G.R. No. 206770 April 2, 2014 ₱500.

00 bills dusted with fluorescent powder and which

were combined with boodle money.7
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. As previously arranged with Sabayton, Prajes met up with
NOEL PRAJES and ALIPA MALA, Accused-Appellants. Sabayton and SI Tumalon in a makeshift house in
Kinasang-an, where Mala later joined them. Since Prajes
had not brought with him the illegal drugs to be sold, the
Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated group proceeded to his father’s house which was only 15
May 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB to 20 meters away from the makeshift house8 and there,
CR-HC No. 00462, which affirmed the Decision2 dated SI Tumalon received the illegal drugs from Prajes.
June 29, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu
City, Branch 15, finding Noel Prajes (Prajes) and Alipa While they were at the ground floor of the house, Prajes
Mala (Mala) (accused-appellants) guilty for violation of handed to SI Tumalon two packs of shabu having a total
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, weight of 100 grams. When SI Tumalon pointed out that
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs he needed 200 grams, Prajes instructed Mala to produce
Act of 2002. more stock. Mala left the house, then later came back
with another pack, which he handed to SI Tumalon.
The Antecedents Thereafter, SI Tumalon gave one bundle of the buy-bust
money to Prajes, and the other bundle to Mala.9
The accused-appellants were accused of violating Section
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 via an Information filed with Upon the accused-appellants’ receipt of the buy-bust
the RTC of Cebu and docketed as Crim. Case No. CBU- money, SI Tumalon introduced himself to them as an NBI
63836. The accusatory portion of the Information reads: agent. SI Tumalon made a "missed call" to SA Minguez’s
phone, the team’s pre-agreed signal to indicate that the
That sometime on 04 September 2002, in the City of sale had been consummated, and then arrested the
Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this accused-appellants.10 Soon thereafter, the other
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conniving members of the buy-bust team arrived. The accused-
and confederating with each other and mutually helping appellants were handcuffed and brought to the NBI office,
one another, with deliberate intent, did then and there where their photographs and fingerprints were taken.11
sell, trade, dispense, deliver and/or give away to a At the NBI office, SI Tumalon handed the buy-bust money
National Bureau of Investigation Operative who posed as and three packs of shabu to SI Saavedra, who placed his
buyer: White Crystalline substances having a total net markings on the packs of shabu. SI Saavedra also
weight of 195.6580 grams placed inside three (3) prepared the letter-request for examination of the illegal
transparent plastic packs: positive for drugs, which he personally turned over to Chemist
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug Rommel Paglinawan12 of the Forensic Chemistry Section,
locally known as shabu, without authority of law.3 Central Visayas Regional Office of the NBI. A laboratory
examination of the three packs sold by the accused-
The accused-appellants pleaded "not guilty" when appellants to SI Tumalon confirmed that the specimen
arraigned. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.4 contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
An ultraviolet examination performed by the NBI also
According to the prosecution, the National Bureau of confirmed the presence of fluorescent powder on the
Investigation (NBI) in Cebu City received reports that the accused-appellants’ hands.
accused-appellants were engaged in the sale of illegal
drugs. Following surveillance operations conducted The accused-appellants denied the charge against them.
during the last week of August 2002, a buy-bust operation Prajes claimed that at about 4:00 p.m. on September 4,
was organized by the NBI for September 4, 2002.5 2002, he was sleeping at his house in Kinasang-an when a
neighbor, Renante Paradero (Paradero), woke him up to
Thus, at around 1:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, NBI’s inform him that some persons were looking for him. He
informant, Rene Sabayton (Sabayton) transacted with the then proceeded to Paradero’s house and there saw
accused-appellants for a supposed buyer’s purchase of Sabayton, whom he had previously met in a "sniffing
shabu weighing 200 grams for ₱180,000.00.6 At 4:00 session" and who had called him up at around 1:00 p.m.
p.m., the buy-bust team, headed by Senior Agent Atty. on September 4, 2002 for the purchase of shabu.
Angelito Magno (Atty. Magno) and composed of NBI Sabayton was with two companions, who inquired from
Supervising Agent Vicente Minguez (SA Minguez), Special Prajes about the purchase. Prajes, Sabayton and his two
Investigator Teodoro Saavedra (SI Saavedra), SI Ray companions then proceeded to the house of Prajes’
Tumalon (SI Tumalon), SI Danilo Garay and SA Rennan father, where Prajes received the drugs from a person
Oliva, proceeded to Kinasang-an, Pardo, Cebu City where sent by a certain "Alex". Prajes handed the pack of shabu
the purchase would be made. SI Tumalon was designated to Sabayton, then was immediately handcuffed by SI
the poseur-buyer. Atty. Magno prepared the buy-bust Tumalon. Sabayton hit Prajes’ handcuffed right hand with
money amounting to ₱4,500.00, composed of nine
money that was brought by the buy-bust team. This Court’s Ruling
Thereafter, Prajes was taken to the NBI Office.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
For Mala’s defense, witness Magdalena Abarquez claimed
that at around 4:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, she saw At the outset, the Court reiterates the settled rule that
Mala enter the house of Prajes. When he tried to leave "the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the
the house, he was prevented by someone who was inside testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the
the house.13 probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions
anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not
Sabayton was called on the witness stand by the defense conclusive effect. This is truer if such findings were
as a hostile witness. He claimed that he was arrested by affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court’s
NBI operatives on September 3, 2002. While at the NBI findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, x x x,
office, the operatives asked for a gift or "regalo" by giving said findings are generally binding upon us[,]"19 save in
names of persons whom they could arrest, in exchange settled exceptions such as: (1) when the inference made is
for his freedom. Thus, he gave the name of Prajes and manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there
coordinated with the latter for the drug purchase.14 After is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are
Prajes presented the shabu to Sabayton during the buy- grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
bust operation, he called on Mala to test and sniff the conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on
shabu. Before the latter could do so, SI Tumalon pointed a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its
gun at the accused-appellants and handcuffed them. findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same
When Prajes refused to receive the buy-bust money, SI is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
Tumalon slapped the money on Prajes’ handcuffed hands. appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions
Notwithstanding Sabayton’s participation in the buy-bust without citation of specific evidence on which they are
which led to the arrest of the accused-appellants, he was based; (7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain
neither released from jail nor relieved from prosecution relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
for his violation of R.A. No. 9165.15 properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
and (8) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised
The RTC Ruling on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record.20 Upon review, the Court has
On June 29, 2004, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 15, determined that the present case does not fall under any
rendered a Decision16 finding the accused-appellants of these exceptions. We find no cogent reason to deviate
guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, from the factual findings, and consequent rulings, of the
and sentencing them to each suffer the penalty of life trial and appellate courts.
imprisonment and to pay fine of ₱500,000.00.17
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, the accused- On the issue of chain of custody, Section 21 of R.A. No.
appellants appealed to the CA. 9165 mandates that "[t]he apprehending team having
initial custody and control of the [seized] drugs shall,
The CA Ruling immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
In a Decision18 dated May 30, 2012, the CA affirmed in the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
toto the decision of the RTC. The appellate court found no confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
credence in the denials that were posed by the accused- counsel, a representative from the media and the
appellants. Instead, it found credible the evidence Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
presented by the prosecution to prove the elements of official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
the crime of illegal sale of drugs, as well as its showing inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]" In relation
that there was sufficient compliance by the NBI thereto, Section 21 of the law’s Implementing Rules and
operatives with the rule on chain of custody. Regulations (IRR) provides in part:

The Present Appeal SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,

Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Hence, the present appeal wherein the accused- Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
appellants insist on the prosecution’s failure to prove Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused- Laboratory Equipment. — x x x:
appellants also question the subject drugs’ identity and
the NBI’s observance of the rule on the chain of custody. (a) x x x the physical inventory and photograph shall be
They argue that it was unclear as to who actually marked conducted at the place where the search warrant is
the subject packs of shabu, and that there were no served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
photographs and physical inventory of the seized items, office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
