Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court, Manila

G.R. No. 223142

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ... Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

ROLANDO SANTOS y ZARAGOZA ... Accused-Appellant

PRESENT: VELASCO, JR, J, CHAIRPERSON; BERSAMIN; LEONEN; MARTIRES

AND GESMUNDO, JJ

Promulgated: January 17, 2018

DECISION

MARTIRES, J:

This resolves the appeal of accused-appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza (Santos)

seeking the reversal and setting aside of the 6 August 2014 Decision1 and 2 March
2015 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Division (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No.
05851, affirming the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan
City, in Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011 finding him guilty of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, respectively.

THE FACTS

Accused-appellant Santos was charged before the RTC of Caloocan City with three (3)
counts of violation of certain provisions of R.A. No. 9165, viz:

Crim. Case No. C-82009

(Violation of Sec. 6, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)

That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without
authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maintain in his
house at 21 Tagaytay St., Caloocan City, a drug den, dive or resort where dangerous
drugs are habitually dispensed for use by the customers and addicts.4
 Crim. Case No. C-82010
(Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)

That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody, and control dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a
newsprint and contained in transparent plastic “tea bag” marked “ELS-21-8-09-06”
weighing 1.0022 grams, when subjected for laboratory examination gave positive result
to the tests for Marijuana, a dangerous drug.5

Crim. Case No. C-82011

(Violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)

That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his
possession, custody, and control several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent
plastic bag, several pieces of used plastic sachet in a transparent “tea bag,” and a
plastic tube intended for sniffing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 6

In relation to Criminal Case No. C-82009 where Santos was charged for maintaining a
drug den, Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores (Loquinario- Flores) who was found inside
the house of Santos during the service of the search warrant, was charged with violation
of Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.7

When arraigned, both Santos and Loquinario-Flores pleaded not guilty.8 Joint trial of the
cases thereafter ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution tried to prove its cases against Santos through the testimony of Special
Investigator Elson Saul (Saul), Agents Jerome Bomediano (Bomediano), Henry Kanapi
(Kanapi) and Atty. Fatima Liwalug (Atty. Liwalug), all from the Reaction, Arrest and
Interdiction Division (RAID) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and Nicanor
Cruz, Jr. (Cruz), of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division (FCD).

Prior to the application on 20 August 2009 by Atty. Liwalug for a search warrant before
the RTC, Manila, the RAID-NBI received information from their confidential informant
that there was a group of individuals at Tagaytay St., Caloocan City, selling drugs and
using minors as runners. After Atty. Liwalug interviewed the informant, she, along with
an NBI team and the technical staff of Imbestigador, a GMA Channel 7 investigative
program, went to the reported area to conduct surveillance. The actual surveillance,
where videos were taken of the buying, selling, and use of drugs in the different houses
on Tagaytay St., lasted for two weeks. During the first test-buy, Bomediano was able to
buy shabu from Santos alias “Rolando Tabo.” Two informants were used by the NBI for
the surveillance but the spy camera was attached to only one of them. The informants
were able to buy drugs from Santos and to use them inside his house. 9

The first video,10 taken by the staff of Imbestigador, showed the informants going inside
a makeshift house on Tagaytay St. which, according to one of the informants, was
owned by Santos. He was shown standing in front of a table while preparing the
paraphernalia to sniff shabu. Also shown in the video was Jenny Coyocot, the adopted
daughter of Santos, who, according to the informant, sold foil for the price of P2.00 per
strip. The second video11 depicted Erwin Ganata Ayon telling Jack, one of the occupants
in Santos’ house, “pasok kami sa bahay ni Tabo.”12 The videos were turned over by
Mean de Chavez of Imbestigador to Atty. Liwalug.13

On 21 August 2009, Kanapi, Saul, Bomediano, and SI Junnel Malaluan, armed with a
search warrant,14 proceeded to the house of Santos on Tagaytay St. Kanapi and
Malaluan guarded the perimeter of Santos’ house to ensure that no one could exit from
or enter the house during the service of the search warrant. Previous to the service of
the warrant, the NBI RAID coordinated15 with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the
officials of the barangay, and the media.16

