36. PLDT v. Pingol, No. 182622 September 8, 2010 129 of the Revised Rules of Court.

evised Rules of Court. According to petitioner, respondent has

never contradicted his admission under oath. On the basis of said
FACTS: declaration, petitioner posits that the LA was correct in finding that
Pingol’s complaint for illegal dismissal was filed beyond the
1. 1979: respondent Roberto R. Pingol was hired by petitioner PLDT as a
prescriptive period of four (4) years from the date of dismissal
maintenance technician. pursuant to Article 1146 of the New Civil Code.
2. April 13, 1999: Pingol was admitted at The Medical City, Mandaluyong
City, for "paranoid personality disorder" due to financial and marital
In his Comment, respondent Pingol counters that petitioner PLDT could not
problems. have sent those notices with warning as that claim "has never been
May 14, 1999: was discharged from the hospital. Thereafter, he reported for supported by sufficient proof not only before the Labor Arbiter but likewise
work but frequently absented himself due to his poor mental condition. before the Court of
3. From September 16, 1999 to December 31, 1999, Pingol was absent from Appeals."http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_182622_2010.h
work without official leave. According to PLDT, notices were sent to him with tml - fnt15 He further alleges that his dismissal is likewise unsupported by
any evidence. He insists that both the NLRC and the CA correctly stated that
a stern warning that he would be dismissed from employment if he continued
his cause of action has not yet prescribed as he was not formally dismissed
to be absent without official leave. on January 1, 2000 or his monetary claims categorically denied by petitioner.
4. Despite the warning, he failed to show up for work. On January 1, 2000,
PLDT terminated his services on the grounds of unauthorized absences and
Issue: WON the declaration made by Pinggol constitutes as judicial
abandonment of office. admission and thus is conclusive as to his date of dismissal.
5. On March 29, 2004, four years later, Pingol filed a Complaint for
Constructive Dismissal and Monetary Claims against PLDT. In his complaint, Ruling: YES.
he alleged that he was hastily dismissed from his employment on January 1,
2000. In response, PLDT filed a motion to dismiss claiming, among others, The pivotal question in resolving the issues is the date when the cause of
that respondent’s cause of action had already prescribed as the complaint action of respondent Pingol accrued.
was filed four (4) years and three (3) months after his dismissal.
6. Pingol, however, countered that in computing the prescriptive period, the The Court agrees with petitioner PLDT. Judicial admissions made by
years 2001 to 2003 must not be taken into account. He explained that from parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other
2001 to 2003, he was inquiring from PLDT about the financial benefits due proceedings in the same case are conclusive and so does not require
him as an employee who was no longer allowed to do his work, but he further evidence to prove them. These admissions cannot be
merely got empty promises. It could not, therefore, result in abandonment of contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
his claim.
6. LABOR ARBITER: granted motion to dismiss on ground of prescription.
7. NLRC: Reversed. Remanded to LA. MR denied. In the case at bench, Pingol himself alleged the date January 1, 2000 as the
date of his dismissal in his complaint filed on March 29, 2004, exactly four
8. CA: Affirmed NLRC ruling. MR denied.
(4) years and three (3) months later. Respondent never denied making such
9. MAIN CONTENTIONS (these were mentioned in the Issue part of the admission or raised palpable mistake as the reason therefor. Thus, the
case. Not in facts.) petitioner correctly relied on such allegation in the complaint to move for the
dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription.
Petitioner PLDT argues that the declaration under oath made by
respondent Pingol in his complaint before the LA stating January 1, The Labor Code has no specific provision on when a claim for illegal
2000 as the date of his dismissal, should have been treated by the dismissal or a monetary claim accrues. Thus, the general law on prescription
NLRC and the CA as a judicial admission pursuant to Section 4, Rule applies. Article 1150 of the Civil Code states:
Article 1150. The time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when there is
no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day
they may be brought. (Emphasis supplied)

The day the action may be brought is the day a claim starts as a legal
possibility. In the present case, January 1, 2000 was the date that
respondent Pingol was not allowed to perform his usual and regular job as a
maintenance technician. Respondent Pingol cited the same date of dismissal
in his complaint before the LA. As, thus, correctly ruled by the LA, the
complaint filed had already prescribed.

On the claimed follow-ups: In this case, respondent Pingol never made any
written  extrajudicial demand. Neither did petitioner make any written
acknowledgment of its alleged obligation. Thus, the claimed "follow-ups"
could not have validly tolled the running of the prescriptive period. It is
worthy to note that respondent never presented any proof to substantiate his
allegation of follow-ups.

