REPUBLIC ACT 9165

AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
R E P U B L I C AC T 6 4 2 5 , O T H E RW I S E K N O W N A S T H E
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

 Section 1 - The Act shall be known and cited as

the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of

2002.

 Section 2 - Declaration of Policy. It is the

policy of the State to safeguard the integrity of

its territory and the well-being of the citizenry
particularly the youth, from the harmful effects
of dangerous drugs on their physical and mental
well-being, and to defend the same against acts
or omissions detrimental to their development
and preservation. In view of the foregoing, the
State needs to enhance further the efficacy of
the law against dangerous drugs, it being one of
todays serious social ills.

 Toward this end, the government shall pursue an

intensive and unrelenting campaign against the

trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other
similar substances through an integrated system
of planning, implementation and enforcement of
anti-drug abuse policies, programs, and projects.
The government shall however aim to achieve a
balance in the national drug control program so
that people with legitimate medical needs are not
prevented from being treated with adequate
amounts of appropriate medications, which include
the use of dangerous drugs.

 It is further declared the policy of the State to

provide effective mechanisms or measures to

re-integrate into society individuals who have
fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug
dependence through sustainable programs of
treatment and rehabilitation.

 Article 1.
Section 3. Definition of Terms.

 F. Confirmatory test. An analytical test using

a device, tool or equipment with a different

chemical or physical principle that is more
specific which will validate and confirm the
result of the screening test.

 J. Dangerous Drugs. Include those listed in

the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single

Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by
the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules
annexed to the 1971 Single Convention on
Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the
attached annex which is an integral part of this
Act.

 K. Deliver. Any act knowingly passing a

dangerous drug to another, personally or

otherwise, and by any means, with or without
consideration.
L. Den, Dive or Resort. A place where any

dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and

essential chemical is administered, delivered,
stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or
used in any form.

 M. Dispense. Any act of giving away, selling

or distributing medicine or dangerous drug with

or without the use of prescription.
O. Drug Syndicate. Any organised group of

two (2) or more persons forming or joining

together with the intention of committing any
offence prescribed under this Act.

 P. Employee of Den, Dive or Resort. The

caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout, and other

persons working in the den, dive or resort,
employed by the maintainer, owner and/or
operator where any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical is
administered, delivered, distributed, sold or
used, with or without compensation, in
connection with the operation thereof.

 Q. Financier. Any person who pays for, raises

or supplies money for, or underwrites any of the

illegal activities prescribed under this Act.
R. Illegal Trafficking. The illegal cultivation,

culture, delivery, administration, dispensation,

manufacture, sale, trading, transportation,
distribution, importation, exportation and
possession of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical.

 CC. Planting of Evidence. The wilful act by

any person of maliciously and surreptitiously

inserting, placing, adding or attaching directly
or indirectly, through any overt or covert act,
whatever quantity of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical in the person, house, effects or in the
immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for
the purpose of implicating, incriminating or
imputing the commission of any violation of this
Act.

 EE. Protector/Coddler. Any person who

knowingly and wilfully consents to the unlawful

acts provided for in this Act and uses his/her
influence, power or position in shielding,
harbouring, screening or facilitating the escape
of any person he/she knows, or has reasonable
grounds to believe on or suspects, has violated
the provisions of this Act in order to prevent the
arrest, prosecution and conviction of the
violator.

 FF. Pusher. Any person who sells, trades,

administers, dispenses, delivers or gives away

to another, on any terms whatsoever, or
distributes, dispatches in transit or transports
dangerous drugs or who acts as a broker in any
of such transactions, in violation of this Act.

 HH. Screening Test. A rapid test performed to

establish potential/presumptive positive result.

II. Sell. Any act of giving away any dangerous

drug and/or controlled precursor and essential

chemical whether for money or any other
consideration.

 JJ. Trading. Transactions involving the illegal

trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or

controlled precursors and essential chemicals
using electronic devices such as, but not
limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or
landlines, two-way radios, internet, instant
messengers and chat rooms or acting as a
broker in any such transactions whether for
money or any other consideration in violation
of this Act.

 KK. Use. Any act of injecting, intravenously or

intramuscularly, of consuming, either by

chewing, smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing,
drinking or otherwise introducing into the
physiological system of the body, any of the
dangerous drugs.

 Article III Unlawful Acts and Penalties

Section 4. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or

Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The

penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall import or bring into the
Philippines any dangerous drug, regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, including any and all
species of opium poppy or any part thereof or
substances derived therefrom even for floral,
decorative and culinary purposes.

 The penalty of imprisonment ranging from

twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty

(20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall import any controlled precursor and
essential chemical.

 The maximum penalty provided for under this

Section shall be imposed upon any person, who,

unless authorized under this Act, shall import or
bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical through the use of a diplomatic
passport, diplomatic facilities or any other
means involving his/her official status intended
to facilitate the unlawful entry of the same. In
addition, the diplomatic passport shall be
confiscated and canceled.

 The maximum penalty provided for under this

Section shall be imposed upon any person, who

organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of
any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
Section.

 The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1)

day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a

fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any
violator of the provisions under this Section.

 Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration,

Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and

Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.

 The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a

fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos

(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit
or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of
the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as
a broker in any of such transactions.

 The penalty of imprisonment ranging from

twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty

(20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any controlled
precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as
a broker in such transactions.