Saul knocked on the door of Santos’ house. When nobody answered despite several
minutes of waiting, the NBI team broke open the door. Saul, Bomediano, Malaluan, and
the Imbestigator team proceeded to the second floor where they found a person who
identified himself as Rolando Santos. Saul told Santos that the team was from the NBI
and that they were to serve a search warrant on him, which copy was actually shown to
Santos. The team waited for the representatives from the DOJ and the barangay before
conducting the search.17

During the conduct of the search at the living room on the second floor of the house,
Saul found inside the bedroom and beside the bed of Santos several used and unused
foil strips either crumpled or rolled, the size of a cigarette stick. The foil
strips,18 numbering fourteen, were found inside a baby powder container.19 He also
found unused small plastic sachets.20 Saul placed the foil and plastic sachets on the
center table in the living room. When Saul frisked Santos, he found marijuana leaves
wrapped in paper on the right pocket of his pants. Saul informed Santos of his
constitutional rights and placed the marijuana leaves on top of the center table. Saul
searched the rooms on the second floor but found nothing. From a trash can in the
kitchen, Saul found used small transparent sachets which he also placed on the center
table. Loquinario-Flores, who was caught on video selling to the informant aluminum foil
to be used with drugs, and two minor children were found on the first floor of the house.
The children admitted that they were part of a gang in the area.21

Santos, Assistant City Prosecutor Darwin Cafjete, Kagawad Magno Flores, and media
representative Eugene Lalaan of Imbestigadorwitnessed the inventory22 of the seized
items by Saul and when he marked them. Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the two
minors were brought to the NBI office. When Saul returned to the NBI office after the
operation, he submitted the seized items to the NBI forensic chemist. A joint affidavit of
arrest23 was thereafter executed by Saul, Malaluan, Bomediano, and Kanapi.24

The testimony of Cruz, the forensic chemist, was dispensed with after the parties
agreed to stipulate on the matters he would testify and after a short cross-examination
by the defense.

Version of the Defense

The version of the defense was established through the testimony of Loquinario-Flores,
Santos, and Renamel Destriza (Destriza).

On 21 August 2009 at about 3:00 p.m., while Santos was alone at home playing his
guitar, the NBI team armed with long firearms suddenly arrived looking for a certain
Roland Tabo. Santos was made to lie face down and thereafter was frisked. The team
took Santos’ money amounting to P140.00 and his house was searched in the presence
of a kagawad from Quezon City but the search team found nothing. As a result, the
team brought out foil, lighters, and marijuana and took pictures. Loquinario- Flores was
inside the house that time as she was called by Destriza to help bring down from the
second floor an elderly who was hit by the door when the NBI team forcibly opened it.
Loquinario-Flores was no longer allowed to leave while Destriza, who was carrying a
child that time, was allowed to go out of the house. Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the
other persons arrested were brought to the NBI office. It was only during the inquest
held the following day that Santos was informed that he was being charged of violating
the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 and allowed to see the items allegedly seized from
him.25

The Ruling of the RTC

The RTC26 ruled that the entry in the house of Santos by the NBI team and the
subsequent confiscation of the paraphernalia and marijuana were valid and legal since
the team had a search warrant. Moreover, it held that the search was conducted
following proper procedure. Thus, the RTC resolved the cases as follows:

Premises considered, this court finds and so holds the accused Rolando Santos y
Zaragoza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 6, 11 and 12,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon him the following:

(1) In Crim. Case No. C-82009, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);

(2) In Crim. Case No. C-82010, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00); and

(3) In Crim. Case No. C-82011, the penalty of Imprisonment of six (6) months and one
(1) day to four (4) years and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).

Further, in Crim. Case No. C-82012, accused Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores was
likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 7 of the above-
cited law and imposes upon her the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00).

The drugs and drug paraphernalia subject matter of these cases are hereby confiscated
and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

The Ruling of the CA

Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the RTC, Santos appealed before the Court of
Appeals.