even when the same are required under the law. practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the when considered with the positive testimonies of SI
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly Tumalon and SA Saavedra. SA Minguez and Atty. Magno
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not assumed supporting roles. It was SI Tumalon who was in
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over the thick of things so to speak, as he was the poseur-
said items[.] buyer and he was the one who took the shabu from
accused-appellants and handed it to SA Saavedra for
These "[s]tatutory rules on preserving the chain of marking. Moreover, SA Saavedra’s identification of his
custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items own handwriting puts any doubt to rest.25 (Citations
are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the omitted)
evidence to be presented against the accused. Their
observance is the key to the successful prosecution of The fact that the marking was performed by SA Saavedra
illegal possession or illegal sale of prohibited drugs."21 only upon the buy-bust team’s arrival at the NBI office did
not adversely affect the prosecution’s case against the
In a line of cases, the Court has nonetheless explained accused-appellants. Given the situation at the house
that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, where the accused-appellants were caught in flagrante
in reality it is not, ‘as it is almost always impossible to delicto and then arrested by the buy-bust team, the
obtain an unbroken chain.’"22 The limitation on chain of failure of SA Saavedra to mark the seized drugs at the said
custody is also recognized in the afore-quoted Section 21 site was justified. In his testimony before the trial court,
of R.A. No. 9165’s IRR, as it states that non-compliance SA Minguez described that after the accused-appellants’
with the rules’ requirements under justifiable grounds, as arrest, their neighbors interfered and rallied for the
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized accused-appellants, even compelling members of the buy-
items are properly preserved by the apprehending bust team inside the house to seek the immediate aid of
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such their peers so that they could leave the premises.26
seizures of and custody over said items. In resolving drug
cases, we then repeatedly emphasize that "what is Even the failure of the prosecution to present a physical
essential is ‘the preservation of the integrity and the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs did not
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would render inadmissible the packs of shabu that were seized
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence from the accused-appellants, especially as we consider
of the accused.’"23 that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs did
not appear to have been compromised. This was similar
On the issue of the subject drugs’ marking as part of the with the Court's ruling in People v. Torres27 and Ambre v.
chain of custody requirement, the accused-appellants People,28 wherein we affirmed the conviction of the
point out that SI Tumalon and SI Saavedra both named SI accused notwithstanding some deviations from the
Saavedra as the one who marked the seized drugs, but required procedure on physical inventory and
witnesses SA Minguez and Atty. Magno each testified that photographs of the seized items.1âwphi1
it was SI Tumalon and the forensic chemist, respectively,
who effected such marking. The Court, however, agrees As against the accused-appellants' denial, an inherently
with the CA’s observation that although there were weak defense, the evidence presented by the prosecution
conflicting accounts by the prosecution witnesses as to deserves credence. The following elements of illegal sale
the person who actually marked the seized drugs, the of shabu were sufficiently established during the trial: (a)
failure of SA Minguez and Atty. Magno to identify the said the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
person could be readily explained by the fact that they sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the
had no actual participation in the evidence’s marking. As thing sold and the payment for the thing.29 During a
against their conflicting statements, what were significant planned buy-bust operation, SI Tumalon served as a
were the testimonies of SI Tumalon and SI Saavedra, poseur-buyer and was able to successfully purchase packs
being the persons who actually seized, endorsed and of shabu weighing 195 grams, more or less, from the
marked the evidence. Both agreed that following the accused-appellants for a total consideration of
accused-appellants’ arrest, the seized packs of shabu ₱180,000.00. The payment was handed to the accused-
were handed by SI Tumalon to SI Saavedra, who was the appellants by SI Tumalon. An examination conducted by
one who placed the markings on the evidence,24 before the Forensic Chemistry Section, Central Visayas Regional
the same were brought to the laboratory for examination. Office, NBI in Capitol Site, Cebu City, confirmed that the
As aptly explained by the appellate court: packs contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.30
There was nothing on record which would indicate that
SA Minguez may have incorrectly assumed that it was SI the substance purchased by SI Tumalon from the accused-
Tumalon, their poseur-buyer, who made the markings on appellants during the buy-bust operation was different
the packs of shabu that were confiscated in the ensuing from the subject of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section's
confusion. However, SI Tumalon himself testified that he examination, and that which was eventually presented by
turned-over the drugs to SA Saavedra. Atty. Magno’s the prosecution in court to establish their case against the
statement that it was "maybe our Forensic Chemist" who accused-appellants.
made the markings on the three packs is inconsequential
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 30, 2012 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 00462 is
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.