 If the sale, trading, administration,

dispensation, delivery, distribution or

transportation of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical
transpires within one hundred (100) meters
from the school, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case.

 For drug pushers who use minors or mentally

incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers

and messengers, or in any other capacity
directly connected to the dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case.

 If the victim of the offense is a minor or a

mentally incapacitated individual, or should a

dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor
and essential chemical involved in any offense
herein provided be the proximate cause of
death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty
provided for under this Section shall be
imposed.

 The maximum penalty provided for under this

Section shall be imposed upon any person who

organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of
any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
Section.

 The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1)

day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a

fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who acts as a protector/coddler of
any violator of the provisions under this
Section.

 Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or

Resort. The penalty of life imprisonment to

death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
any person or group of persons who shall
maintain a den, dive or resort where any
dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.

 The penalty of imprisonment ranging from

twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty

(20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person or group of persons who shall
maintain a den, dive, or resort where any
controlled precursor and essential chemical is
used or sold in any form.

 The maximum penalty provided for under this

Section shall be imposed in every case where any

dangerous drug is administered, delivered or sold
to a minor who is allowed to use the same in
such a place.
Should any dangerous drug be the proximate

cause of the death of a person using the same in

such den, dive or resort, the penalty of death and
a fine ranging from One million (P1,000,000.00)
to Fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000.00) shall be
imposed on the maintainer, owner and/or
operator.

 If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third

person, the same shall be confiscated and

escheated in favour of the government:
Provided, That the criminal complaint shall
specifically allege that such place is
intentionally used in the furtherance of the
crime: Provided, further, That the prosecution
shall prove such intent on the part of the owner
to use the property for such purpose: Provided,
finally, That the owner shall be included as an
accused in the criminal complaint.

 The maximum penalty provided for under this

Section shall be imposed upon any person who

organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of
any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day

to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine

ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator
of the provisions under this Section.

 Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or

Resort. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from

twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon:
a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware

of the nature of the place as such; and

b) Any person who, not being included in the

provisions of the next preceding paragraph, is aware

of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly
visit the same.

 Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of

Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other

Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.

 The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12)

years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person who shall deliver, possess with
intent to deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia
for dangerous drugs, knowing, or under circumstances
where one reasonably should know , that it will be used to
plant, propagate, cultivate, grow , harvest, manufacture,
compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test,
analyze, pack, repack, store, contain or conceal any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical in violation of this Act.

 The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)

months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine
ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed if it will
be used to inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce
into the human body a dangerous drug in violation of
this Act.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section

shall be imposed upon any person, who uses a minor

or a mentally incapacitated individual to deliver such
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.

 Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

 The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a

fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos

(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorised by law, shall
possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity
thereof:

 1) 10 grams or more of opium;

2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine

hydrochloride;
5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine

hydrochloride or shabu;

6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or

marijuana resin oil;

7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs

such as, but not limited to,

 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or

ecstasy, paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),

trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid
dithylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate
(GHB), and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements, as determined and promulgated
by the Board in accordance to Section 93,
Article XI of this Act.

 Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than

the foregoing quantitates, the penalties shall be

graduated as follows:
1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from

Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to

Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if
the quantity of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu is ten (10) grams or
more but less than fifty (50) grams;

 2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to

life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred

thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs
are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of
opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such
as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD,
GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced
drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but
less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and

 3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to

twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred

thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs
are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin,
cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited
to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the
quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.

 Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. A person

apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use

of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be
imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense,
subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time,
he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine
ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this
Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is
also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any
dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in
which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.

 Section 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the

Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act,

Including Properties or Proceeds Derived from
the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Precursors and Essential Chemicals.

 Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale,

trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution,

transportation or manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical, the cultivation or
culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs, and the
possession of any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs including other laboratory
equipment, shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in
favor of the government, of all the proceeds and properties
derived from the unlawful act, including, but not limited to,
money and other assets obtained thereby, and the instruments
or tools with which the particular unlawful act was committed,
unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the
unlawful act, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall
be ordered destroyed without delay pursuant to the provisions
of Section 21 of this Act.

 After conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the

appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall

immediately schedule a hearing for the
confiscation and forfeiture of all the proceeds of
the offense and all the assets and properties of
the accused either owned or held by him or in the
name of some other persons if the same shall be
found to be manifestly out of proportion to his/her
lawful income: Provided, however, That if the
forfeited property is a vehicle, the same shall be
auctioned off not later than five (5) days upon
order of confiscation or forfeiture.

 During the pendency of the case in the Regional

Trial Court, no property, or income derived

therefrom, which may be confiscated and
forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or
transferred and the same shall be in custodia
legis and no bond shall be admitted for the
release of the same.

 The proceeds of any sale or disposition of any

property confiscated or forfeited under this

Section shall be used to pay all proper expenses
incurred in the proceeding for the confiscation,
forfeiture, custody and maintenance of the
property pending disposition, as well as
expenses for publication and court costs. The
proceeds in excess of the above expenses shall
accrue to the Board to be used in its campaign
against illegal drugs.

 Section 21. Custody and Disposition of

Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment confiscated, seized and/or surrendered,
for proper disposition in the following manner:

 1) The apprehending team having initial

custody and control of the drugs shall,

immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physical inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof;

 2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon

confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant

sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination;

 3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination

results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic

laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four
(24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled
precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the
completion of testing within the time frame, a partial
laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued
stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to
be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued on the
completed forensic laboratory examination on the same
within the next twenty-four (24) hours;

 4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall,

within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular

inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, including the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twentyfour (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction
or burning of the same, in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ,
civil society groups and any elected public official.

The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the

manner of proper disposition and destruction of
such item/s which shall be borne by the
offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful
commerce, as determined by the Board, shall
be donated, used or recycled for legitimate
purposes: Provided, further, That a
representative sample, duly weighed and
recorded is retained;

 5) The Board shall then issue a sworn

certification as to the fact of destruction or

burning of the subject item/s which, together
with the representative sample/s in the custody
of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court
having jurisdiction over the case. In all
instances, the representative sample/s shall be
kept to a minimum quantity as determined by
the Board;

 6) The alleged offender or his/her representative

or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe

all of the above proceedings and his/her presence
shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case
the said offender or accused refuses or fails to
appoint a representative after due notice in writing
to the accused or his/her counsel within seventytwo (72) hours before the actual burning or
destruction of the evidence in question, the
Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the
public attorney's office to represent the former;

 7) After the promulgation and judgment in the

criminal case wherein the representative

sample/s was presented as evidence in court,
the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of
the final termination of the case and, in turn,
shall request the court for leave to turn over the
said representative sample/s to the PDEA for
proper disposition and destruction within
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the
same; and

 8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24)

hours from the effectivity of this Act, dangers

drugs defined herein which are presently in
possession of law enforcement agencies shall,
with leave of court, be burned or destroyed, in the
presence of representative of the Court, DOJ,
Department of Health (DOH) and the accused
and/or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the
organisation of the PDEA, the custody, disposition,
and burning or destruction of seized/surrendered
dangerous drugs provided under this section shall
be implemented by the DOH.

 Section 23. Plea-bargaining Provision. Any

person charged under any provision of this Act

regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be
allowed to avail the provision on pleabargaining.

 Section 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation

Law fro Drug Traffickers and Pushers. Any

person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing
under this Act, regardless of the penalty
imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the
privilege granted by the Probation Law or
Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.

 Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating

Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by

an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous
Drugs. Notwithstanding the provisions of any
law to the contrary, a positive finding for the
use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance in the commission of
a crime by an offender, and the application of
the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal
Code shall be applicable.

 Section 27. Criminal Liability of a Public Officer

or Employee for Misappropriation,

Misapplication or Failure to Account for the
Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment Including the Proceeds or
Properties Obtained from the Unlawful Act
Committed.

 The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine

ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos

(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00), in addition to absolute perpetual
disqualification from any public office, shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who
misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account for
confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment including the proceeds or properties
obtained from the unlawful acts as provided for in
this Act.

 Any elective local or national official found to have

benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of

dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, or have
received any financial or material contributions or
donations from natural or juridical persons found
guilty of trafficking of dangerous drugs as
prescribed in this Act, shall be removed from office
and perpetually disqualified from holding any
elective or appointive positions in the government,
its divisions, subdivisions, and intermediaries,
including government-owned or -controlled
corporations.

 Section 29. Criminal liability for planting

evidence. Any person who is found guilty of

planting any dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical,
regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer
the penalty of death.

 Article VIII
Program for Treatment and Rehabilitation of

Drug Dependents.

 Section 54. Voluntary Submission of a Drug

Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and

Rehabilitation.

 A drug dependent or any person who violates Section 15 of

this Act may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent,

spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, apply to the Board or its duly
recognized representative, for treatment and rehabilitation
of the drug dependency. Upon such application, the Board
shall bring forth the matter to the Court which shall order
that the applicant be examined for drug dependency. If the
examination by a DOH-accredited physician results in the
issuance of a certification that the applicant is a drug
dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Court to undergo
treatment and rehabilitation in a Center designated by the
Board for a period of not less than six (6) months:

Provided, That a drug dependent may be

placed under the care of a DOH-accredited
physician where there is no Center near or
accessible to the residence of the drug
dependent or where said drug dependent is
below eighteen (18) years of age and is a firsttime offender and non-confinement in a Center
will not pose a serious danger to his/her family
or the community.

 Confinement in a Center for treatment and

rehabilitation shall not exceed one (1) year,

after which time the Court, as well as the Board,
shall be apprised by the head of the treatment
and rehabilitation center of the status of said
drug dependent and determine whether further
confinement will be for the welfare of the drug
dependent and his/her family or the community.

 Section 55. Exemption from Criminal Liability

Under the Voluntary Submission Program. A

drug dependent under the voluntary submission
program, who is finally discharged from
confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal
liability under Section 15 of this Act subject to
the following conditions:

 1) He/she has complied with the rules and

regulations of the Center, the applicable rules and

regulations of the Board, including the after-care
and follow -up program for at least eighteen (18)
months follow ing temporary discharge from
confinement in the Center or, in the case of a
dependent placed under the care of the DOHaccredited physician, the after-care program and
follow-up schedule formulated by the DSWD and
approved by the Board: Provided, That capabilitybuilding of local government social workers shall
be undertaken by the DSWD;

 2) He/she has never been charged or convicted

of any offense punishable under this Act, the

Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended; the Revised Penal Code,
as amended; or any special penal laws;

 3) He/she has no record of escape from a

Center: Provided, That had he/she escaped,

he/she surrendered by himself/herself or
through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or
relative within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, within one (1) week
from the date of the said escape; and
4) He/she poses no serious danger to

himself/herself, his/her family or the community

by his/her exemption from criminal liability.

 Section 57. Probation and Community Service

Under the Voluntary Submission Program. A

drug dependent who is discharged as rehabilitated
by the DOH-accredited Centre through the
voluntary submission program, but does not
qualify for exemption from criminal liability under
Section 55 of this Act, may be charged under the
provisions of this Act, but shall be placed on
probation and undergo community service in lieu
of imprisonment and/or fine in the discretion of
the court, without prejudice to the outcome of any
pending case filed in court.

 Such drug dependent shall undergo community

service as part of his/her after-care and followup program, which may be done in coordination
with nongovernmental civic organizations
accredited by the DSWD, with the
recommendation of the Board.

 Section 58. Filing of Charges Against a Drug

Dependent Who is Not Rehabilitated Under the

Voluntary Submission Program. A drug
dependent, who is not rehabilitated after the
second commitment to the Centre under the
voluntary submission program, shall, upon
recommendation of the Board, be charged for
violation of Section 15 of this Act and prosecuted
like any other offender. If convicted, he/she shall
be credited for the period of confinement and
rehabilitation in the Centre in the service of
his/her sentence.

 Section 61. Compulsory Confinement of a Drug

Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the

Voluntary Submission Program.
Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to
the contrary, any person determined and found
to be dependent on dangerous drugs shall,
upon petition by the Board or any of its
authorised representative, be confined for
treatment and rehabilitation in any Centre duly
designated or accredited for the purpose.

 A petition for the confinement of a person alleged

to be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center

may be filed by any person authorized by the
Board with the Regional Trial Court of the
province or city where such person is found.
After the petition is filed, the court, by an order,

shall immediately fix a date for the hearing, and

a copy of such order shall be served on the
person alleged to be dependent on dangerous
drugs, and to the one having charge of him.

 If after such hearing and the facts so warrant,

the court shall order the drug dependent to be

examined by two (2) physicians accredited by
the Board. If both physicians conclude that the
respondent is not a drug dependent, the court
shall order his/her discharge. If either physician
finds him to be a dependent, the court shall
conduct a hearing and consider all relevant
evidence which may be offered.

 If the court finds him a drug dependent, it shall

issue an order for his/her commitment to a

treatment and rehabilitation centre under the
supervision of the DOH. In any event, the order
of discharge or order of confinement or
commitment shall be issued not later than
fifteen (15) days from the filing of the
appropriate petition.

 Section 62. Compulsory Submission of a Drug

Dependent Charged with an Offense to

Treatment and Rehabilitation. If a person
charged with an offence where the imposable
penalty is imprisonment of less than six (6)
years and one (1) day, and is found by the
prosecutor or by the court, at any stage of the
proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the
prosecutor or the court as the case may be,
shall suspend all further proceedings and
transmit copies of the record of the case to the
Board.

 In the event the Board determines, after medical

examination, that public interest requires that

such drug dependent be committed to a center
for treatment and rehabilitation, it shall file a
petition for his/her commitment with the regional
trial court of the province or city where he/she is
being investigated or tried: Provided, That where
a criminal case is pending in court, such petition
shall be filed in the said court. The court shall
take judicial notice of the prior proceedings in the
case and shall proceed to hear the petition.

 If the court finds him to be a drug dependent, it

shall order his/her commitment to a Center for

treatment and rehabilitation. The head of said
Center shall submit to the court every four (4)
months, or as often as the court may require, a
written report on the progress of the treatment.
If the dependent is rehabilitated, as certified by
the Center and the Board, he/she shall be
returned to the court, which committed him, for
his/her discharge therefrom.

 Thereafter, his/her prosecution for any offense

punishable by law shall be instituted or shall continue,

as the case may be. In case of conviction, the judgment
shall, if the accused is certified by the treatment and
rehabilitation center to have maintained good
behavior, indicate that he/she shall be given full credit
for the period he/she was confined in the Center:
Provided, however, That when the offense is for
violation of Section 15 of this Act and the accused is
not a recidivist, the penalty thereof shall be deemed to
have been served in the Center upon his/her release
therefrom after certification by the Center and the
Board that he/she is rehabilitated.

 Section 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-

Time Minor Offender. An accused who is over

fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense mentioned in Section
11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18)
years of age at the time when judgment should
have been promulgated after having been
found guilty of said offense, may be given the
benefits of a suspended sentence, subject to
the following conditions:

 a) He/she has not been previously convicted of

violating any provision of this Act, or of the

Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; or of
the Revised Penal Code; or of any special penal
laws;
b) He/she has not been previously committed to

a Centre or to the care of a DOH-accredited

physician; and
c) The Board favourably recommends that

his/her sentence be suspended.

 While under suspended sentence, he/she shall be

under the supervision and rehabilitative

surveillance of the Board, under such conditions
that the court may impose for a period ranging
from six (6) months to eighteen (18) months.
Upon recommendation of the Board, the court

may commit the accused under suspended

sentence to a Center, or to the care of a DOHaccredited physician for at least six (6) months,
with after-care and follow-up program for not
more than eighteen (18) months.

 In the case of minors under fifteen (15) years of

age at the time of the commission of any

offence penalised under this Act, Article 192 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known
as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1179 shall
apply, without prejudice to the application of
the provisions of this Section.