In Criminal Case No. C-82009, the CA, Fourth Division27 ruled that the RTC should not
have given much weight to the video footages because these were not identified and
authenticated by the confidential informant who took them. It held that the prosecution
failed to present any witness who had personal knowledge and who could have testified
that Santos’ house was a drug den. The team, on the other hand, failed to show that
Santos or any other person was committing illegal activities inside the house. It found
that the testimony of the confidential informant was essential and indispensable for the
conviction of Santos because the NBI agents did not have any personal knowledge as
to the alleged illegal activities in the house that would characterize it as a drug den. 28

In Criminal Case No. C-82012, because of its ruling that the prosecution failed to
establish that Santos was maintaining a drug den, the CA held that it necessarily
followed that Loquinario-Flores, pursuant to Sec. 11 (a), Rule 12229 of the Rules of
Court, must be exonerated of the charge against her for violating Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A.
9165. Despite the fact that Loquinario-Flores did not appeal, the CA relied on the dictum
that everything in an appealed case is open for review by the appellate court. 30

In Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011, the CA held that the prosecution was able
to show the guilt of Santos beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the testimony of Saul
was straightforward and that there was no proof that he had ill motive to testify against
Santos. On the other hand, it found the defense of frame-up put up by Santos was self-
serving which failed to rebut the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution;
and that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Kanapi and Bomediano were
on trivial and immaterial details that do not affect their credibility. 31 Hence, the appeal of
Santos was decided as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 26

September 2012 of the lower court is MODIFIED as follows:

1. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82010 finding the appellant Rolando Santos
y Zaragoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;

2. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82011 finding the appellant Rolando Santos
y Zaragoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;

3. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82009 finding the appellant Rolando Santos
y Zaragoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of maintaining a Drug Den
under Section 6, Article II of RA 9165 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant
Rolando Santos y Zaragoza is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-82009 for
insufficiency of evidence.

4. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82012 finding the accused Imee Baltazar
Lquinario-Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Visiting a Drug Den
under Section 7, Article II of RA 9165 is likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE. She is
hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-82012 for insufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED.

Santos sought for a partial reconsideration32 of the decision of the CA insofar as it

affirmed his conviction in Crim. Case Nos. C-82010 and C- 82011. Finding no
persuasive grounds or substantial bases to reconsider, however, the CA denied the
motion.33

ISSUES

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE
TO THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO
PROVE THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED
DRUGS.

OUR RULING

The appeal is without merit.

It bears to stress that while an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until
proven guilty, the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and not
rely on the weakness of the evidence of the defense.34 The Court firmly holds that the
prosecution was able to successfully discharge its burden of overcoming the
constitutional presumption of innocence of Santos and in proving his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt in Crim. Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011.

The findings of the trial court and the appellate court as to the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses are binding and conclusive upon the Court.

Santos claimed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were indecisive,
conflicting, and contradictory; as opposed to the version of the defense which was
consistent, straightforward, and complementary with each other.35
To justify his claim, Santos averred that when Saul first testified he stated that the
second floor of the house had a living room, kitchen, and two rooms. It was when Saul
allegedly frisked Santos that he found several used and unused aluminum foil and a
sachet of marijuana, but nothing was found inside the two rooms. When Saul was again
put on the witness stand, he allegedly admitted that the five disposable lighters and the
strips of aluminum foil were found inside Santos’ bedroom.36

Contrary to the claim of Santos, the testimonies of Saul were not inconsistent with each
other. When first put on the stand, Saul admitted that he found the strips of aluminum
foil in the living room; and that when he frisked Santos he found in the right pocket of his
pants the marijuana leaves wrapped in paper.37 Clearly, Saul was forthright in stating
where he found the used and unused aluminum foil and the marijuana. Saul never
claimed that the strips of aluminum foil were found on the body of Santos.

When Saul testified again, he described in detail that the strips of aluminum foil were
found inside a plastic baby powder container.38Although Saul claimed that he found
these in the bedroom of Santos, the Court took note of the fact that in most houses in
urban areas, the living room is also used as the bedroom. What is important is that Saul
was consistent that he found the strips of aluminum foil on the second floor of the house
where the living room and bedroom were located.

