G.R. No. 234035, August 19, 2019 officers on duty to include the Chief of Police.

While on duty, an informant came to their office

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. reporting on the alleged rampant selling of herein
CRISPIN MAMUYAC, JR. Y PALMA, accused Crispin Mamuyac. Said information was
APPELLANT. relayed directly to the Chief of Police. The latter
directed the Intel operatives to verify it. Not long,
DECISION they arrived and reported positive the
information relayed to them. So the Chief of
Police conducted a briefing for the arrest of the
CARPIO, ACTING C.J.:
accused thru the conduct of a buy-bust
operation. The Chief also coordinated with the
The Case PDEA and INNPO-PAIDSOTG. He was assigned to
be the poseur-buyer while the rest of the group
G.R. No. 234035 is an appeal assailing the will act as the back-up security. He was handed
Decision1 dated 7 November 2016 of the Court of a piece of five hundred peso bill with serial
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07746. The number LKO48833 and made markings of
CA affirmed the Decision2 dated 17 August 2015 "JTC" on the forehead of Ninoy Aquino to be
of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, used as the buy-bust money. They proceeded
Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte (RTC), in to the target area which is at Brgy. 10, Pasuquin.
Criminal Case No. 2194-19 convicting Crispin Together with the informant, he rode on a
Mamuyac, Jr. y Palma3 (appellant) of violating motorcycle and proceeded in front of the house
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA of accused. The rest of the team followed suit
9165). and stationed near the subject house. Accused
upon seeing the informant, immediately inquired
The Facts how much he is going to buy. The informant
answered in the amount of five hundred pesos.
The RTC summarized the facts as follows: After the exchange of talks between the agent
On April 2, 2014, an Information was filed and accused, PO1 Alexson Rosal brought out
against herein accused charging him as follows: the five hundred peso buy-bust money and
"That on or about 7:30 o'clock in the evening of handed the same to the accused. The latter
April 2, 2014, at Brgy. #14, Estancia, Pasuquin, took the amount and placed it in his pocket
Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the while simultaneously handling the plastic
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- sachet to the police poseur-buyer.
named accused, did then and there willfully, Immediately, he executed the pre-arranged
unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat- signal, which is the calling thru his cell phone.
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing This is to convey to the rest of the group that the
0.0343 gram of methamphetamine transaction was finally consummated. However,
hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu", a accused may have sensed that he is a police
dangerous drug, in the amount of Five Hundred officer, so he ran towards their living room. He
Pesos (P500.00) to police poseur-buyer, PO1 tried to chase him but he heard that accused
Alexson T. Rosal without any authority or license cocked a gun so he told his comrades that
from the appropriate government agency to do accused has a gun. They came to help him and
so. convinced accused to surrender by the Chief of
Police. He then, surrendered raising his hand
CONTRARY TO LAW[.]" bearing his gun. He took hold of the gun while
Upon arraignment, accused assisted by counsel PO2 John-John Garan handcuffed and frisked
de parte, pleaded not guilty. him. PO2 Garan recovered the buy-bust money.
From the time of the apprehension of the accused
In the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed [until] accused was brought to the police station,
and stipulated on the following facts: that the he was in possession of the confiscated item. At
accused is a resident of Brgy. 10, Estancia, the police station, he made markings on the
Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte; and that at about 7:30 plastic sachet, "CPM1". After which, he turned it
o'clock in the evening of April 2, 2014, said over to PO2 Garan, being the chief investigator.
accused was then in their house in Brgy. An inventory was then prepared by PO2 Garan.
