SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 207396. August 9, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . DELIA SAUNAR ,

accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

A miniscule amount of dangerous drugs alleged to have been taken from the
accused is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. In these cases, "law
enforcers should not tri e with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of
custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia." 1
This resolves an appeal from the September 26, 2012 Decision 2 of the Court of
Appeals, which a rmed the conviction of Delia Saunar (Saunar) for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs.
In the Information dated April 24, 2006, 3 Saunar was charged with violation of
Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Information
read:
That on or about the 27th day of February 2006 at around 6:20 p.m. at
Brgy. Kinali, [M]unicipality of Polangui, Province of Albay, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver, dispense and sell two
heat[-]sealed plastic sachets [of] methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)
weighing 0.0526 gram and 0.0509 gram to a poseur buyer, without authority of
law, to the detriment of the public welfare.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
On June 8, 2006, Saunar was arraigned. 5 She pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Afterwards, pre-trial and trial ensued. 6
Based on the collective testimonies of its witnesses, the prosecution alleged that
on January 5, 2006, the Special Operation Team of the 5th Regional Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group learned about the illegal drug activities of a certain
"Lolita" Saunar 7 in Polangui, Albay. 8 The authorities acted on this tip and conducted
surveillance operations on Saunar. 9
Before noon on February 27, 2006, the authorities received a report regarding
Saunar's whereabouts. 1 0 Captain Cesar Dalonos (Capt. Dalonos) formed a team
composed of PO2 Ami Montales (PO2 Montales), SPO4 Rolando Barroga, SPO4
Fernando Cardona, and SPO2 Roger Seladis to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2
Montales was designated as the poseur-buyer. 1 1
At around 6:00 p.m., the buy-bust team proceeded to Saunar's residence. 1 2 PO2
Montales and the informant met Saunar by the gate while the rest of the police
operatives positioned themselves a few meters from Saunar's house. 1 3 PO2 Montales
introduced herself as a buyer of shabu and handed Saunar the marked money. 1 4 After
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 a brief conversation, Saunar went inside the house. She returned moments later "with
two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance." 1 5 PO2
Montales examined the plastic sachets and gave the pre-arranged signal by removing
her sunglasses. 1 6 This indicated the consummation of the transaction to the other
members of the buy-bust team. 1 7
The buy-bust team closed in and arrested Saunar. 1 8 PO2 Montales then frisked
Saunar to recover the marked money but only found a Nokia 5210, which she
con scated. 1 9 No photograph of the seized items was taken at the crime scene. 2 0
Saunar was then brought to Camp Simeon Ola for investigation. 2 1 It was only after the
arrest that the authorities discovered that Saunar's real name was Delia. 2 2
Upon reaching Camp Simeon Ola, PO2 Montales prepared a seizure receipt,
which Saunar refused to sign. 2 3 Meanwhile, Capt. Dalanos invited representatives from
the media and the Department of Justice and a barangay official to witness the marking
and inventory. 2 4
PO2 Montales marked the two (2) plastic sachets with her initials "AOM1" and
"AOM2." 2 5 Afterwards, the seized items were inventoried and then placed in a larger
transparent plastic bag. 2 6 The marking and inventory were both done in the presence
of the three (3) witnesses from the media, the barangay, and the Department of Justice.
2 7 PO2 Montales brought the seized items to the crime laboratory for scienti c
examination. 2 8 The contents of the two (2) plastic sachets weighed 0.0496 grams and
0.0487 grams. 2 9 They tested positive for shabu. 3 0
While the police o cers were preparing the necessary documents for Saunar's
prosecution, the seized cellular phone received several calls and text messages from
different people who were looking for Saunar to place P1,000.00 and P2,000.00 worth
of orders on something called "LADA." PO2 Montales introduced herself as Saunar's
sister and tried to set up a meeting with them. However, the callers refused to talk to
anyone but Saunar. 3 1
For her defense, Saunar asserted that she was merely framed-up. 3 2 She testi ed
that on the day of the alleged incident, the authorities raided her house looking for
shabu. However, they only found her cellphone. 3 3 Although the police o cers found
nothing, Saunar was brought to Camp Simeon Ola and was forced to sign a seizure
receipt, which indicated that two (2) sachets of shabu were taken from her. Saunar did
not sign this seizure receipt. 3 4
In the Judgment 3 5 dated March 21, 2011, the Regional Trial Court found Saunar
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 3 6 Accordingly, she
was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and required to pay a ne of
P500,000.00: 3 7
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: HESIcT

1. FINDING the accused, DELIA SAUNAR y DOLOM, GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002" for selling and/or delivering two (2) small transparent plastic sachets
containing 0.0496 gram and 0.0487 gram respectively of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu," a dangerous drug, without authority of law; thereby,
sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a ne of
Five [H]undred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
2. The two (2) small transparent plastic sachets containing 0.0496
gram and 0.0487 gram respectively of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 "shabu" . . . involved in this case, are DIRECTED to be disposed/destroyed in
accordance with Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165 and in the presence of a representative
from this court. Within twenty-four (24) hours from such destruction, the
pertinent certification shall be submitted to this court.
Furnish a copy of this judgment to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
[Agency] (PDEA), Central Office, Manila.
SO ORDERED. 3 8
In its September 26, 2012 Decision, 3 9 the Court of Appeals a rmed Saunar's
conviction.
On October 9, 2012, Saunar led a Notice of Appeal, 4 0 which was given due
course by the Court of Appeals. 4 1
In the Resolution 4 2 dated August 5, 2013, this Court noted the records
forwarded by the Court of Appeals and required the parties to le their respective
supplemental briefs if they so desired.
On September 25, 2013, the O ce of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the
People of the Philippines, manifested that it would no longer le a supplemental brief.
4 3 A similar motion was made by Saunar on October 1, 2013. 4 4

In her Appellant's Brief, 4 5 accused-appellant argues that the trial court glossed
over the procedural errors committed by the apprehending o cers. In particular, she
argues that the authorities failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. Accused-
appellant claims that there were gaps in the handling of the items allegedly seized from
her. 4 6
On the other hand, the O ce of the Solicitor General argues in its Appellee's Brief
4 7 that although the requirements in Republic Act No. 9165 were not strictly complied
with, the prosecution su ciently established the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value
of the seized drugs. 4 8
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether the guilt of accused-
appellant Delia Saunar for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 was proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
The crime of sale of illegal drugs is consummated "the moment the buyer
receives the drug from the seller." 4 9 The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the transaction actually took place by establishing the following elements: "
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment." 5 0
Aside from this, the corpus delicti must be presented as evidence in court. 5 1 In
cases involving dangerous drugs, "the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself." 5 2
Hence, its identity and integrity must likewise be established beyond reasonable doubt.
5 3 The obligation of the prosecution is to ensure that the illegal drugs offered in court
are the very same items seized from the accused. 5 4 This would entail the presentation
of evidence on how the seized drugs were handled and preserved from the moment
they were con scated from the accused until their presentation in court. 5 5 Non-
compliance with this requirement creates doubt regarding the origin of the dangerous
drugs. 5 6
The chain of custody rule provides the manner by which law enforcers should
handle seized dangerous drugs. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by
Republic Act No. 10640, provides:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Con scated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. — The [Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency] 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 con scated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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 con scation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from
whom such items were con scated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public o cial 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 o ce of the apprehending
o cer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided,
nally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justi able grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending o cer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures and custody over said items.
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon con scation/seizure of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment,
the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative
and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall
be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon
the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued
stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a nal certi cation shall be issued
immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]
Although "chain of custody" is not speci cally de ned under the law, the term
essentially refers to:
"[T]he 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/con scation 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. 5 7 (Citation omitted)
The "duly recorded authorized movements" of the seized dangerous drugs may
be ascertained through the testimonies of every person who handled them. Mallillin v.
People 5 8 is instructive:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence su cient to
support a nding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to
be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition
of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession
of the same. 5 9 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Although strict compliance with the chain of custody rule may be excused
provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, 6 0 a
more exacting standard is required of law enforcers when only a miniscule amount of
dangerous drugs are alleged to have been seized from the accused. The reason for this
rule was clarified in People v. Holgado: 6 1
In Mal[l]il[l]in v. People , this court explained that the exactitude required
by Section 21 goes into the very nature of narcotics as the subject of
prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with
respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is
one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and
similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.
Graham vs. State positively acknowledged this danger. In that
case where a substance later analyzed as heroin — was handled
by two police o cers prior to examination who however did not
testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at
the time it was in their possession — was excluded from the
prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder
seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar
or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by
records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at
least between the time it came into the possession of police
o cers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratory's ndings
is inadmissible. caITAC