 Section 67. Discharge After Compliance with

Conditions of Suspended Sentence of a FirstTime Minor Offender. If the accused first time
minor offender under suspended sentence
complies with the applicable rules and
regulations of the Board, including confinement
in a Center, the court, upon a favorable
recommendation of the Board for the final
discharge of the accused, shall discharge the
accused and dismiss all proceedings.

 Upon dismissal of the proceedings against the

accused, the court shall enter an order to expunge

all official records, other than the confidential
record to be retained by the DOJ relating to the
case. Such an order, which shall be kept
confidential, shall restore the accused to his/her
status prior to the case. He/she shall not be held
thereafter to be guilty of perjury or of concealment
or misrepresentation by reason of his/her failure to
acknowledge the case or recite any fact related
thereto in response to any inquiry made of him for
any purpose.

 Section 68. Privilege of Suspended Sentence to

be Availed of Only Once by a First-Time Minor

Offender. The privilege of suspended
sentence shall be availed of only once by an
accused drug dependent who is a first-time
offender over fifteen (15) years of age at the
time of the commission of the violation of
Section 15 of this Act but not more than
eighteen (18) years of age at the time when
judgment should have been promulgated.

 Section 69. Promulgation of Sentence for First-

Time Minor Offender. If the accused first-time

minor offender violates any of the conditions of
his/her suspended sentence, the applicable
rules and regulations of the Board exercising
supervision and rehabilitative surveillance over
him, including the rules and regulations of the
Center should confinement be required, the
court shall pronounce judgment of conviction
and he/she shall serve sentence as any other
convicted person.

 Section 70. Probation or Community Service for

a First-Time Minor Offender in Lieu of

Imprisonment.

 Upon promulgation of the sentence, the court may,

in its discretion, place the accused under probation,

even if the sentence provided under this Act is
higher that that provided under existing law on
probation, the supervision and rehabilitative
surveillance shall be undertaken by the Board
through the DOH in coordination with the Board of
Pardons and Parole an the Probation Administration.
Upon compliance with the conditions of the
probation, the Board shall submit a written report
to the court recommending termination of
probation and a final discharge of the probationer,
whereupon the court shall issue such an order.

 The community service shall be complied with

under conditions, time and place as may be

determined by the court in its discretion and upon
recommendation of the Board and shall apply only
to violators of Section 15 of this Act. The
completion of the community service shall be
under supervision and rehabilitative surveillance
of the Board during the period required by the
court. Thereafter, the Board shall render a report
on the manner of compliance of said community
service. The court in its discretion may require
extension of the community service or order a
final discharge.

 In both cases, the judicial records shall be

covered by the provisions of Sections 60 and 64

of this Act.
If the sentence promulgated by the court

requires imprisonment, the period spent in the

Center by the accused during the suspended
sentence period shall be deducted from the
sentence to be served.

 Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised

Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or

regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as
amended, shall not apply to the provisions of
this Act, except in the case of minor offenders.
Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for
acts punishable by life imprisonment to death
provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.

 Section 100. Repealing Clause. Republic Act

No. 6425, as amended, is hereby repealed and

all other laws, administrative orders, rules and
regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed
or modified accordingly.

JURISPRUDENCE

Pe o p l e v E m p l e o (G R N o 1 4 8 5 4 7 ,
27 September 2006)
During the search and seizure of shabu and

paraphernalia at the room rented by private

respondent Dante Mah, the police officer also
found one roll/stick of marijuana leaves. Two
Informations were filed against the private
respondent. However, private respondent filed a
motion to dismiss the second information
alleging that the single act of possession of
drugs committed at the same time and at the
same place cannot be the subject of separate
Informations.

Pe o p l e v E m p l e o (G R N o 1 4 8 5 4 7 ,
27 September 2006)
The prosecution opposed the motion. However,

in a resolution dated 3 April 2000, public

respondent Judge Marcial G. Empleo directed
the prosecutor to file only a single Information.
The prosecution moved for the reconsideration
of the assailed resolution but the same was
denied.
A petition for certiorari was filed with the Court

of Appeals but the same was dismissed. Hence

this petition.

Pe o p l e v E m p l e o (G R N o 1 4 8 5 4 7 ,
27 September 2006)

Issue: Whether the prosecution should file only

one Information for illegal possession of shabu

and marijuana.

Pe o p l e v E m p l e o (G R N o 1 4 8 5 4 7 ,
27 September 2006)
The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution should file

two separate Informations.

The prosecution was correct in filing two separate

Informations for the crimes of illegal possession of shabu

and illegal possession of marijuana. Clearly, the Legislature
did not intend to lump these two separate crimes into just
one crime of different kinds of drugs and the corresponding
quantity in the application of the appropriate penalty
Thus, this Court has upheld rulings of the lower courts
convicting an accused charged with two separate crimes of
illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of
marijuana, even if the crimes were committed at the same
time and in the same place.

Pa d u a v Pe o p l e , ( G R N o 1 6 8 5 4 6 ,
23 July 2008)
Michael Padua and Edgar Allan Ubalde were

charged before the Regional Trial Court of

violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 for selling dangerous drugs. When
arraigned, Padua entered a plea of not guilty.
During pre-trial conference, however, Paduas
counsel manifested that his client was willing to
withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea
of guilty to avail the benefits of first-time minor
offenders under Section 70 of the RA 9165.

Pa d u a v Pe o p l e , ( G R N o 1 6 8 5 4 6 ,
23 July 2008)
The prosecutor interposed no objection. The

RTC then found Padua guilty of the crime

charged.
Padua filed a petition for probation alleging that

he is a minor and a first-time offender who

desires to avail of the benefits of probation
under Presidential Decree No. 968 and Section
70 of RA 9165.