Estancia, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte. Both parties
likewise agreed that the issue be centered on the SPO1 Jonathan Caldito narrated that in the
legality of the arrest of herein accused arising afternoon of April 2, 2014, he was on duty at the
from the questioned buy-bust transaction, such police station of Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte together
that he will be held answerable for the crime. with the Chief of Police, PSI Ramos and PO2
John-John Garan. They were summoned by PSI
The Facts Ramos to conduct a validation regarding the
report that herein accused Crispin Mamuyac is
According to the Prosecution
selling shabu. Hence, they repaired to the
designated barangay and conducted
Culled as evidence from PO1 Alexson
"neighborhood investigation" for about two (2)
Rosal would establish that at about 4:00 o'clock hours and after which, they returned to the
in the afternoon of April 2, 2014, he was at the
station. The said investigation proved positive so,
Pasuquin Police Station together with other police PSI Ramos immediately conducted a buy-bust
operation. PO1 Alexson Rosal was tasked to act PNP crime laboratory for the requisite chemical
as the police poseur-buyer. He was designated as analysis. The item was duly received by PO1
a back-up security. After the designation of their Julius Surrel. He was shown the alleged seized
respective roles on the operation, they all item and accordingly identified the same by
repaired to Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin. The group reason of the markings he made on the sachet
of the poseur-buyer was on board a motorcycle which is "CMP1".
while his group boarded an unmarked vehicle. He
was on the motor vehicle with PSI Ramos and Police Officer Amiely Ann Navaro, a Forensic
PO2 Garan. They reached the place about seven Chemist assigned at the Ilocos Norte Provincial
o'clock in the evening of same date and posted Crime Laboratory Office testified anent this case.
themselves to a bush where it was dark, west of She initially identified the Final Chemistry Report
the house of the accused. From a distance of and the result of said chemical analysis proved
about 25 meters, they observed the on-going positive the specimen submitted for
transaction, where there were no obstructions. methamphetamine hydrochloride. A letter-
Not long, he saw PO1 Rosal executed [sic] the request for chemical examination along with the
pre-arranged signal, which is the calling of PO1 subject specimen from the PNP Pasuquin thru
Rosal to PSI Ramos. They went near accused and PO2 Garan was received by their Office thru PO1
helped in his arrest. After subduing him, he left Julius Surrel and the latter was the one who gave
the area. both the request and the specimen to her. Before
she came to court, she retrieved the item from
PO2 John-John Garan states that at about 4:00 the evidence custodian, SPO3 Nilo Domingo. The
o'clock in the afternoon of April 2, 2014, he was item was placed in a bigger plastic sachet and
on duty at the PNP Police station of Pasuquin. she made markings on it, the letters "AALN"
While thereat, an informant came and relayed to which stand for her initial[s].
the Chief of Police that there was a person who is
selling illegal drugs at Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin, In the hearing conducted on March 5, 2015, the
Ilocos Norte. The Chief of Police conducted a buy- prosecution intends to present SPO4 Nilo
bust operation and the team will be comprised of Domingo of the PNP Crime Laboratory based at
PSI Ramos, PO1 Mario Corcoro, SPO1 Jonathan Camp Valentin Juan, Laoag City, the gist and
Caldito, PO3 Joel Bulosan, PO2 Garan and PO1 tenor of his proffered testimony as follows: that
Gonzaga. He was specifically tasked to act as one he will testify on the circumstances showing that
of the perimeter security. After the briefing, they after the chemist had examined the subject item
trooped to the agreed place of transaction, of his case, the same chemist turned over the
particularly at the house of herein accused at drugs to the witness being the evidence
Sitio Bokal, Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin. He boarded custodian; he will also testify to corroborate the
an unmarked vehicle together with SPO1 Caldito testimony of PSI Amiely Ann Navarro to the
and PO1 Gonzaga. He was dropped to the venue effect that the latter turned over to him the
of the transaction located eastern part of the subject drug after the examination for
road while the rest positioned themselves at the safekeeping; that when she came to court, she
western portion. With SPO1 Caldito and PO1 retrieved the item from him; that the chain of
Gonzaga, they repaired near the vicinity of the custody of the drugs was properly documented as
subject house. At his vantage end, he saw the indicated in the bracketed portion of the logbook
police poseur-buyer and the informant entering marked Exhibit "F-2" for the said prosecution.
the house of the accused. The latter parties later The said proffered testimony was duly admitted,
were then seen having a conversation in front of hence, the testimony of SPO4 Nilo Domingo was
the house of the accused. He later on saw the dispensed with.
