~

3aepublic of tbe !lbtlipptnes

~upreme <!Court
;fftilanila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE I OF THE G.R. No. 237809

PHILIPPINES,
i Plaintiff-Appellee, Present:
!
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
-1versus - PERLAS-BERNABE,
CAGUIOA,
J. REYES, JR., and
ROSALINA I AURE y HERNANDO,* JJ.
ALMAZAN and 1 GINA
MARAVILL..f\y AGNES,** Promulgated:
Accused-Appellants.
I

DECISION

PERLAS-BE~ABE, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision2 dated August 24,
2017 of the cburt of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08065, which
affirmed the Judgment3 dated November 16, 2015 and the Order4 dated
January 5, 20i6 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79
I

(RTC) in Crim. Case No. Q-14-00697, finding accused-appellants Rosalina

Aure y Almaz~n (Rosalina) and Gina Maravilla y Agnes (Gina; collectively,
accused-appelllants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drµgs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of
I

Designated Addltional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.
•• "Agned" in some parts of the records.
See Notice of At' peal dated September 19, 2017; rollo, p. 17.
Id. at 2-16. Pen' ed by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-
Javier and Pedr B. Corales, concurring.
CA rol/o, pp. 36-47. Penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.
4
Id. at 48-52. I

j
Decision 2 G.R. No. 237809

Republic Act INo. (RA) 9165, 5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

The Facts

This case stemmed from an Information6 filed before the R TC

charging accused-appellants of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
The prosecutiqn alleged that at around one (1) o'clock in the afternoon of
January 15, 2014, a team composed of members from the District Anti-
Illegal Drugs -+ Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of the Quezon
City Police !District conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-
appellants during which one ( 1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance was recovered from them. After marking the plastic sachet at the
i

place of arrest, the apprehending officers, together with accused-appellants,

then proceedeq to the DAID-SOTG headquarters in Camp Karingal, Quezon
City, where the seized item was inventoried and photographed in the
presence of a media representative. Thereafter, the seized item was brought
to the crime laboratory where, upon examination,7 the contents thereof
I

yielded positiye for 4.75 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or

shabu, a dang~rous drug. 8

In defense, accused-appellants denied the charges against them,

claiming instead, that they were just going about their personal matters when
two (2) men suddenly grabbed them, and thereafter, dragged them to their
vehicle and t@ok them to Camp Karingal. Thereat, the men demanded
Pl50,000.00 ~or their release, but since they could not produce the said
amount, the instant criminal charge was filed against them. Notably,
accused-appellants maintained that they only saw each other for the first
time in Camp Karingal and that it was only during trial when they first laid
their eyes on the plastic sachet purportedly seized from them. 9
I

In a Judgment 10 dated November 16, 2015, the RTC found accused-

appellants gui:lty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and
accordingly, sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
to pay a fine :in the amount of P500,000.00. 11 The RTC found that the
prosecution, through the testimony of the back-up arresting officer, Police
Officer 3 Fernando Salonga (P03 Salonga), had established the fact that
accused-appell~nts indeed sold shabu to the poseur-buyer, Police Officer 3
Miguel Cordero (P03 Cordero). In this regard, the R TC opined that the
I
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS Acr OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUN?S THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
17,
Dated January 2014. Records, pp. 1-2.
See Chemistry Report No. D-27-14 dated January 15, 2014, id. at 12.
See rollo, pp. 2-5. See also CA rollo, pp. 37-38.
See rollo, pp. 5-p. See also CA rollo, pp. 38-39.
°
1
11
CA rollo, pp. 36~47.
Id.at47.

J
Decision 3 G.R. No. 237809

failure to present the testimony of P03 Cordero is not indispensable to

accused-appell~nts' conviction as P03 Salonga attested to his knowledge of
the afore-described transaction. 12 Aggrieved, accused-appellants separately
moved for re9onsideration, 13 which were, however, denied in an Order 14
dated January$, 2016, thus, they appealed 15 to the CA.
!
I

In a De~ision 16 dated August 24, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC

ruling. It held fhat despite the absence of the testimony of P03 Cordero, the
prosecution w'11-s nevertheless able to prove accused-appellants' commission
of the crime c~arged through the testimony of another member of the buy-
bust team, POf Salonga, who was inside a car just 10-15 meters away from
where the sale transaction occurred. Further, the CA ruled that the police
officers substantially complied with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 even
though P03 cbrctero was not able to testify as to the links of the chain of
custody of the confiscated drug and in spite of the absence of the
Department o~ Justice (DOJ) representative and the elected public official
during the inventory. 17
I

Hence, Jhis appeal seeking that the conviction of accused-appellants

I
be overturned. I
I

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

I
i
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
under RA 916p, 18 it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be
established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself
forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 19 Failing to prove
the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State
I

12
See id. at 39-47.1
13
See motion for jreconsideration of Rosalina dated November 24, 2015 (records, pp. 248-253); and
motion for reconsideration of Gina dated November 26, 2015 (records, pp. 262-273).
14
CA ro/lo, pp. 48152.
15
See Notice of ~ppeal of Rosalina dated January 27, 2016 (id. at 12); and Notice of Appeal of Gina
dated February S, 2016 (id. at 13-14).
16
Rollo, pp. 2-16. I
17
See id. at 8-15 1
18
The elements o~ Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payh;ent; while the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a
prohibited drug! (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously pos~essed the said drug. (See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018; People
v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28,
2018; People v.I Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018; People v. Miranda, G.R. No.
229671, January 31, 2018; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; all cases
citing People v. $umili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 [2015] and People v. Bio, 753 Phil.730, 736 [2015].)
19
See People v. Crispo, id.; People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Magsano, id.; People v. Manansala, id.;
People v. Miran 1da, id.; and People v. Mamangon, id. See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601
(2014). I

~
Decision 4 G.R. No. 237809

insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
hence, warrant~ an acquittal. 20
1

To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty,

the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody
from the momfnt the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as
1

evidence of the crime. 21 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law
requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of
the seized itertj.s be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of
the same. 22 The law further requires that the said inventory and photography
be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items
I

were seized, dr his representative or counsel, as well as certain required

witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA
10640,23 "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official"; 24 or (b) if after the amendment of
RA 9165 by RA 10640, "an elected public official and a representative of
the National Prosecution Service or the media." 25 The law requires the
presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the
chain of custcbdy and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or
contamination bf evidence. " 26

As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is

strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural
technicality buf as a matter of substantive law." 27 This is because "[t]he law
has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential
police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life
1

imprisonment. '1,' 28

20
See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 20 ! 8, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. I 024,
1039-1040 (2012).
21
See People v. Ano, G .R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018; People v. Crispo, supra note 18; People v.
Sanchez, supra hote 18; People v. Magsano, supra note 18; People v. Manansala, supra note 18;
People v. Miranda, supra note 18; and People v. Mamangon, supra note 18. See also People v. Viterbo,
supra note 19. 1
22
In this regard, case law recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even
marking at the nbrest police station or office of the apprehending team." (People v. Mama/umpon, 767
Phil. 845, 855 [2015], citing Jmson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271 [2011]. See also People v.
Ocfemia, 718 P~il. 330, 348 [2013], citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 532 [2009].) Hence,
the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them
inadmissible in Jvidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the
nearest police s~ation or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on
chain of custody. (See People v. Tumulak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 [2016]; and People v. Rollo, 757
Phil. 346, 357 [2:015].)
23
Entitled "AN A\:T TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR .THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,,,, approved on July 15, 2014.
24
Section 21 (!)arid (2), Article II of RA 9165; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
25
Section 21 (!),Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
26
See People v. B~ngalan, G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018, citing People v. Miranda, supra note
18. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
27
See People v. Miranda, id. See also People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, citing
People v. Umipang, supra note 20, at I 038.
28
See People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, id.

~
Decision 5 G.R. No. 237809

Nonethe~ess, the Court has recognized that due to varying field

conditions, str~ct compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not
always be possible. 29 As such, the failure of the apprehending team to
strictly compl~ with the same would not ipso facto render the seizure and
custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution
satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-
compliance; arld ( b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly p~eserved. 30 The foregoing is based on the saving clause found
in Section 21 (a), 31 Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 91165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. 32 It
should, howe~er, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the
prosecution m~st duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses,33
and that the ju~tifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact,
because the Cqurt cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even
exist.34 11

Anent tHe witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if

the prosecutio¥ proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and
sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they
eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be
examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court
1

to be convinc~ that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given
circumstances.f 5 Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual
serious attem~ts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as
justified grounf:ls for non-compliance. 36 These considerations arise from the
fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from
1

the moment they have received the information about the activities of the
accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and
consequently, inake the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully
well that they ~ould have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 37
I

Notably,! the Court, in People v. Miranda, 38 issued a definitive

reminder to pnosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
"[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the
State retains t~e positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of
I

29
See People v. sJrchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
30
See People v. Alf!orfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
31
Section 21 (a), Article 11 of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "Provided, further, that non-
compliance wit~ these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary val'ile of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not rende~ void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]"
32 Section 1 of RA 10640 pertinently states: "Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements urder justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items ar~ properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such sei'.fures and custody over said items."
33
People v. Almorje, supra note 30.
34 People v. De Gu~man, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
35
See People v. Mdinansala, supra note 18.
36 See People v. Gamboa, supra note 20, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 19, at 1053.
37
See People v. oyspo, supra note 18.
38
Supra note 18. I

J
Decision 6 G.R. No. 237809

custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or

not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks
the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the
evidence's inte grity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for
1

the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further
review." 39

In this case, a perusal of the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated

1

Item/Property40 dated January 15, 2014 readily reveals that while the
inventory of the plastic sachet purportedly seized from accused-appellants
was conducted in the presence of a media representative, it was nevertheless
done without the presence of any elected public official and DOJ
representative, contrary to the afore-described procedure. When asked about
1

this deviation' from procedure, P03 Salonga offered the following

I

justification:

[Public Prosecutor Alexis G. Bartolome]: Mr. Witness, there are

signature~ appearing in this inventory receipt, there is a signature above
the name P03 Cordero, whose signature is this?
[P03 Salonga]: That is the signature of P03 Miguel Cordero, sir.