Pa d u a v Pe o p l e , ( G R N o 1 6 8 5 4 6 ,
23 July 2008)
However, on 11 May 2004, public respondent

Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio issued an Order

denying the Petition for Probation on the ground
that under Section 24 of RA 9165, any person
convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the
privilege granted by the Probation Law. A motion
for reconsideration was filed by Padua but the
same was denied.
Padua filed with the Court of Appeals a petition

for certiorari but the same was dismissed. His

motion for reconsideration was also denied by
the appellate court.

Pa d u a v Pe o p l e , ( G R N o 1 6 8 5 4 6 ,
23 July 2008)

The issue is: Did the Court of Appeals err in

dismissing Paduas petition for certiorari

assailing the trial courts order denying his
petition for probation?

Pa d u a v Pe o p l e , ( G R N o 1 6 8 5 4 6 ,
23 July 2008)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals

did not err in dismissing Paduas petition for

certiorari.
Padua was charged and convicted for violation of

Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for selling dangerous

drugs. It is clear under Section 24 of RA 9165 that
any person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail
of the privilege of probation.
The law is clear and leaves no room for

interpretation. Any person convicted for drug

trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty
imposed cannot avail of the privilege granted by the
Probation Law or PD No 968.

Pa d u a v Pe o p l e , ( G R N o 1 6 8 5 4 6 ,
23 July 2008)
Moreover, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out

that the intention of the legislators in Section 24 of RA

9165 is to provide stiffer and harsher punishment for
those persons convicted of drug trafficking and pushing
while extending a sympathetic and magnanimous hand
in Section 70 to drug dependents who are found guilty
of violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Act. The law
considers users and possessors of illegal drugs as
victims while the drug traffickers and pushers as
predators. Hence, while drug traffickers and pushers,
like Padua, are categorically disqualified from availing
the law on probation, youthful drug dependents, users
and possessors alike are given the chance to mend
their ways

Pe o p l e v Pe d ro n a n ( G R N o 1 4 8 6 6 8 ,
17 June 2003)
The instant case is an appeal from the decision

of the RTC Baguio City finding appellant Tony

Pedronan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
the illegal sale of prohibited drug, i.e. the five
bricks of marijuana. Upon arraignment,
appellant entered a plea of not guilty.
Before the Supreme Court, appellant contends

that the prosecutions evidence is full of

contradictions and irregularity, which lead only
to one conclusion that this is a fabricated case
against him.

Pe o p l e v Pe d ro n a n ( G R N o 1 4 8 6 6 8 ,
17 June 2003)
More importantly, the prosecution failed to

establish the identity of the prohibited drug

which constitutes the corpus delicti of the
offence, an essential requirement in drugrelated cases. In People v Dismuke, the
Supreme Court ruled that the failure to prove
that the specimen of marijuana examined by
the forensic chemist was that seized from the
appellant was fatal to the prosecutions case.
(Citation omitted)

Pe o p l e v Pe d ro n a n ( G R N o 1 4 8 6 6 8 ,
17 June 2003)
The Supreme Court thus ruled to acquit

appellant Pedronan due to the prosecutions

failure to prove the crucial first link in the chain
the of custody. There is a serious cloud of doubt
as to whether the marijuana bricks allegedly
seized from the appellant were the same bricks
marked and forwarded by the police officers to
the crime laboratory for examination and later
presented in court for identification.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
A report reached the Provincial Drug

Enforcement Group, Bulacan, (Bulacan PDEG)

that there was illegal sale of dangerous drugs
conducted by a certain Vic along Mabini St, Brgy
Pobalacion, Baliuag, Bulacan. A surveillance was
conducted particularly observing the abode of
De Jesus. Various persons were coming in and
out of the house.
A buy-bust operation was instructed by the chief

of the Bulacan PDEG with the help of a

confidential agent.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
PO2 Bernardo, acting as poseur-buyer, and the

confidential agent went to the house of De Jesus in the

guise of buying sachets of shabu. Upon arrival, the agent
introduced PO2 Bernardo to De Jesus. The latter asked
about the money. PO2 Bernardo then handed De Jesus
marked one hundred peso bills. De Jesus, in turn, took the
money and produced a cylindrical plastic film case. From
the film case, he took out a transparent plastic sachet
and gave it to PO2 Bernardo. After receiving the sachet,
PO2 Bernardo held De Jesus and introduced him as a
police officer. PO2 Bernardo recovered the film case,
which contained some plastic sachets. De Jesus was
informed of his constitutional rights and PO2 Bernardo
marked the recovered plastic sachets.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )

De Jesus was immediately taken to the police

station for proper investigation. The evidence

was then turned over to the investigator who in
turn prepared the request for laboratory
examination of the specimen and submitted
the same to the crime laboratory office, which
found the specimen positive for shabu and
marijuana.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
On the other hand, De Jesus denied the charges and

claimed that he was framed by the confidential agent.