accused and poseur-buyer exchanging things,
with PO1 Rosal handling first to the accused and Another witness Julius Surrel's testimony was
the latter in turn was giving something. After the subject of stipulation of facts where both
quite a time, he saw the other group headed by parties agreed that if he is going to testify, his
the Chief of Police approaching towards the testimony shall revolve on the fact that he was
house of the accused. They too, also r[a]n the one who received the seized item from PO2
towards the house of herein accused to assist in Garan of the PNP Pasuquin as indicated in Exhibit
helping his arrest. When accused was held, he "G" for the prosecution.
searched him and recovered from accused
the buy-bust money. He turned-over the The last witness for the prosecution is Brgy.
recovered item to PO1 Rosal. They brought Chairman Precidio Caliva Palalay, of Brgy. 10,
accused to the police station. An inventory was Estancia, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte. He was
made and also markings of all recovered items presented as a hostile witness by the trial
from the accused, including the taking of pictures prosecutor. His testimony revolves solely on the
in the presence of Brgy. Captain Precidio Palalay Certification which he allegedly issued. In his
and other barangay kagawads. On the sold illegal testimony, he avows that he could not recall if
drug of shabu, he put the markings on its the signature appearing thereat is his signature.
container "CPM" representing the initial of He further stressed that he had nothing to do
accused because the same was turned over to with the Certification being alluded by the
him by the poseur-buyer at the police station, he prosecution and cannot anymore recall when and
being the case investigator. Together with the where he allegedly affixed his signature in said
police poseur-buyer, they brought the item at the questioned Certification. Upon prodding by the
trial prosecutor, he later on admitted that the worker of his wife. He further admits that
signature appearing on the document is similar to notwithstanding the gravity of the offense
his signature but posits that the document he charged against him, he did not lodge any
signed as far as he could remember is about a complaint against the arresting police officers
tree planting project and not what the subject because he was in jail and no one could attend to
Certification purports where he is certifying to the it.
effect that accused is a drug personality under
BAD AC watch list. The next witness for the defense is Brgy.
Chairman Precidio Caliva Palalay. Considering
In the cross examination, he alleged that he had that he is a common witness, the defense adopts
no knowledge about the buy bust operation his testimony when presented by the
conducted against the herein accused. Likewise, prosecution.
he admitted that he did not sign the Inventory
Receipt. After which, the defense intended to present the
The prosecution formally offered the following wife of the accused, Janice Mamuyac, as another
exhibits: witness. However, the parties, entered into
stipulations of facts with regard to her testimony.
Exhibit "A" - Joint Affidavit of the arresting police The gist and tenor of her testimony is
officers; corroborative to the testimony of her husband,
Exhibit "B" - Extract Copy of the Police Blotter; the herein accused. Such preferred testimony
Exhibit "C" - Certification issued by Brgy. was admitted by the prosecution. Hence, her
Chairman Precidio Palalay; testimony was dispensed with.