Q: How d!d you know that this is the signature of P03 Cordero?
A: Becam~e I was present when he signed it, sir.

Q: There is also a signature of Rey Argana of Police Files Tonite, whose

signature is this?
1

A: That is the signature of Rey Argana from Police Files Tonite, sir.

xx xx

Q: It ap,pears, Mr. Witness, that there is no signature from the

re resentative of the De artment of Justice and elected baran a
official w ere the accused was arrested, why?
A: Our t~am leader tried to get a representative from the barangay
official and other representative, but according to our team leader,
they failetl to appear in our invitation to be our witness.
I

xx x x41 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

I

As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for

these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or, at the
very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the
apprehending officers to secure their presence. Here, P03 Salonga tried to
justify their d¢viation from procedure by offering the perfunctory excuse
that their team leader tried to invite the required witnesses but to no avail,
without really expounding on the same. Neither did the prosecution press on
P03 Salonga ~o determine how such earnest efforts were exerted, or even
39
See id.
40
Records, p. 18.
41
TSN, February 24, 2015, pp. 15-16.

J
Decision 7 G.R. No. 237809

attempt to cal~ the buy-bust team leader to the witness stand to determine
whether or not earnest efforts were really done in order to ensure the
required witnefses' presence during the inventory.

Moreovrr, the Court notes that P03 Cordero was not presented as a
witness during trial. In People v. Bartolini42 (Bartolini), the Court explained
that while the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is, per se, not necessarily
fatal to the ca~se of the prosecution, there must be at least someone else who
is competent t~ testify as to the fact that the sale transaction indeed occurred
between the pqseur-buyer and the accused. Otherwise, the testimonies of the
other witnesse~ regarding the matter become hearsay, and thus, inadmissible
in evidence, to; wit:
I

Aside from the points raised by Bartolini on the chain of custody

and corp4s delicti, we find that the first element of the crime involving the
sale of ill~gal drugs - that the transaction or sale took place - was also not
sufficiently proven by the prosecution. The non-presentation of the
poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution as nobody could competently
testify onl the fact of sale between Bartolini and the poseur-buyer. In this
case, SP04 Larot admitted that he did not hear the conversation between
the poseur-buyer and Bartolini, and that he only saw the pre-arranged
signal before apprehending Bartolini:
I
xxI xx
!
As SP04 Larot could not hear the conversation between Bartolini
and the poseur-buyer, his testimony was mere hearsay and thus the
prosecuti~n failed to prove the fact of the transaction. The non-
presentatipn of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution x x x

xx xx I

w;hile there have been instances where the Court affirmed the
conviction of an accused notwithstanding the non-presentation of the
poseur-bhyer in a buy-bust operation, this is only when the testimony
of such prseur-buyer is merely corroborative, and another eyewitness
can competently testify on the sale of the illegal drug. In this case
however.'! the lone witness for the prosecution was not competent to
testify od the sale of the illegal drug as he merely relied on the pre-
arranged! signal to apprehend Bartolini. 43 (Emphasis and underscoring
1

supplied) 1

In this case, the sole witness for the prosecution, P03 Salonga, was a
back-up arresting officer positioned inside a car 10-15 meters away from
where the supposed sale transaction between P03 Cordero and accused-
appellants tooM place. 44 Clearly, similar to the lone witness in Bartolini, P03
Salonga could !not competently testify on the fact of the sale as he was in no
position to overhear the conversation between the transacting parties and
!

42
79 I Phil. 626 (2916).
43
Id. at 640-642; citations omitted.
44 1

See TSN, February 24, 2015, pp. 10-11.

J
Decision 8 G.R. No. 237809

only relied od P03 Cordero's pre-arranged signal to effect the arrest of

accused-appellants.
I

In view of the following circumstances, namely: (a) the unjustified

1

deviation from the chain of custody rule which compromised the integrity
and evidentiaty value of the item purportedly seized from accused-
appellants; and ( b) the prosecution's failure to prove an essential element of
the crime ch~rged, i.e., that a sale transaction involving drugs indeed
occurred betw:een P03 Cordero and accused-appellants, the acquittal of
accused-appellants is warranted.

WHERf FORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated

August 24, 20[ 7 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08065 is
I •
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordmgly, accused-appellants
Rosalina Aure ;y Almazan and Gina Maravilla y Agnes are ACQUITTED of
the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to
cause their imtpediate release, unless they are being lawfully held in custody
for any other ryason.

SO ORDERED.

JAPt ~ .
ESTELA M(PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
I

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

b~ ,

~ EC.Rt~R.
sociate Justice

__v:~'
RAMON PAULL.HERNANDO
Associate Justice
Decision 9 G.R. No. 237809

I
!
ATTESTATION
I

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation bf fore the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Divisipn.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursu~t to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Cha\rperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decisi<!m had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to th~ writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.