He alleged that he was sleeping in his house, while his
children were watching television, when some persons
entered his house and woke him up. He knew the
police officers because when there is a police
operation, they would usually stay in his house. The
confidential agent was also his friend but their
relationship turned bitter because the agent was
having illicit affairs with De Jesus sister-in-law. When
the officers entered his room, they found nothing
illicit. The officer merely planted evidence against him
and no buy-bust operation took place.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
The trial court found De Jesus guilty of the charges

against him. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals

affirmed the trial court. It ruled that the
prosecution was able to establish the chain of
custody and preserve the integrity and the
identity of the confiscated drugs. With regard to
the discrepancy of the date the buy-bust operation
took place, the Court of Appeals held that there
was no discrepancy as 29 March 2003 was the
date of operation was supposed to be carried
out as opposed to the categorical statement of
PO2 Bernardo that the actual buy-bust operation
was March 31, 2003.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
De Jesus then appealed the ruling of the

appellate court before the Supreme Court.

Issue: De Jesus claims that the prosecution

failed to ensure that unnecessary doubts

concerning the identity of the evidence were
removed, as the police officers did not observe
the proper procedure in the handling of the
seized articles.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution

was able to show that the integrity and

evidentiary value of the evidence had been
preserved.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
Expounding on the necessaries for the successful

prosecution of an illegal sale of dangerous drugs case,

the SC, in People v Del Rosario, held:
In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug,

the following elements must be proven: (1) the

identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor. Simply put, "[in]
prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is
material is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti as evidence." (Citations
omitted.)

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
How to preserve the integrity and identity of the

seized dangerous drug?

Refer to Section 21.
Chain of custody establishes the identity of the

subject substance. (People vs. Barba 593 SCRA

711 [2009]) It requires that testimony be
presented about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item is seized up to the time it is
offered in evidence. (People vs. Habana, G.R. No.
188900, March 5, 2010)

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
The Implementing Rules and Regulations state:
Section 21.
a. Provided, further, 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
seizures of and custody over said items;
Procedure as laid down by the Supreme Court in People

v. Habana.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
It was held, however, that "a testimony about a

perfect chain is not always the standard as it is

almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain. The arresting officers' failure to conduct a
physical inventory and to photograph the items
seized from De Jesus will not render his arrest
illegal or the items confiscated from him
inadmissible in evidence as they were able to
nonetheless preserve the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the said items. This is what is
of utmost importance as the seized items are what
would be used in the determination of De Jesus'
guilt or innocence. (Citations omitted)

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
Verily, the prosecution was able to demonstrate

that the integrity and the evidentiary value of

the evidence had been preserved. PO2
Bernardo's testimony as to how they learned of
De Jesus' drug dealing activities up to the time
they arrested him and confiscated the items
subject of this case was clear and positive. He
was also categorical in his statements on how
he marked the seized items and to whom he
turned them over. His mistake as to the exact
date of the buy-bust operation will not render
his testimony incredible.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
Besides, it is settled that the exact date of

the commission of the crime need not be

proved unless it is an essential element of the
crim. What is significant is that the links in the
chain of custody were all accounted for by the
prosecution, from the time the items were
confiscated from De Jesus, up to the time they
were presented in court during trial as proof of
the corpus delicti.

Pe o p l e v D e J e s u s ( G R N o 1 9 8 7 9 4 ,
6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 3 )
In prosecuting cases for illegal possession of

dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish

the following elements:
1) the accused is in possession of an item or

object, which is identified to be a prohibited or

regulated drug;
2) such possession is not authorised by law; and
3) the accused freely and consciously possessed

the drug. (Citation omitted)

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
The case involves a seventeen-year old Allen

Mantalaba who was allegedly in the illegal sale

of dangerous drug. When he was apprehended,
a sachet of shabu was found to be in his
possession. He was, thus, prosecuted for
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA
9165.
The trial court found him to be guilty beyond

reasonable doubt, the dispositive portion of

which reads:

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds accused Allen

Mantalaba y Udtojan GUILTY beyond reasonable

doubt in Criminal Case No. 10250 for selling
shabu, a dangerous drug, as defined and
penalized under Section 5, Article I of Republic Act
No. 9165. As provided for in Sec. 98 of R.A. 9165,
where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts
punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be
reclusion perpetua to death. As such, Allen
Mantalaba y Udtojan is hereby sentenced to
RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
In Criminal Case No. 10251, the Court likewise

finds accused Allen Mantalaba y Udtojan GUILTY

beyond reasonable doubt for illegally possessing
shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.6131 gram
as defined and penalized under Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 and accused being a
minor at the time of the commission of the
offense, after applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, he is accordingly sentenced to six
(6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight
(8) years, as maximum of prision mayor and to
pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00).

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)

The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the

decision of the trial court.

Before the Supreme Court, Mantalaba raised

the sole issue that the lower court gravely erred

in convicting him of the crime charged despite
the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)

The Supreme Court ruled that Mantalabas

appeal is unmeriterious.
From the records of the case, the Supreme

Court found out that indeed there was a sale of

dangerous drugs in a buy bust operation.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of

dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the

concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor. From the above
testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well
established that the elements have been satisfactorily
met. The seller and the poseur-buyer were properly
identified. The subject dangerous drug, as well as the
marked money used, were also satisfactorily presented.
The testimony was also clear as to the manner in which
the buy-bust operation was conducted. (Citation
omitted)

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)

A buy bust operation is a legally effective and

proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for

apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. It
is often utilised by law enforcers for the purpose
of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the
execution of their nefarious activities.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
Another contention raised by the appellant is the

failure of the prosecution to show the chain of

custody of the recovered dangerous drug.
The Supreme Court ruled that non compliance

with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is

justifiable ground What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilised in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)