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they

are not readily identi able as in fact they are subject to scienti c
analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court
cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the
possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the
same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution
of substances from other cases — by accident or otherwise — in
which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence
was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the
same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases
involving objects which are readily identi able must be applied , a
more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item
with su cient completeness if only to render it improbable that
the original item has either been exchanged with another or been
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 contaminated or tampered with.
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section
21, therefore, ensures the integrity of con scated, seized, and/or surrendered
drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects: rst, the nature of the
substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances
or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the
incident allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the
substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession
of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities
for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner.
xxx xxx xxx
The prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of
seized drugs and drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. Not even the
presumption of regularity in the performance of o cial duties will su ce. In
fact, whatever presumption there is as to the regularity of the manner by which
o cers took and maintained custody of the seized items is "negated." Republic
Act No. 9165 requires compliance with Section 21. 6 2 (Citations omitted)
In this case, only 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 grams 6 3 or a total of 0.0983
grams of shabu were allegedly taken from accused-appellant. Such a miniscule
amount of drugs is highly susceptible to tampering and contamination.
A careful review of the factual findings of the lower courts shows that the
prosecution failed to discharge its burden of preserving the identity and integrity
of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant.
The prosecution failed to establish who held the seized items from the
moment they were taken from accused-appellant until they were brought to the
police station. The designated poseur-buyer, PO2 Montales, did not mention
who took custody of the seized items for safekeeping:
Q: Now what happened when you meet face to face with Lolita Saunar who is
now identified as Delia Saunar?
A: I was introduced as the buyer of shabu wo[r]th One Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00), then Lolita demanded the money and she went inside her
house and several minutes later, she went out and handed to me the two
(2) plastic transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance
suspected as shabu.
Q: Upon or after it was handed to you, what happened next?
A: After examining and determining the contents of the plastic sachets, I gave
the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the team.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After you have apprehended the accused, were you able to take possession
of this recovered cellphone from Delia Saunar, what did you do next if any?
A: I showed it to our Team Leader including the two (2) sachets of suspected
shabu.
Q: After that, where did you proceed?
A: And after that, we proceeded to our office at Camp Simeon Ola. 6 4
Based on the testimony of PO2 Montales, the two (2) plastic sachets were only
marked at Camp Simeon Ola. 6 5 Any of the apprehending o cers could have taken
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 custody of the seized items during transit. It is highly probable, therefore, that the two
(2) sachets had been tampered with, altered, or contaminated. The belated marking of
the seized items creates doubt on the identity and origin of the dangerous drugs
allegedly taken from accused-appellant.
Although the requirement of "marking" is not found in Republic Act No. 9165, its
significance lies in ensuring the authenticity of the corpus delicti. In People v. Dahil: 6 6
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs
or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the
accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending o cer or the
poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after
seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized
contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the
specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence
serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or
related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are
disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching,
planting or contamination of evidence.
It must be noted that marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is
different from the inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the
said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this Court had
consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized
drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. 6 7
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
While it may be true that the seized items were marked and inventoried in the
presence of a media representative, an elected barangay o cial, and a representative
from the Department of Justice, 6 8 there is no evidence showing that these procedures
were done in the presence of accused-appellant or her authorized representative or
counsel. Moreover, none of the witnesses to the marking and inventory of the seized
items was presented in court to testify. 6 9
Further, it appears that the authorities failed to take photographs of the seized
items. No photograph of the seized dangerous drugs was presented and offered as
evidence before the trial court. 7 0 More telling is the nding of the Court of Appeals that
although there were photographs taken at Camp Simeon Ola, "these were not
photographs of the seized items." 7 1
In addition, it was highly irregular for the police o cers to use accused-
appellant's cellphone while they were in the process of ling the criminal case against
her. This conduct is violative of accused-appellant's right to privacy.
The failure of the prosecution to strictly comply with the exacting standards in
Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, casts serious doubt on the origin, identity, and
integrity of the seized dangerous drugs allegedly taken from accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE , the Decision dated September 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05003 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Accused-appellant Delia
Saunar is ACQUITTED for the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless she is
confined for any other lawful cause. Let entry of final judgement be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Bureau of Corrections,
Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within ve
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 (5) days from receipt of this Decision, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be
furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director
General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Peralta, Mendoza and Martires, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 81 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
2. Rollo, pp. 2-33. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05003, was penned by
Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Associate
Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Manuel M. Barrios of the Second Division, Court
of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, p. 32.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 33.

7. Rollo, pp. 4-9.

8. CA rollo, p. 34.
9. Rollo, pp. 4-9.
10. Id. at 4.

11. CA rollo, pp. 33-34.

12. Rollo, p. 4.
13. Id. at 4-5.
14. Id. at 5.
15. Id.

16. Id. at 8.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 5.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 5-6.

21. Id. at 5.
22. Id. at 6.
23. Id. at 5.
24. Id. at 5-8.

25. Id. at 5.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 26. Id.
27. Id. at 5-6.
28. Id. at 6.

29. CA rollo, p. 38.

30. Rollo, p. 6.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 9-12.
33. Id.

34. Id. at 11-12.

35. CA rollo, pp. 32-42. The Judgment, docketed as Crim. Case No. 5229, was penned by
Acting Presiding Judge Alben C. Rabe of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Ligao City,
Albay.

36. Id. at 42.

37. Id.
38. Id.
39. Rollo, pp. 2-33.
40. Id. at 34-36.

41. Id. at 37.

42. Id. at 39.
43. Id. at 41-43.
44. Id. at 44-46.
45. CA rollo, pp. 69-86.

46. Id. at 79-84.

47. Id. at 105-119.
48. Id. at 111-116.
4 9 . People v. Tumulak , G.R. No. 206054, July 25, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/206054.pdf> 4 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
50. Id.
51. Id.
52. People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 276 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

53. Id.
54. People v. Holgado , 741 Phil. 78, 93 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing People
v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 55. Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
56. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 91 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
5 7 . People v. Ameril , G.R. 203293, November 14, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
le=/jurisprudence/2016/november2016/203293.pdf> 4 [Per J. Brion, Second
Division].

58. 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

59. Id. at 587.
60. People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 277-278 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
61. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
62. Id. at 92-94.

63. CA rollo, p. 39.

64. Id. at 25.
65. Id. at 5.
66. 750 Phil. 212 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

67. Id. at 232.

68. Rollo, pp. 5-6.
69. Id. at 4.
70. CA rollo, p. 39.
71. Rollo, p. 23.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com