Unfortunately, respondent Pingol has no one but himself to blame for his
own predicament. By his own allegations in his complaint, he has barred his
remedy and extinguished his right of action. Although the Constitution is
committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working
class, it does not necessary follow that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. The management also has its own
rights. Out of Its concern for the less privileged in life, this Court, has more
often than not inclined, to uphold the cause of the worker in his conflict with
the employer. Such leaning, however, does not blind the Court to the rule
that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of
the established facts and applicable law and doctrine.
 37. Josefa vs. Meralco, G.R. No. 182705, July 18, 2014 when the accident occurred since Josefa did not specifically deny this
material allegation in the amended complaint. It likewise noted that the
sheriff's return stated that Bautista was under Josefa's employ until 1993.
FACTS:

The CA concluded that the fact that the truck hit the electricity post was
At around 1:45 p.m. on April 21, 1991, a dump truck, a jeepney and a car
sufficient to hold Josefa vicariously liable regardless of whether Bautista was
figured in a vehicular accident along Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City.  As a result
negligent in driving the truck. In the same breath, the CA also stated that the
of the accident, a 45-foot wooden electricity post, three 75 KVA
employer's presumptive liability in quasi-delicts was anchored on injuries
transformers, and other electrical line attachments were damaged. Upon
caused by the employee's negligence. It further ruled that Josefa failed to
investigation, respondent Manila Electric Company (Meralco) discovered
rebut the presumption that he negligently selected and supervised Bautista
that it was the truck with plate number PAK-874 and registered in Josefa's
in employment since he did not present his evidence-in-chief during trial.
name that hit the electricity post. Meralco demanded from Josefa
Even assuming that Bautista was not Josefa's employee, the CA maintained
reimbursement for the replacement cost of the electricity post and its
that Josefa would still be liable for damages since the law presumes that the
attachments, but Josefa refused to pay. Thus, on September 28, 1993,
registered owner has control of his vehicle and its driver at the time of the
Meralco sued Josefa and Pablo Manoco, the truck driver, for damages
accident. It thus ordered Josefa to pay Meralco: (1) P384,846.00 as actual
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.
damages; (2) P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; (3) P10,000.00 as expenses of
litigation; and (4) double the costs of the suit.
The RTC Ruling

Josefa filed the present petition after the CA denied his motion for
In a decision dated April 10, 2006, the RTC dismissed the complaint for
reconsideration.
insufficiency of evidence. The RTC held that Meralco failed to establish that
it was the truck that hit the electricity post. The RTC ruled that SPO2
The Petition
Galang's account of the accident was merely hearsay since he did not
personally witness the incident. It also did not give probative value to the
Josefa argues that the CA gravely erred in reversing the RTC's factual
police blotter entry dated January 7, 1994 since the accident had long
findings. He insists that the finding that it was the truck that hit the electricity
occurred in 1991. The RTC likewise denied Meralco's claim for actual
post lacks evidentiary support. Furthermore, Meralco failed to substantiate
damages for lack of evidentiary support.[30]
its claim for actual damages by competent testimonial and documentary
evidence. Josefa likewise asserts that Meralco is not entitled to attorney's
The CA Ruling
fees since it also contributed to the delay in the proceedings. He points out
that Meralco sought for postponements of hearings during trial and failed to
The CA reversed the RTC ruling and held that the RTC erred in disregarding
assist the sheriff in serving the summons to Bautista.[33]
the parties' stipulation at the pre-trial that it was the truck that hit the
electricity post. The CA also found that Bautista was Josefa's employee
The Issues
 element, the negligent act or omission must be the proximate cause of the
This case presents to us the following issues: injury.