It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or
building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge
and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.39 The truth that the
strips of aluminum foil were found in the house of Santos and the marijuana in his body,
had not been successfully controverted by him. In fact, there was but the lame defense
of frame-up offered by Santos to overcome the presumption. Enlightening at this point is
the jurisprudence in People v. Lagman,40 viz:

It held that illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal
intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the
accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the
law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of the
accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and
dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.41
The contention of Santos that the members of the raiding team gave an altogether
different account as to who actually witnessed the implementation of the search
warrant,42 is a trivial and inconsequential matter that does not affect the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses. These matters do not deal with the central fact of the crime.
Besides, it has been held, time and again, that minor inconsistencies and contradictions
in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses' credibility but even
enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. 43

In stark contrast, the defense of denial proffered by Santos cannot prevail over the
positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. A defense of denial which is
unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative
and self-serving deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary
value over convincing, straightforward, and probable testimony on affirmative
matters.44 Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility
with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense.45

Equally important is that it is the general rule that “the factual findings of the trial court,
its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative
weight thereof, as well as its conclusions on the credibility of the witnesses on which
said findings were anchored are accorded great respect. This great respect rests in the
trial court's first-hand access to the evidence presented during the trial, and in its direct
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while they testify on the occurrences
and events attested to.”46 Settled also is the rule that factual findings of the appellate
court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear
showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable
error.47 Let it be underscored that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open
for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors
in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 48 The Court had
assiduously reviewed the records but found nothing to qualify these cases as falling
within the exception to the general rule.

Santos asserted that the search warrant was only for an undetermined amount of
shabu; thus, the discovery of the incriminating items other than that described in the
warrant must result from bodily search or seized in plain view to be admissible in
evidence.49

The assertion of Santos has no merit considering that he did not question the
admissibility of the seized items as evidence against him during the trial of these cases.
It was only when he appealed the decision of the RTC before the CA that he raised the
issue as to the admissibility of the seized items. Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is
that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the lower
court.50

There was an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized drugs and
paraphernalia.

It was the position of Santos that there was doubt as to the whether the marijuana and
paraphernalia seized from him were the very same objects offered in court as corpus
delicti. He claimed that there was no explanation given regarding the items confiscated
from Santos from the time these were seized until their turnover for laboratory
examination.51

"Corpus delicti is the ‘actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.’ In
illegal drug cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself.”52

The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) - the policy making and strategy formulating body in
the planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control
tasked to develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified, and balanced
national drug abuse prevention and control strategy - has expressly defined chain of
custody involving dangerous drugs and other substances in the following terms in Sec.
1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,54 to wit:

b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/ confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.55

The exacting requirement as to the chain of custody of seized drugs and paraphernalia
is highlighted in R.A. No. 9165 as follows:

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 so 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, 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;

On the one hand, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) settles the proper
procedure to be followed in Sec. 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165, viz:

(a) The apprehending office/ 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:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/ team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirement" 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

The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be
established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court.56

On the first link, jurisprudence dictates that "‘(M)arking’ is the placing by the
apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on
the items seized. It helps ensure that the dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension
are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory and photography when these
activities are undertaken at the police station or at some other practicable venue 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 and (2) immediately upon confiscation." 57

Saul testified that after he gathered the drug paraphernalia and the marijuana which he
confiscated from Santos, he prepared the inventory of seized items/ property58 in the
presence of Santos, and the respective representatives of the DOJ, media, and the
barangay. In addition to the inventory, he marked the confiscated items as follows:

1. five (5) pieces of disposable lighters “ELS-21 -8-09”

2. several pieces or strips of unused aluminum foil “ELS-21 -8-09-01”

3. several pieces/ strips of used aluminum foil “ELS-21 -8-09-02”

4. several pieces unused small plastic sachet “ELS-21 -8-09-03”

5. several pieces used small plastic sachet “ELS-21 -8-09-04”

6. one (1) improvised plastic pipe “ELS-21-8-09-05”

7. undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped in newspaper “ELS-21-

8-09-06”

Anent the second and third links, on the same day that Saul arrived at the NBI RAID
office after the service of the search warrant, he forthwith prepared the disposition
form59 for the turnover of the seized items to the FCD. The seized items were received
by the FCD on 21 August 2009 at 11:05 p.m. A certification 60 dated 21 August 2009 was
likewise issued by the FCD confirming that the confiscated items marked as “ELS-21-8-
0902”, “ELS-21-8-09-04”, and “ELS-21-8-09-05” yielded positive results for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and positive results for marijuana for
“ELS-21-8-09-06”. On 25 August 2009, the FCD released its Dangerous Drugs Report
Nos. DDM-09-0861 and DD-09-47.62

On the fourth link, the testimony of Cruz was dispensed with after the parties had
agreed to stipulate on the following facts:

That he is an expert witness, and as such is of the receipt of a letter request dated 21
August 2009;
That attached to the letter request were several pieces/ strips of used aluminum foil
marked as ELS-21-8-09-02; several pieces of used small plastic sachet marked as ELS-
21-8-09-04; one (1) improvised plastic pipe marked as ELS-21-8-09-05, and
undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped in a newspaper marked
as ELS-21-8-09-06;

That he conducted laboratory examination on the specimen submitted to their office, the
result of which he reduced into writing as evidenced by Dangerous Drugs Report No.
DDM-09-08, stating that upon examination conducted on the dried crushed leaves and
seeds wrapped in a newsprint gave positive results for “marijuana” and by Dangerous
Drugs Report No. DDM-09-47, stating that upon examinations conducted on the several
strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag; several pieces of used plastic
sachets in a transparent “tea bag” and a plastic sachet tube gave positive results for the
presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, respectively;

That he issued a Certification dated 21 August 2009 to the effect that he conducted
examination upon the above-mentioned specimen submitted to their office.63

As opposed therefore, to the claim of Santos, there was no significant gap in the chain
of custody of the seized items. Moreover, the assertion of Santos that the forensic
chemist did not testify to explain the measures undertaken to preserve the integrity and
identity of the substance examined until their presentation in court,64 has no merit. As
earlier mentioned, both the prosecution and the defense had agreed to dispense with
the testimony of the forensic chemist upon stipulation on certain facts. Moreover, the
defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the forensic chemist but, as
revealed by the records, his cross-examination never dealt on matters pertaining to the
measures carried out by the NBI team to maintain the integrity of the confiscated items.

In the same vein, it needs to be stressed that Cruz is a public officer; thus, his reports
carried the presumption of regularity. Besides, Sec. 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
of Court provides that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by
a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
specifically enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. 65 It
necessarily follows that the findings of Cruz as contained in Dangerous Drugs Report
Nos. DDM- 09-08 and DDM-09-47 were conclusive in view of the failure of the defense
to present evidence showing the contrary.

Noteworthy, the legal teaching in our jurisprudence is that “the integrity of the evidence
is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or
proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bears the burden of
showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the
presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the
presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. 66 Santos had
miserably failed in presenting any evidence that would justify a finding that the NBI team
had ill motive in tampering with the evidence in order to hold him liable for these grave
offenses.

The prosecution was able to fully discharge its burden of proving beyond
reasonable doubt its charges against Santos.

In Crim. Case No. C-82010, Santos was charged with and convicted of violation of Sec.
11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165,67 the elements of which are as follows: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug.68

Saul testified that when he frisked Santos, he found marijuana in the right pocket of his
pants. Santos did not offer any explanation on why he was in possession of the
marijuana or if he was authorized by law to possess the dangerous drug. Based on the
Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-08, the dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped
in newspaper and contained in the transparent plastic tea bag marked as “ELS-21-8-09-
06” and which gave a positive result for marijuana, had a net weight of 1.0022 grams.

Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of 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), shall
be imposed if the quantity of marijuana is less than three hundred (300) grams. Thus,
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years,
and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as imposed by the RTC
and affirmed by the CA, is hereby sustained.

In Crim. Case No. C-8201 1, Santos was convicted of violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A.
No. 9165,69 its elements being as follows: (1) possession or control by the accused of
any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into
the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.70

Saul testified that when he served the search warrant on Santos at his house on 21
August 2009, he found thereat several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent
plastic bag, several pieces of used plastic sachet in a transparent tea bag, and a plastic
tube intended for sniffing shabu, which he respectively marked “ELS-21-8-09-01,” “ELS-
21-8-09-04,” and “ELS-21-809-05.” Similar to the marijuana, Santos failed to justify his
possession of these items. Significantly, Dangerous Drugs Report No. DD-09-47
showed that the examination made on the washings of these confiscated items yielded
positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Pursuant to Sec. 12, Art. 11 of R.A. No. 9165, 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 for
violation of this provision of the Act. Finding no error in the penalty of imprisonment of
six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) imposed by the RTC, which was affirmed by the CA, the Court hereby
maintains the same.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 6 August 2014 Decision and 2 March 2015
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Division in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 05851 are
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice