REPUBLIC VS EUGENIOG.R. No. 174629, February 14, 2008TINGA, J.:FACTS: Following the promulgation of Agan, a series of investigations concerning the award of the NAIA 3 contracts to PIATCO were undertaken by the Ombudsman and the Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of petitioner Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).On January 25, 2006, Alvarez entered his appearance before the Manila RTC in SP Case No. 06-114200 and filed an Urgent Motion to Stay Enforcement of Order of January 12, 2006 which granted authority to the AMLC to inquire into the bank accounts ex parte (DBS Bank account of Alvarez and Metrobank accounts of Cheng Yong). Alvarez argued that nothing in R.A. No. 9160 authorized the AMLC to seek the authority to inquire into bank accounts ex parte.Meanwhile, respondent Lilia Cheng filed with the CA a petition for Certiotari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Application for TRO and/or writ of Preliminary Injunction against the Republic of the Philippines through the AMLC, Manila RTC Judge Eugenio, Jr. and Makati RTC Judge Marella, Jr. According to Lilia Cheng, as wife of Cheng Yong, she jointly owns a conjugal bank account with him and that granting the ex parte applications for a bank inquiry order violated her constitutional right to due process and such order can only be granted in connection with violations of the AMLA. Also, she said that AMLA can not apply to bank accounts opened and transactions entered into prior to the effectivity of the AMLA or to bank accounts located outside the Philippines.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not bank inquiry order under Section 11 may be obtained only upon the pre-existence of a money laundering offense case already filed before the courts2. Whether or not an application for an order authorizing inquiry into bank accounts under Section 11 of the AMLA ex parte in natureRULING:1. No. The use of the phrase "in cases of" was unfortunate, yet submitted that it should be interpreted to mean "in the event there are violations" of the AMLA, and not that there are already cases pending in court concerning such violations.If the contrary position is adopted, then the bank inquiry order would be limited in purpose as a tool in aid of litigation of live cases, and wholly inutile as a means for the government to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain an intended prosecution of the account holder for violation of the AMLA. Should that be the situation, in all likelihood the AMLC would be virtually deprived of its character as a discovery tool, and thus would become less circumspect in filing complaints against suspect account holders. After all, under such set-up the preferred strategy would be to allow or even encourage the indiscriminate filing of complaints under the AMLA with the hope or expectation that the evidence of money laundering would somehow surface during the trial. Since the AMLC could not make use of the bank inquiry order to determine whether there is evidentiary basis to prosecute the suspected malefactors, not filing any case at all would not be an alternative. Such unwholesome set-up should not come to pass. Thus Section 11 cannot be interpreted in a way that would emasculate the remedy it has established and encourage the unfounded initiation of complaints for money laundering.

2. No. It is evident that Section 11 does not specifically authorize, as a general rule, the issuance ex parte of the bank inquiry order. We quote the provision in full:

SEC. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof, except that no court order shall be required in cases involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(i)1, (2) and (12).

To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or examine any deposit of investment with any banking institution or non bank financial institution when the examination is made in the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules of examination of the BSP.(Emphasis supplied)

Of course, Section 11 also allows the AMLC to inquire into bank accounts without having to obtain a judicial order in cases where there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to kidnapping for ransom, certain violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,hijacking and other violations under R.A. No. 6235, destructive arson and murder. Since such special circumstances do not apply in this case, there is no need for us to pass comment on this proviso. Suffice it to say, the proviso contemplates a situation distinct from that which presently confronts us, and for purposes of the succeeding discussion, our reference to Section 11 of the AMLA excludes said proviso. In the instances where a court order is required for the issuance of the bank inquiry order, nothing in Section 11 specifically authorizes that such court order may be issued ex parte. It might be argued that this silence does not preclude the ex parte issuance of the bank inquiry order since the same is not prohibited under Section 11.

PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVAG.R. No. 198115, February 22, 2013PEREZ, J.:FACTS: On July 9, 2003, a tipster gave information to the Office of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Group about the drug trade ofJose Alex Secreto y Villanueva at Libis Espina, Caloocaln City. A buy-bust operation was performed which led to the capture of th accused-appellant.PO2 Lagmay presented the recovered evidences to the team leader, SPO1 Edgar Pamor. At the DAID-SOG office, the seized items were surrendered to the investigatoron-duty, [PO1 Llanderal] who then instructed PO2 Lagmay to mark the sachet of shabu sold by accused-appelllant as "RLR-1," and "RLR-2" for the other sachet that was confiscated from him.ISSUE: Whether or not the procedures prescribed in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 were followed. RULING: No. Obviously the steps outlined in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence of corpus delicti were not followed. That being the case, it is necessary for the prosecution to show that inspite of the non-observance of the requirements in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless preserved. This was not done in this case. The prosecution failed to show how SPO1 Pamor ensured the integrity of the seized items from the time it was entrusted to him at the place of confiscation until the team reached the police station until he eventually handed them over again to PO2 Lagmay for the marking of the sachets. Neither did the prosecution show to whom the confiscated articles were turned over and the manner they were preserved after the laboratory examination and until their final presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Clearly, these lapses raise doubt on the integrity and identity of the drugs presented as evidence in court.Further, on the basis of the testimony of PO2 Lagmay, the confiscated items were not immediately marked at the scene of the crime. More significantly, although these items were allegedly marked in the police station, there was no showing that it was done in the presence of the accused-appellant or his chosen representative.What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.Here, the circumstances obtaining from the time the buy-bust team was organized until the chain of custody commenced were riddled with procedural lapses and inconsistencies between the testimony and the documents presented as evidence in court so much so that even assuming, that the physical inventory contemplated in R.A. 9165 subsumes the marking of the items itself, the belated marking of the seized items at the police station sans the required presence of the accused and the witnesses enumerated under Sec. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, and, absent a justifiable ground to stand on, cannot be considered a minor deviation from the procedures prescribed by the law. There being a "gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards" the presumption of regularity m the performance of official duties is overturned.Accused-appellant has been acquitted in this case.

PEOPLE VS BARTOLOMEG.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013BERSAMIN,J.: FACTS: On August 10, 2003, at around 1am an informant went to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Unit in Caloocan City to report the illicit drug dealings of the accused, Noel Bartolome y Bajo on Reparo Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. Acting on the report, Police Inspector Cesar Cruz of ADSOU immediately instructed some of his men to conduct a buy-bust operation against the accused.Paras immediately marked the sachet at the crime scene with Bartolomes initials NBB.ISSUE: Whether or not there was non-compliance of the requirements of the law for the proper seizure and custody of dangerous drugs.RULING: No. We point out that the non-adherence to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was not a serious flaw that would make the arrest of the accused illegal or that would render the shabu subject of the sale by him inadmissible as evidence against him. What was crucial was the proper preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu, inasmuch as that would be significant in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.The State showed here that the chain of custody of the shabu was firm and unbroken. The buy-bust team properly preserved the integrity of the shabu as evidence from the time of its seizure to the time of its presentation in court. Immediately upon the arrest of the accused, Paras marked the plastic sachet containing the shabu with the accuseds initials of NBB. Thereafter, Paras brought the sachet and the contents to the ADSOU, where his superior officer, Insp. Cruz, prepared and signed the request for the laboratory examination of the contents of the marked sachet.P02 De Ocampo handcarried the request and the evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory. SPO 1 Bugabuga of that office recorded the delivery of the request and the marked sachet, which were all received by Chemist Dela Rosa. In turn, Chemist Dela Rosa examined the contents of the marked sachet, and executed Physical Sciences Report No. D-1 03 8-03 confirming that the marked sachet contained 0.06 gram of shabu. In this regard, the accused did not deny that Paras and Chemist Dela Rosa affirmed the sequence of custody of the shabu during the trial.