(1) Whether the truck with plate number PAK-874 hit the electricity post; Contrary to the CA's finding, the parties did not stipulate that the truck hit the
electricity post. The pre-trial order shows that the parties merely agreed that
(2) Whether Bautista exercised due diligence in driving when the truck hit the the truck "was involved in an accident on April 21, 1991 at around 1:45
electricity post; o'clock in the afternoon along Ortigas Avenue, Rosario, Pasig City."  The
parties in fact posed the issue of whether the truck rammed the electricity
(3) Whether Josefa is vicariously liable for Bautista's negligence under post as one of the factual questions to be resolved by the trial court during
paragraph 5, Article 2180 of the Civil Code; the pre-trial conference.[38]
(a)  Whether there is an employer-employee relationship between Bautista
and Josefa; We also agree with Josefa that Fernandez and SPO2 Galang's testimonies
regarding the truck hitting the electricity post are hearsay and should not be
(b) Whether Josefa exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the given credence. Fernandez and SPO2 Galang merely testified and conveyed
selection and supervision of Bautista; and to the court matters only narrated to them by other people who were not
presented in court. Hearsay evidence has no probative value because it is
(4) Whether Meralco is entitled to actual damages, attorney's fees, and merely the witness' recitation of what someone else has told him, whether
expenses of litigation. orally or in writing. A witness can testify only to those facts which are derived
from his own perception.[39]
Our Ruling
Nonetheless, Meralco has sufficiently established the direct causal link
We partially affirm the CA's ruling. between the truck and the electricity post through Abio's testimony. Abio
categorically stated during trial that he saw the truck hit the electricity post.
1. YES. The truck hit the electricity post We find his first-hand account of the incident during the direct-examination
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or frank and straightforward. More importantly, Josefa failed to impeach the
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. This fault or negligence, veracity of Abio's testimony during the cross-examination. Abio even
if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called reiterated that it was Josefa's truck that rammed the electricity post.[40] We
quasi-delict.[36] Thus, for a quasi-delict case to prosper, the complainant thus give full faith and credence to his positive, unrebutted, and categorical
must establish: (1) damages to the complainant; (2) negligence, by act or declaration on the witness stand, made under solemn oath, that it was the
omission, of the defendant or by some person for whose acts the defendant truck that caused damage to Meralco's property.
must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of cause and effect
between such negligence and the damages.[37] With respect to the third 2. NO. There is a finding of fault against Bautista for the doctrine of Res
Ipsa Loquitur
Contrary to the CA's opinion, the finding that it was the truck that hit the must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of
electricity post would not immediately result in Josefa's liability. It is a basic the person injured.
rule that it is essentially the wrongful or negligent act or omission that
creates the vinculum juris in extra-contractual obligations. In turn, the
employee's negligence established to be the proximate cause of the damage 3. YES. Josefa is vicariously liable under paragraph 5, Article 2180 of
would give rise to the disputable presumption that the employer did not the Civil Code
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of the erring employee. A. YES. There is an employer-employee relations between
Bautista and Josefa
Nonetheless, in some cases where negligence is difficult to prove, the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence on the Josefa cannot evade his responsibility by mere denial of his employment
part of the defendant or some other person who is charged with relations with Bautista in the absence of proof that his truck was used
negligence where the thing or transaction speaks for itself.[48] This without authorization or that it was stolen when the accident occurred.[53] In
doctrine postulates that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience quasi-delict cases, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is the employer of
and in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged its driver in contemplation of law.[54] The registered owner of any vehicle,
with negligence, the very nature of occurrences may justify an inference of even if not used for public service, would primarily be responsible to the
negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing public or to third persons for injuries caused while the vehicle was being
the injury. In other words, res ipsa loquitur is grounded on the superior logic driven on highways or streets. The purpose of motor vehicle registration is
of ordinary human experience that negligence may be deduced from the precisely to identify the owner so that if any injury is caused by the vehicle,
mere occurrence of the accident itself.[49] responsibility can be imputed to the registered owner.[55]

The procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur in quasi-delict cases is that B. Josefa failed to show that he exercised the diligence of a good
the defendant's negligence is presumed. In other words, the burden of father of a family in the selection and supervision of Bautista
evidence shifts to the defendant to prove that he did not act with
negligence.[50] This doctrine thus effectively furnishes a bridge by which Josefa should show by competent object or documentary evidence that he
the complainant, without knowledge of the cause of the injury, reaches over examined Bautista as to the latter's qualifications, experience and service
to the defendant, who knows or should know the cause, for any explanation records prior to employment.  He should likewise prove by competent object
of care exercised by him to prevent the injury.[51] For this doctrine to apply, or documentary evidence that he formulated standard operating procedures,
the complainant must show that: (1) the accident is of such character as to monitored their implementation and imposed disciplinary measures for
warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the breach of these procedures.[56] However, Josefa failed to overcome the
defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an presumption of negligence against him since he waived his right to present
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the evidence during trial.
person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident
IV. Meralco is only entitled to temperate damages with interest at legal The CA likewise erred in awarding Meralco attorney's fees and expenses of
rate litigation without explaining its basis. In Buan v. Camaganacan,[62]  we held
that the text of the decision should state the reason why attorney's fees are
A. Meralco failed to prove its entitlement to actual damages being awarded; otherwise, the award should be disallowed. Besides, no bad
faith has been imputed to Josefa that would warrant the award of attorney's
Actual damages cannot be presumed; they must be pleaded and proven in fees under Article 2208 (5) of the Civil Code. It is a settled rule that
court in order to be recoverable. One is entitled to an adequate attorney's fees shall not be recovered as cost where the party's persistence
compensation only for the pecuniary loss that he has adequately proved in litigation is based on his mistaken belief in the righteousness of his cause.
based upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by him.
[59] We cannot give weight to Exhibit "D" as to the amount of actual D. The award of temperate damages is subject to 6% per annum
damages for being hearsay. Exhibit "D" constitutes hearsay evidence since it reckoned from the promulgation of the decision until fully paid
was derived on alleged pieces of documentary evidence that were not
identified and authenticated in court during trial. The trial court thus erred in DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, premises considered,
even admitting Exhibit "D" in evidence whose contents were offered without we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. The January 31, 2008 decision and the
any other competent evidence to corroborate them. Consequently, we delete April 29, 2008 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 87512
the CA's award of actual damages for lack of evidentiary support. is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Vicente Josefa is ordered to
pay respondent Manila Electric Company the amount of P200,000.00 as
B. Meralco is entitled to temperate damages because it clearly temperate damages with legal interest at 6% per annum from the
suffered pecuniary loss as a result of Bautista and Josefa’s promulgation of this decision until full payment has been effected. Costs
negligence against petitioner Vicente Josefa. SO ORDERED.

Nonetheless, Meralco is entitled to temperate damages because there is no

doubt that it suffered pecuniary loss as a result of Bautista and Josefa's
negligence.[60] When the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with
certainty, the court may award temperate damages in the exercise of its
sound discretion.[61] Considering the attendant circumstances of this case,
we find the amount of P200,000.00 to be a fair and sufficient award by way
of temperate damages.

