS:

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

Narciso was charged in two separate Informations dated October 24, 2005,
before the RTC, docketed as Crim. Case Nos. 5434-SPL and 5435-SPL. In Crim.
Case No. 5434-SPL, Narciso was charged with the crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the accusatory portion of the Information reading as
follows:That on or about October 8, 2005, in the Municipality of San Pedro,
Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court the said accused without any legal authority, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, pass and deliver to a police poseur-buyer in
consideration of one piece one hundred peso bill, one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as
"shabu", a dangerous drug, weighing zero point zero three (0.03) gram.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Narciso's guilt for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165,
was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

The Court resolved to acquit Narciso as the prosecution utterly failed to

prove that the buy-bust team complied with the mandatory requirements of
Section 21 of RA 9165 and to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the
seized drugs.
In this case, Narciso was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of RA 9165. To sustain a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs the following elements must be established: (a) the accused was in
possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such
possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug. On the other hand, for a successful
prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of drugs, the following elements must
be proven: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and the seller were
identified.
In both cases, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of
conviction. It is essential, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized
drugs be established with moral certainty. The prosecution must prove, beyond

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

reasonable doubt, that the substance seized from the accused is exactly the
same substance offered in court as proof of the crime. Each link to the chain of
custody must be accounted for.
This resonates even more in buy-bust operations because "by the very
nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the
use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana
or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting
provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the
possibility of abuse is great."
In this regard, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 lays down the procedures
that the buy-bust team must strictly follow to preserve the identity and integrity
of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia.
All the above requirements must be strictly complied with for a successful
prosecution of the crimes of illegal sale and/or illegal possession of dangerous
drugs under RA 9165. To be sure, case law states that the procedure enshrined
in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot
be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an
impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. For indeed, however noble
the purpose or necessary the exigencies of the campaign against illegal drugs

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE

may be, it is still a governmental action that must always be executed within
the boundaries of law.
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a
constitutionally protected right. The burden lies with the prosecution to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by establishing each and every element of the
crime charged in the information as to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime
or for any other crime necessarily included therein.

1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE GUIDE