EVIDENCE

Concept of Corpus Delicti

11. PP vs. Nepomuceno
G.R. No. 216062, 19 September 2018
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 216062, September 19, 2018,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. HILARIO NEPOMUCENO y
VISAYA@"BOK", Accused-Appellant

*Syllabus n/a at ESCRA

CORPUS DELICTI is defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense,
refers to the fact that a crime was actually committed. As applied to a particular offense,
the term means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two elements, namely: the existence of a
certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal
agency as the cause of the act or result. Consequently, the State does not comply with the
indispensable requirement of proving the corpus delicti if the subject drugs are missing, or if
substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts about
the authenticity of the evidence presented in the trial court.9

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on May 16,
2014, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant
handed down by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila in Criminal Case No. 08-259713
and Criminal Case No. 08-259714, respectively, for the violation of Section 5, Article II,
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and the violation of
Section 11(3) of the same law through the judgment dated May 3, 2012.2

The RTC imposed life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 for the violation of Section 5,
and the indeterminate sentence of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 15 years, as
maximum, and fine of ₱300,000.00 for the violation of Section 11 (3). 3

ANTECEDENTS

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed against the accused-appellant the following
informations dated February 28, 2008, to wit:

Criminal Case No. 08-259713

That on or about February 21, 2008, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not
being authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, or give away to another any dangerous drug,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet with net weight of ZERO POINT ZERO TWO ZERO gram (0.020g), known as
"SHABU" containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 08-259714

That on or about February 21, 2008, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control white
crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with net
weight of ZERO POINT ZERO TWO THREE gram (0.023g), known as 'SHABU" containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The CA summarized the factual and the procedural antecedents in its assailed decision, viz.:

The Prosecution's version is synthesized by the Office of the Solicitor General as follows:

On February 20, 2008, confidential informant reported to Police Inspector John Guiagi, head
of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) in Police Station 3, and informed him that an alias "Bok"
was selling drugs in Felix Huertas St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. He instructed P02 Boy Nino
Baladjay and P02 David Gonzales to take the confidential informant with them and conduct
Page 1 of 7
 EVIDENCE
Concept of Corpus Delicti
11. PP vs. Nepomuceno
G.R. No. 216062, 19 September 2018
surveillance on the target. After confirming the information, Gonzales prepared a pre-
operation report and a coordination form with the PDEA to conduct buy-bust operation on
the next day.

On February 21, 2008, Guiagi briefed Baladjay, SP03 Morales and POI Cabocan on the
conduct of the buy-bust operation. Baladjay prepared three (3) marked one hundred pesos
(Phpl00.00) bills and he was designated as poseur buyer. They left the police station around
3 :30 p.m. and proceeded to Felix Huertas St., near Fabella Hospital. Upon arrival, the
confidential informant pointed to appellant and together with Baladjay, they approached the
target. Baladjay was introduced to appellant by informant (sic) as a buyer. Appellant asked
Baladjay, "magkano?" to which he replied three hundred pesos (Php300.00). Appellant then
pulled from his pocket two (2) small plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
and asked Baladjay to pick one. After Baladjay picked one (1) sachet, he gave the three
hundred pesos (Php300.00) to appellant and executed the pre-arranged signal. Baladjay
then introduced himself as a police officer and arrested appellant. Baladjay recovered the
other sachet and the marked money. Several persons tried to prevent the arrest hence they
had to first bring appellant to the police station before marking the sachets and the money.

Subsequent laboratory examination of the sachets' contents confirmed it was

methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.

In his Brief, Appellant's version of the facts is as follows:

On February 21, 2008, at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Bok (Appellant) was on his
way, coming from his work as a welder, when two (2) men riding in tandem on a
motorcycle pulled over and asked him "where is the house of Hilario?" Bok replied that it
was he, and was asking them "why," when he suddenly noticed five (5) other men, three
(3) of which were in civilian clothing while the other two (2) were in police uniform, on
board a car. The men on the motorcycle informed Bok that they wanted to invite him to the
police station to ask him some question (sic). Tired and with hurting eyes, Bok told the
policemen to ask him on the spot, but it fell on deaf ears. Curious, Bok decided to just go
with them.