C. Meralco is not entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses of

litigation
 boxed Salcedo in different parts of his head, while some shouted
“Iyan, Cory iyan. Patayin!”
- Salcedo managed to get away and then tried to flee towards the
V. Real and Demonstrative Evidence Rizal Monument but some of the loyalists still pursued Salcedo, and
Rule 130; Sec. 1; Sec. 2; Read Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, Regalado mauled him in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life, but was
annotations ignored as the mauling continued until Salcedo collapsed and lost
consciousness. Sumilang brough Salcedo to PGH but Salcedo was
dead upon arrival.
Cases:
- Such incident caught national and international attention, and Pres.
Aquino put up a reward to apprehend the people responsible, which
38. Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58 (1995) were subsequently found to be the petitioners in this case.
- Prosecution presented Banculo and Sumilang as their
FACTS eyewitnesses, as well as police officers who were in Luneta.
- Several informations were filed in court against eleven persons Prosecution also presented documentary evidence consisting
identified as Marcos loyalists, charging them with the murder of of newspaper accounts and photographs
Stephen Salcedo. - Petitioners offered their respective alibis:
- The prosecution established that on July 27, 1986, a rally was o Tamayo  in his house in QC and was not
scheduled to be held at Luneta by Marcos loyalists. Despite the
photographed
denial of their permit to rally, 3000 of them gathered at the Rizal
o Neri  in Luneta Theater, was not photographed
Monument. Led by Lozano and Nuega, both lawyers, the loyalists
o Sison  in his office in Luneta, waiting for his professional
started singing contests, recited prayers and delivered speeches.
photos to develop; he also claimed he had hernia that
- The police asked the rallyists to disperse as they did not have a
prevented him from running
permit. Atty. Lozano then instructed the Marcos loyalists by saying
o De los Santos, Pacadar and Tan  they were at
“Gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators!”. The police then
Luneta, but denied hitting Salcedo
pushed the crowd and used tear gas to disperse them. Eventually,
the crowd fled to Maria Orosa Street.
RTC Ruling: petitioners are guilty as principals in the crime of murder
- Then, a small group of loyalists saw Annie Ferrer, a famous movie
qualified by treachery, while the other 5 accused was acquitted for failure to
starlet and Marcos supporter. Upon informing her of their dispersal,
prove guilt.
she angrily ordered “Gulpihin lahat ng Cory hecklers!”. She
continued jogging while chanting “Marcos pa rin! Bugbugin ang
CA Ruling: increased the penalty of all the accused to reclusion perpetua,
mga nakadilaw!”. She was then arrested. This aggrieved the
except Tamayo. Hence, this automatic review to the Supreme Court.
loyalists and started attacking persons in yellow. They then saw a
Petitioners also filed a Rule 45 pet. for review inasmuch as Tamayo was not
man wearing a yellow shirt, which the loyalists chased. This man
sentenced to reclusion perpetua too.
was Salcedo. When they caught up with Salcedo, they boxed,
kicked and mauled him. Banculo, a cigarette vendor, saw the
- Petitioners argue that the testimonies of Banculo and Sumlang
loyalists attacking Salcedo.
was suspect as they only surfaced after a reward was
- Ranulfo Sumilang rushed to Salcedo’s aid, and showed a “Marcos
announced. Also, Banculo mistakenly identified a detention
loyalist” tag to the loyalists and they backed off for a while. Although
prisoner in another case to be one of the accused in this case.
Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from the group, they still
 Meanwhile, Sumilang was evasive and unresponsive, wanted to impeach this affidavit, they should have placed the police
prompting the trial court to reprimand him. officers on the witness stand.
- Petitioners also argue that CA erronously gave weight to the
Joint Affidavit of the police intelligence-operative who - Third, it is a rule that photographs, when presented in evidence,
witnessed the rally. Also, the photographs of the victim must be identified by the photographer as to tis production
Salcedo, and the local newspapers and magazines should not and testified as to the circumstances under which they were
have been admitted for lack of proper identification by the produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a
person or persons who took the same. correct representation or reproduction of the original, and its
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene
ISSUE WON the RTC erred in sustaining the testimonies of the at the time of the crime.
eyewitnesses, and giving weight to the joint affidavit of the police and the - It is worthy to note that although the counsel for some of the
photographs petitioners objected to the photograph’s admissibility, these
photographs were adopted by the counsel of Tamayo and Neri
HELD: NO! as part of their defense exhibits. Prosecution also used such
- First, there is no proof that Banculo or Sumilang testified because photographs to cross-examine all the accused and their
of the reward. On the contrary, Sumilang reported the incident and counsel did not object.
submitted his sworn statement immediately 2 hours after the - Such use of the photographs by some of the accused to show
incident. He already expressed his willingness to cooperate with the their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of
police. Although Sumilang was admonished by the court for the exactness and accuracy thereof. Also, de los Santos,
being argumentative and evasive, this is not enough reason to Pacadar and Tan identified themselves in the photographs and
reject his testimony for he did not exhibit this conduct all gave reasons for their presence in the rally. By doing such, the
throughout his testimony. There were only instances of accused affirms that the photographs are faithful representation of
evasiveness, but his testimony was correctly given credence. Also, the incident.
the trial court’s calibration of the credibility of witnesses should not - The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can
be disturbed as they can best appreciate the demeanor, as well as identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the
photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can
the verbal and non-verbal dimensions of the witnesses’ testimony.
be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who
- Also, Banculo’s mistake in identifying another person as accused made it or by other competent witnesses, after which the court can
does not make him entirely untrustworthy. An honest mistake is admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs,
not inconsistent with a truthful testimony. Perfect testimonies therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other
cannot be expected from persons with imperfect senses. competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
- Witnesses’ testimonies all corroborate each other on all important - According to the photographs, only de los Santos, Pacadar and Tan
and relevant details of the incident. Their positive identification of were photographed in various belligerent poses. Sison appears
the petitioners jive with each other and their narration of the events only once, and is shown merely running after Salcedo despite his
are supported by medical and documentary evidence on record. hernia. Tamayo and Neri was not in any of the pictures. However,
such absence will not exculpate them as the photographs did not
- Second, the joint affidavit was correctly given weight, as its capture the entire sequence of the killing. While the pictures did not
contents were also corroborated. Besides, such affidavit merely record Sison and Tamayo hitting Salcedo, they were unequivocally
reiterates what the other witneesses testified to. If petitioners identified by Banculo and Sumilang. Petitioner’s denials and alibis
cannot overcome their eyeball identification.
Other Ruling by the SC:
- No treachery in this case as there is no proof that the attach was
deliberately and consciousy chosen to ensure the assailants’ safety
from any defense by the victim.
- No evident premefiation as the attach against Salcedo was sudden
and spontaneous.
- However, there is conspiracy as the loyalists impliedly showed a
unity of purpose among them to bring death to Salcedo.