As ruled by the Supreme Court, what is crucial

in the chain of custody is the marking of the

confiscated item which was complied with.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of

the seized drugs or other related items immediately

after they are seized from the accused. Marking after
seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it
is vital that the seized contraband are immediately
marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens
will use the markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from
the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they
are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of
evidence. (Citation omitted)

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised

Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or

regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as
amended, shall not apply to the provisions of
this Act, except in the case of minor offenders.
Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for
acts punishable by life imprisonment to death
provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
The Supreme Court discussed the applicability

of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code in

relation to the minority of an offender.
Mantalaba was seventeen (17) years old when

the buy-bust operation took place or when the

said offence was committed, but was no longer
a minor at the time of the promulgation of the
RTCs decision.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
It may be argued that the appellant should have

been entitled to a suspension of his sentence

under Sections 38 and 68 of RA 9344 which
provide for retroactive application.
However, Section 40 of the same law limits the

suspension of sentence until the child reaches

the maximum age of 21. Hence, Mantalaba
could no longer avail of suspension of sentence.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)

Nevertheless, the appellant shall be entitled to

appropriate disposition under Section 51 under

RA 9344, which provides for the confinement of
convicted children.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
A violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 merits the

penalty of life imprisonment to death; however,

in Section 98, it is provided that where the
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts
punishable by life imprisonment to death
provided in the same law shall be reclusion
perpetual to death. This means that the penalty
can no be graduated as it has adopted the
technical nomenclature of penalties provided
for in the Revised Penal Code.

Pe o p l e v M a n t a l a b a ( G R N o 1 8 6 2 2 7 ,
20 July 2011)
Consequently, the privileged mitigating

circumstance of minority can now be appreciated

in fixing the penalty that should be imposed. The
CA affirmed the RTC which imposed the penalty of
reclusion perpetual without considering the
minority of appellant Mantalaba. Applying the
rules, the property penalty should be one degree
lower than revulsion perpetual which is reclusion
temporal The Indeterminate Sentence Law is
applicable in the present case because penalty
which was originally an indivisible penalty became
divisible by virtue of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority.

Drugs are a waste of time. They destroy

your memory and your self-respect and
everything that goes along with your self
esteem.
K U RT C O B A I N

Pe o p l e v E n d a y a ( G . R. N o. 2 0 5 7 4 1 ,
23 July 2014)
Chain of custody unbroken; identity of corpus

delicti established with moral certainty

Appellant argued that the arresting officers

failed to comply with the requirement of Section

21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. 9165 on the
inventory of the items seized from him. The
inventory was not completed immediately after
his arrest and at the place where he was
arrested; such was only done at the police
station.

Pe o p l e v E n d a y a ( G . R. N o. 2 0 5 7 4 1 ,
23 July 2014)
Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody

and control of the drugs shall, immediately after

seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof;

Pe o p l e v E n d a y a ( G . R. N o. 2 0 5 7 4 1 ,
23 July 2014)

With regard to the allegation of appellant of

non-compliance by the apprehending officers,

jurisprudence states the phrase marking upon
immediate confiscation contemplates even
marking at the nearest police station or office of
the apprehending team.

Pe o p l e v E n d a y a ( G . R. N o. 2 0 5 7 4 1 ,
23 July 2014)
Also, strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of

R.A. 9165 is not necessary as long as the integrity

and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team.
The Section 21, RA 9165 of its IRR provides:
non compliance with this 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 seizures of and custody
over said items.

Pe o p l e v E n d a y a ( G . R. N o. 2 0 5 7 4 1 ,
23 July 2014)

Further, the SC reiterated its rulings in many

cases that while the chain of custody should

ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is
almost impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.
The most important factor is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items as they will be used to determine
the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Pe o p l e v E n d a y a ( G . R. N o. 2 0 5 7 4 1 ,
23 July 2014)

Lastly, in a case, the SC also ruled that it is

essential for the prosecution to prove the

prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from
the suspect is the very same substance offered
in court as exhibit. Its identity must be
established with unwavering exactitude for it to
lead to a finding of guilt.

Pe o p l e v H a b a n a ( G R N o. 1 8 8 9 0 0 ,
5 March 2010)
Usually the police officer who seizes the suspected

substance turns it over to a supervising officer,

who would then send it by courier to the police
crime laboratory for testingit is imperative for
the officer who seized the substance from the
suspect to place his marking on its plastic
container and seal the same, preferably with
adhesive tape that cannot be removed without
leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial,
the officer can identify the seized substance and
the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity
until it reaches the crime laboratory.

Pe o p l e v H a b a n a ( G R N o. 1 8 8 9 0 0 ,
5 March 2010)
If the substance is not in a plastic container, the

officer should put it in one and seal the same

Further, after the laboratory technician tests
and verifies the nature of the substance in the
container, he should put his own mark on the
plastic container and seal it again with a new
seal since the police officers seal has been
broken. At the trial, the technician can then
describe the sealed condition of the plastic
container when it was handed to him and testify
on the procedure he took afterwards to
preserve its integrity.

Pe o p l e v H a b a n a ( G R N o. 1 8 8 9 0 0 ,
5 March 2010)
If the sealing of the seized substance has not

been made, the prosecution would have to

resent every police officer, messenger,
laboratory technician, and storage personnel,
the entire chain of custody, no matter how
briefly ones possession has been. Each of them
has to testify that the substance, although
unsealed, has not been tampered with or
substituted while in his care.