At the police station, Bok was surprised when he was suddenly detained inside the cell. Bok
repeatedly asked the policemen the reason for his detention, but no one answered. Bok
later found out that he was being charged for being a pusher when no illegal drug was ever
found or recovered from him.4

Judgment of the RTC

As stated, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant of the crimes charged upon finding that
the Prosecution had sufficiently and credibly proved all the elements of illegal sale and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, or shabu. It held that the arresting officers were
entitled to the presumption of the regularity of the performance of their functions, which
justified declaring them to have complied with the procedures prescribed by law for the
preservation of the integrity of the confiscated evidence. The RTC disposed thusly:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding

accused HILARIO NEPOMUCENO y VISAYA @ Bok GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt:

1. In CRIM. CASE NO. 08-259713, of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, Article

II, Republic Act 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment
and to pay fine in the amount of ₱500,000.00; and

2. In CRIM. CASE NO. 08-25714, of the crime of Violation of Sec. 11 (3),

Article II, Republic Act 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment
of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to Fifteen
(15) years, as maximum, and to pay fine in the amount of ₱300,000.00.

Cost against the accused. SO ORDERED.5

Decision of the CA

On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions, observing that the Prosecution had established
that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity of the confiscated dangerous
drugs despite the non-compliance with the procedural requirements stated in Section 21 of
Page 2 of 7
 EVIDENCE
Concept of Corpus Delicti
11. PP vs. Nepomuceno
G.R. No. 216062, 19 September 2018
R.A. No. 9165; and that the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs in question was further
shown to have been unbroken. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 3 May 2012 of the

Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 53, in Criminal Case Nos. 08-259713 and 08-259714
is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.6

ISSUES

In this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as counsel of the Prosecution 7 and
the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) as counsel of the accused-appellant, 8 separately
manifested that for purposes of this appeal they were no longer filing supplemental briefs,
and adopted their respective briefs submitted to the CA.

Accordingly, the accused-appellant continues to argue that he was entitled to acquittal

because of the non-compliance by the apprehending officers with the procedural
requirements stated in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; that the Prosecution did not justify the
non-compliance by the apprehending officers with the post-arrest requirements of Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165; and that such non-compliance was sufficient reason to doubt the
integrity of the confiscated dangerous drugs as the substances seized from him.

In response, the OSG submits that the mere non-compliance with the procedural post-
operation requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 did not engender doubts as to the
integrity of the confiscated dangerous drugs considering that, as the RTC correctly found,
the integrity of the seized drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti had been preserved.

RULING OF THE COURT

The appeal is meritorious.

The State bears the burden of proving the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs in
violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 and of the illegal possession of dangerous drugs in
violation of Section 11 of the same law. To discharge its burden of proof, the State should
establish the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime itself. Corpus delicti is defined as the
body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime was
actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, the term means  the actual
commission by someone of the particular crime charged . The corpus delicti is a compound
fact made up of two elements, namely: the existence of a certain act or result forming the
basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act
or result. Consequently, the State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of
proving the corpus delicti if the subject drugs are missing, or if substantial gaps occur in the
chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts about the authenticity of the
evidence presented in the trial court.9

In fine, the dangerous drug is itself the corpus delicti. The only way by which the State
could lay the foundation of the corpus delicti is to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
illegal sale or illegal possession of the dangerous drug by preserving the identity of the drug
offered as evidence against the accused. The State does so only by ensuring that the drug
presented in the trial court was the same substance bought from the accused during the
buy-bust operation or recovered from his possession at the moment of arrest. 10 The State
must see to it that the custody of the seized drug subject of the illegal sale or of the illegal
possession was safeguarded from the moment of confiscation until the moment of
presentation in court by documenting the stages of such custody as to establish the chain of
custody, whose objective is to remove unnecessary doubts about the identity of the
incriminating evidence. 11

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, 12 as amended, sets specific procedures in the handling of the
confiscated substance, thusly:

SEC. 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:
Page 3 of 7
 EVIDENCE
Concept of Corpus Delicti
11. PP vs. Nepomuceno
G.R. No. 216062, 19 September 2018
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items;

xxxx

The Implementing Rules and Regulation of Section 21 (a) of RA 9165, as amended, (IRR)

echoes the foregoing requirements, thus:

xxxx

(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 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;
xxx

Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is necessary because the illegal drug has
the unique characteristic of becoming indistinct and not readily identifiable, thereby
generating the possibility of tampering, alteration or substitution by accident or otherwise.
The rules governing the observance of the measures safeguarding the conduct and process
of the seizure, custody and transfer of the drug for the laboratory examination and until its
presentation in court must have to be strictly adhered to. 13

The preservation of the corpus delicti is primordial to the success of the criminal prosecution
for illegal possession and illegal sale of the dangerous drug. Consequently, we cannot
accord weight to the OSG's insistence that the mere non-compliance by the arresting
officers with the procedures, without any proof of actual tampering, alteration or
substitution, did not jeopardize the integrity of the confiscated drug for being contrary to
the letter and intent of the law. We deem it worthy to reiterate that the safeguards put in
place by the law precisely to prevent and eliminate the possibility of tampering, alteration or
substitution as well as to ensure that the substance presented in court was itself the drug
confiscated at the time of the apprehension are not to be easily dismissed or ignored.

The accused could not be protected from tampering, alteration or substitution of the
incriminatory evidence unless the Prosecution established that the arresting or seizing
officer complied with the requirements set by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Yet, the records
herein reveal that the police officers did not mark the confiscated drugs at the place of the
arrest but only upon their arrival at the police station; and did not conduct the physical
inventory of the confiscated drug and did not take pictures thereof as required by Section
21.

The last sentence of paragraph (a) of Section 21 excuses lapses in the arresting officer's
compliance with the requirements only if a justifiable reason is advanced for the lapses.
Here, although the failure to mark the confiscated substances upon arrest of the accused
could be excusable in light of the testimony of P02 Baladjay that a neighbor of the accused
Page 4 of 7
 EVIDENCE
Concept of Corpus Delicti
11. PP vs. Nepomuceno
G.R. No. 216062, 19 September 2018
had started a commotion during the arrest proceedings that rendered the immediate
marking in that place impractical, the non-compliance with the requirements for the physical
inventory and for photographing of the confiscated drug being taken "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' was not explained at all by the arresting officers.

In People v. Pagaduan, 14 we emphasized the importance of the inventory and compliance

with the other procedural requirements to safeguard the integrity of the confiscated drug
and the failure to provide a justification to non-compliance of the requirements, and
expounded on the consequence of the non-compliance being an acquittal, viz.:

In several cases, we have emphasized the importance of compliance with the prescribed
procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. We have repeatedly declared
that the deviation from the standard procedure dismally compromises the integrity of the
evidence. In People v. Morales, we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to
photograph and inventory the seized items, without giving any justifiable ground for the
non-observance of the required procedures. People v. Garcia likewise resulted in an
acquittal because no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized
items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing
rules. In Bondad, Jr. v. People, we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to
conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized items, without justifiable grounds.

We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez, People v. Denoman, People v. Partoza,
People v. Robles, and People v. dela Cruz, where we emphasized the importance of
complying with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied
conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the
handling of confiscated evidence. For this reason, the last sentence of the implementing
rules provides 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[.]" Thus, noncompliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case; police procedures in the
handling of confiscated evidence may still have some lapses, as in the present case. These
lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable
grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be
shown to have been preserved.

In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation to justify the
failure of the police to conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs. The apprehending team failed to show why an inventory and photograph of the
seized evidence had not been made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the
nearest police station (as required by the Implementing Rules in case of warrantless
arrests). We emphasize that for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the
prosecution explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the
integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved. In other words, the
justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist."

Underscoring the lapses committed by the police operatives in handling the confiscated drug
involved herein is the following excerpt of testimony, to wit:

Q: By the way, was there any photograph taken from [sic] the accused and the specimen
recovered?
A: None, sir.

Q: Why there was [sic] no photograph taken during that time?

A: There was no camera available, sir.

Q: How about an inventory, was there any inventory made by your office with respect to the
item you recovered from the accused?
A: None, it was a Spot Report, sir.