CA affirmed. Sison, Pacadar, Tan and De los Santos are punished with
reclusion perpetua. Tamayo is sentenced prision mayot ro reclusion
temporal. Damages must also be paid to the heirs of Stephen Salcedo.
 6. The sachets were then submitted for laboratory examination, which
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
7. The results were given to PO2 Villas, who turned over the same to
PO3 Del Mundo.
Pieces of evidence:
39. People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010 1. The specimens of shabu
2. Testimonies of:
FACTS a. PO3 Balmes
• Prosecution’s version: b. PO2 Villas
• Batangas City police received a report from a confidential informant c. PO1 Delos Reyes
that Aldrin Berdadero y Armamento was selling shabu. d. PO3 Del Mundo
• PO3 Danilo Balmes and PO2 Edwalberto Villas organized a buy-bust e. Insp. Donna Huelgas (inspector who found the specimens as
operation and designated the informant as the poseur-buyer, positive for shabu)
• The police officers and the informant went to the target area via a
van. The informant then talked to Berdadero, who then went inside his • Defense’s version:
house and subsequently returned with 2 plastic sachets containing white • PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas came to Berdadero’s house and
crystalline substance. introduced themselves as locksmiths. His mother allowed them to enter
• After exchanging the marked money for the plastic sachets, the and showed them the defective keys.
informant gave the pre-arranged signal to the police, signifying that the • After a while, the men left, but they returned 10 minutes later, kicked
sale was consummated. the door open and handcuffed Berdadero. He asked why he was being
• The police officers who were observing the transaction from inside arrested but no explanation was forthcoming. He was instead brought to
the van apprehended Berdadero. the police station.
Chain of custody: • Berdadero denied that illicit drugs were recovered from him.
1. The informant turned over the plastic sachets to PO3 Balmes. RTC:
2. Upon arrival of the police officers at the police station, PO3 Balmes • Berdadero was found guilty.
placed markings on the plastic sachets (first sachet: “DFB-1” with CA:
the date 3-25-03; second sachet: “DFB-2” with the same date). • Affirmed the RTC.
3. The specimens were turned over to PO1 Arnold Delos Reyes (a • Berdadero appealed before the Supreme Court.
desk officer at the police station), who entered the arrest in the Arguments:
police blotter, prepared the complaint sheet, and referred the 1. The specimens are inadmissible for failure to comply with
evidence to the Investigation Division. the chain of custody requirement under Sec. 21 of RA 9165
4. PO1 Delos Reyes gave the evidence to PO3 Sergio del Mundo, (prosecution failed to show that the police officers
who then prepared a letter request for laboratory tests on the conducted the required physical inventory and photograph
specimens. of the evidence).
(A/N: It wasn’t shown how the evidence was given by PO3 Del Mundo to 2. PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas had no authority to conduct the buy-
PO2 Villas.) bust operation, as provided for in Sec. 86 of RA 9165 which
5. PO2 Villas then brought the specimens and the letter request to the states that it is the PDEA which has authority to conduct such
crime laboratory. operations.
3. Prosecution failed to present the poseur-buyer.
ISSUES
1. WON the specimens are admissible?
2. WON PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas had authority to conduct the buy-bust
operation?
3. WON the poseur-buyer should have been presented during trial?

HELD:
1. YES! The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers
conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the
evidence confiscated pursuant to RA 9165 and its IRR, is not fatal.
Indeed, the IRR state that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizure of and custody over said items. Here, the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses convincingly show that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal substance was properly
preserved. They were able to sufficiently prove the chain of custody (as
narrated in the facts above).
2. YES! Sec. 86 only says that the PDEA shall be the lead agency in the
investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases. Therefore, other
law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar
functions. Thus, in this case, PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas still have
authority to investigate drug-related cases.
3. NO! The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no
other eyewitness to the illicit transaction. In this case, the testimonies of
PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas sufficiently established that Berdadero is
guilty of selling a dangerous drug.
 Tumalon pointed out that he needed 200 grams, Prajes instructed Mala to
produce more stock. Mala left the house, then later came back with another
pack, which he handed to SI Tumalon. Thereafter, SI Tumalon gave one
bundle of the buy-bust money to Prajes, and the other bundle to Mala.

Upon the accused-appellants’ receipt of the buy-bust money, SI Tumalon

introduced himself to them as an NBI agent. SI Tumalon made a "missed
40. People v. Prajes and Mala, G.R. No. 206770, April 2, 2014 call" to SA Minguez’s phone, the team’s pre-agreed signal to indicate that
the sale had been consummated, and then arrested the accused-
G.R. No. 206770 (April 2, 2014) appellants. Soon thereafter, the other members of the buy-bust team arrived.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,  The accused-appellants were handcuffed and brought to the NBI office,
vs. where their photographs and fingerprints were taken. At the NBI office, SI
NOEL PRAJES and ALIPA MALA, Accused-Appellants. Tumalon handed the buy-bust money and three packs of shabu to SI
REYES, J.: Saavedra, who placed his markings on the packs of shabu. SI Saavedra also
prepared the letter-request for examination of the illegal drugs, which he
The accused-appellants were accused of violating Section 5, Article II of personally turned over to the Forensic Chemistry Section of the NBI. A
R.A. No. 9165 laboratory examination confirmed that the specimen contained
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. An ultraviolet examination
PROSECUTION performed by the NBI also confirmed the presence of fluorescent powder on
According to the prosecution, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in the accused-appellants’ hands.
Cebu City received reports that the accused-appellants were engaged in the
sale of illegal drugs. Following surveillance operations, a buy-bust operation DEFENSE
was organized by the NBI. The accused-appellants denied the charge against them. Prajes claimed that
at about 4:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, he was sleeping at his house in
Thus, at around 1:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, NBI’s informant, Rene Kinasang-an when a neighbor, Renante Paradero (Paradero), woke him up
Sabayton (Sabayton) transacted with the accused-appellants for a supposed to inform him that some persons were looking for him. He then proceeded to
buyer’s purchase of shabu weighing 200 grams for ₱180,000.00. At 4:00 Paradero’s house and there saw Sabayton, whom he had previously met in
p.m., the buy-bust team, headed by Senior Agent Atty. Angelito Magno (Atty. a "sniffing session" and who had called him up at around 1:00 p.m. on
Magno) and composed of NBI Supervising Agent Vicente Minguez (SA September 4, 2002 for the purchase of shabu. Sabayton was with two
Minguez), Special Investigator Teodoro Saavedra (SI Saavedra), SI Ray companions, who inquired from Prajes about the purchase. Prajes, Sabayton
Tumalon (SI Tumalon), SI Danilo Garay and SA Rennan Oliva, proceeded to and his two companions then proceeded to the house of Prajes’ father,
Kinasang-an, Pardo, Cebu City where the purchase would be made. SI where Prajes received the drugs from a person sent by a certain "Alex".
Tumalon was designated the poseur-buyer. Atty. Magno prepared the buy- Prajes handed the pack of shabu to Sabayton, then was immediately
bust money amounting to ₱4,500.00, composed of nine ₱500.00 bills dusted handcuffed by SI Tumalon. Sabayton hit Prajes’ handcuffed right hand with
with fluorescent powder and which were combined with boodle money. money that was brought by the buy-bust team.