Page 5 of 7
 EVIDENCE
Concept of Corpus Delicti
11. PP vs. Nepomuceno
G.R. No. 216062, 19 September 2018
Q: Who prepared that Spot Report? A: SP02 Gonzales, sir. 15

Although the foregoing excerpt seemingly indicated that the arresting officers were thereby
attempting to explain their lapses, particularly the failure to take photographs of the
confiscated drug as directed in the law, the supposed unavailability of a camera was
obviously improbable simply because almost every person at that time carried a mobile
phone with a camera feature. Even more obvious is the fact that the arrest resulted from a
buy-bust operation in relation to the conduct of which the police officers had more than
sufficient time to anticipate the need for the camera. Also, the preparation of the spot
report did not replace the conduct of the actual inventory that R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR
specifically required. The inventory and the spot report were entirely distinct and different
from each other. The latter referred to an immediate initial investigative or incident
narrative on the commission of the crime (or occurrence of natural or manmade disaster or
unusual incidents involving loss of lives and damage to properties), and was addressed to
higher officers; 16 it was an internal report on the arrest incident prepared without the
participation of other persons like the accused, representatives of the media, the DOJ and a
public official to witness the preparation of the inventory and to sign the inventory. In
contrast, the inventory indicated the drugs and related material seized or recovered from
the suspect, and should bear the signatures of the relevant persons that would insulate the
process of incrimination from suspicion. Another distinction related to the requirement to
furnish the suspect a copy of the inventory, which did not apply to the spot report.

The Court cannot condone the lapses or be blind to them because the requirements that
were not complied with were crucial in the process of successfully incriminating the accused.
The deliberate taking of the identifying steps ensured by the requirements was precisely
aimed at obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence. 17 Verily, the
arresting officers' failure to plausibly explain their lapses left in grave doubt the very
identity of the corpus delicti, an important step in proving the offenses charged. For one,
the lapses - being irregularities on the part of the arresting lawmen - quickly disauthorized
the trial court from presuming the regularity in the performance of their official duties by
the arresting officers.

The Court accepts that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is
not, 'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. " 18 This limitation on
the chain of custody is well recognized in the IRR, which states that non-compliance with
the requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said item as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. In deciding drug-related offenses,
therefore, the courts should deem to be essential "the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused." 19

For failure of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt, he is entitled to acquittal. His personal liberty could not be validly jeopardized unless
the proof marshalled against him satisfied that degree of moral certainty that should
produce in the unprejudiced mind of the neutral judge a conviction that the accused was
guilty in doing the act with which he was charged of having committed contrary to law.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on May

16, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05663; ACQUITS accused-
appellant HILARIO NEPOMUCENO y VISAYA for failure of the Prosecution to prove his
guilt for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt;
and ORDERS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE from confinement unless there are other lawful
causes for his confinement.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa
City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections shall report
the action taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this decision. SO
ORDERED.

Footnotes 4
 Rollo, pp. 4-5.
*
Vice Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, who inhibited 5
 CA rollo, p. 65.
due to his prior participation as the Solicitor General, per the 6
 Rollo, p. 10.
raffle of September 12, 2018. 7
 Id. at 18-19.
1
 Rollo, pp. 2-1 O; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. 8
 Id. at 25-26.
Lantion, and concurred in by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. 9
 People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012,
Veloso and Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez. 666 SCRA 518, 531-532.
2
 Records, pp. 62-65; penned by Presiding Judge Reynaldo A. 10
 People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627
Alhambra. SCRA 308, 317-318.
3
 Id.

Page 6 of 7
 EVIDENCE
Concept of Corpus Delicti
11. PP vs. Nepomuceno
G.R. No. 216062, 19 September 2018
11
 See Mallillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008,
553 SCRA 619.
12
 See Republic Act No. 10640.
13
 People v. Kamad, G.R. No. G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 20
l 0, 610 SCRA 295, 304-305.
14
 Supra, note 10, at 320-322.
15
 TSN, dated March 2, 2010, p. 21.
16
 The Philippine National Police Manual, PNPM-DIDM-DS-9-1.
The Criminal Investigation Manual (Revised) 2011. Accessed
at http://www.pnp.gov.ph/images/Manuals and
Guides/DIDM/Criminallnvestigation-Manual.pdf last January
24, 2018.
17
 People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August
17
 People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596
SCRA 350, 357.
18
 People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012,
667 SCRA 357, 368.
19
 Peoplev. Torres,G.R.No.191730, June5, 2013,697 SCRA
452,466.

Page 7 of 7