As previously arranged with Sabayton, Prajes met up with Sabayton and SI For Mala’s defense, witness Magdalena Abarquez claimed that at around
Tumalon in a makeshift house in Kinasang-an, where Mala later joined them. 4:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, she saw Mala enter the house of Prajes.
Since Prajes had not brought with him the illegal drugs to be sold, the group When he tried to leave the house, he was prevented by someone who was
proceeded to his father’s house which was only 15 to 20 meters away from inside the house.
the makeshift house and there, SI Tumalon received the illegal drugs from
Prajes. Sabayton was called on the witness stand by the defense as a hostile
witness. He claimed that he was arrested by NBI operatives on September
While they were at the ground floor of the house, Prajes handed to SI 3, 2002. While at the NBI office, the operatives asked for a gift or "regalo" by
Tumalon two packs of shabu having a total weight of 100 grams. When SI giving names of persons whom they could arrest, in exchange for his
freedom. Thus, he gave the name of Prajes and coordinated with the latter Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
for the drug purchase.14 After Prajes presented the shabu to Sabayton during Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — x x x:
the buy-bust operation, he called on Mala to test and sniff the shabu. Before
the latter could do so, SI Tumalon pointed a gun at the accused-appellants (a) x x x the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted
and handcuffed them. When Prajes refused to receive the buy-bust money, at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
SI Tumalon slapped the money on Prajes’ handcuffed hands. police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
Notwithstanding Sabayton’s participation in the buy-bust which led to the officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
arrest of the accused-appellants, he was neither released from jail nor seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
relieved from prosecution for his violation of R.A. No. 9165.15 requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
The RTC Ruling the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
The RTC of Cebu City, Branch 15, rendered a Decision 16 finding the such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
accused-appellants guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. These "[s]tatutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated
9165. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, the accused-appellants prohibited drugs and related items are designed to ensure the integrity and
appealed to the CA. reliability of the evidence to be presented against the accused. Their
observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal possession or
The CA Ruling illegal sale of prohibited drugs."
The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
In a line of cases, the Court has nonetheless explained that "while the chain
The Present Appeal of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, ‘as it is almost always
Hence, the present appeal wherein the accused-appellants insist on the impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.’"  The limitation on chain of custody
prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The is also recognized in the afore-quoted Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165’s IRR, as
accused-appellants also question the subject drugs’ identity and the NBI’s it states that non-compliance with the rules’ requirements under justifiable
observance of the rule on the chain of custody. They argue that it was grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
unclear as to who actually marked the subject packs of shabu, and that are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
there were no photographs and physical inventory of the seized items, even void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. In resolving
when the same are required under the law. drug cases, we then repeatedly emphasize that "what is essential is ‘the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
This Court’s Ruling items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
The appeal is bereft of merit. innocence of the accused.’"
(1) On the issue of chain of custody: (2) On the issue of the subject drugs’ marking as part of the chain of
custody requirement:
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that "[t]he apprehending team having
initial custody and control of the [seized] drugs shall, immediately after The accused-appellants point out that SI Tumalon and SI Saavedra both
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in named SI Saavedra as the one who marked the seized drugs, but witnesses
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were SA Minguez and Atty. Magno each testified that it was SI Tumalon and the
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a forensic chemist, respectively, who effected such marking. The Court,
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any however, agrees with the CA’s observation that although there were
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the conflicting accounts by the prosecution witnesses as to the person who
inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]" In relation thereto, Section 21 of the actually marked the seized drugs, the failure of SA Minguez and Atty. Magno
law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) provides in part: to identify the said person could be readily explained by the fact that they
had no actual participation in the evidence’s marking. As against their
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized conflicting statements, what were significant were the testimonies of SI
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Tumalon and SI Saavedra, being the persons who actually seized, endorsed WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
and marked the evidence. Both agreed that following the accused-
appellants’ arrest, the seized packs of shabu were handed by SI Tumalon to
SI Saavedra, who was the one who placed the markings on the evidence,
before the same were brought to the laboratory for examination.

The fact that the marking was performed by SA Saavedra only upon the
buy-bust team’s arrival at the NBI office did not adversely affect the
prosecution’s case against the accused-appellants. Given the situation at
the house where the accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto
and then arrested by the buy-bust team, the failure of SA Saavedra to mark
the seized drugs at the said site was justified. In his testimony before the trial
court, SA Minguez described that after the accused-appellants’ arrest, their
neighbors interfered and rallied for the accused-appellants, even compelling
members of the buy-bust team inside the house to seek the immediate aid of
their peers so that they could leave the premises.

Even the failure of the prosecution to present a physical inventory and

photograph of the seized drugs did not render inadmissible the packs of
shabu that were seized from the accused-appellants, especially as we
consider that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs did not appear
to have been compromised.1

(3) On the issue of the accused-appellants' denial:

With denial being an inherently weak defense, the evidence presented by

the prosecution deserves credence. The following elements of illegal sale of
shabu were sufficiently established during the trial: (a) the identities of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. During a planned
buy-bust, SI Tumalon served as a poseur-buyer and was able to purchase
packs of shabu weighing 195 grams, more or less, from the accused-
appellants for ₱180,000.00. The payment was handed to the accused-
appellants by SI Tumalon. An examination conducted by the Forensic
Chemistry Section confirmed that the packs contained shabu. There was
nothing on record which would indicate that the substance purchased by SI
Tumalon from the accused-appellants during the buy-bust operation was
different from the subject of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section's
examination, and that which was eventually presented by the prosecution in
court to establish their case against the accused-appellants.

1
This was similar with the Court's ruling in People v. Torres and Ambre v. People, wherein we
affirmed the conviction of the accused notwithstanding some deviations from the required
procedure on physical inventory and photographs of the seized items.