Exhibit "D" - Coordination Form;
Exhibit "E" - Pre-operational Report; Exhibit "F With the testimonial evidence consisting of the
series" - Chemistry Report and Entries in the Log testimony of herein accused, the adopted
Book of the Crime Laboratory; testimony of Brgy. Chairman Presidio Palalay and
Exhibit "G series" - Request for Dangerous Drugs Janice Mamuyac, the defense rest[ed] its
Examination[;] case.4 (Boldfacing and italicization in the original)
Exhibit "H" - Chemistry Report on the Urine Test The Ruling of the RTC
of the accused;
Exhibit "I" - Request for Laboratory Examination In a Decision dated 17 August 2015, the RTC
of the urine of the accused; convicted appellant of violating Section 5, Article
Exhibit "J series" - Pictures; II of RA 9165 and imposed imprisonment and
Exhibit "K" - Inventory of the items seized; payment of fine and costs of the suit as
Exhibit "L" - the Specimen; [and] penalties. The RTC ruled that the arrest of
Exhibit "M" - the buy-bust money. appellant is legal, and the buy-bust operation is
The Defense's Version valid. The RTC stated:
The evidence clearly shows that the buy-bust
Crispin Mamuyac, Jr., took the witness stand operation conducted by the elements of the PNP
and testified] in his favor. He claims that on April Pasuquin Police station, which made use of
2, 2014 at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, entrapment to capture herein accused in the act
he came from his house coming from the house of selling a dangerous drug, was valid. It has
of the Brgy. Chairman of their barangay. Upon been established that it was the police informant
arriving at home and while partaking their food, who initially gave the police officers hot
several men entered his residence. He recognized information regarding accused's rampant activity
them to be police officers John-John Garan and of selling dangerous drugs. But before that, SPO1
Leumuel Bulosan. On the other hand, the Chief of Caldito verified the information relayed by their
Police who was posted outside was wearing a tipster thru "neighborhood investigation." Finding
blonde wig, disguising himself. Guns were aimed positive that accused is selling prohibited drugs,
at him by the police authorities. He was forcibly a buy-bust operation was then hatched against
carried out of this house and brought to the him. Taking advantage of the present drug
mobile car. Right inside said car, Police Officer peddling activity of the herein accused, the
Alexson Rosal told him "I would not have done informant and accused initially transacted[,]
this friend, but it is our standard operating where the latter upon seeing the former
procedure and we are looking for a baby immediately inquired how much he is going to
armalite". He was further informed that his arrest buy. The informant replied to buy in the amount
was caused by the Brgy. Chairman. He retorted of five hundred pesos. PO1 Rosal took the said
that such could not be possible because he just amount and handed it to accused. The latter then
came from the house of the Brgy. Chairman. On received the amount and placed the bill in his
board the car, they fetched Brgy. Councilor pocket and handed to PO1 Rosal a plastic sachet
Enrique and was subsequently brought to the containing white crystalline granules. Accused
police station for investigation. He denied that he was arrested upon handling [sic] the small plastic
sold shabu to the police poseur-buyer PO1 sachet containing white crystalline substance to
Alexson Rosal. PO1 Rosal. Evidently, the prosecution's facts
demonstrate a valid buy-bust operation that is
In the cross examination, he alleged that he is within the bounds of fair and reasonable
familiar with PO1 Alexson Rosal because of the administration of justice.
check point and the wife of the latter is a co-
From the foregoing, it is patently clear that the WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Crispin
prosecution succeeded in establishing, with moral Mamuyac, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
certainty, all the elements of the illegal sale Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
of shabu, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the 2002, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty
delivery of the thing sold and the payment of life imprisonment plus a fine of Five Hundred
therefor. thousand pesos (P500,000.00), and to pay the
costs.
The RTC also believed that the prosecution was
able to establish the unbroken chain of custody of The methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of
the seized drug. Although the RTC recognized this case is hereby declared forfeited in favor of
that the prosecution was not able to strictly the government, to be destroyed in accordance
comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, it declared with the aforesaid law. The clerk of court is
that non-compliance was not fatal to the case of directed to coordinate with the Philippine Drug
the prosecution. The RTC stated: Enforcement Agency for this purpose.

Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody SO ORDERED.7

should be perfect and unbroken. However "a The CA's Ruling
testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard as it is almost always the impossible to The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
obtain an unbroken chain." In the case at bar,
the prosecution submitted proof of the physical The CA agreed with the RTC that the integrity
inventory of the seized items although there is an and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were
annotation therein that the barangay officials duly preserved and safeguarded, and that all
refused to sign said document. Photographs of elements for the illegal sale of shabu were
the confiscated items were likewise introduced as adequately established.
evidence, both as required under [S]ection 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. What seems questionable x x x. PO1 Rosal, the poseur-buyer, identified
only is that the inventory and picture taking were appellant as the person who sold him one piece
not made in the crime scene. However, what are heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white
of utmost importance are the preservation of the crystalline substance in the buy-bust operation
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized conducted by the police officers of Pasuquin
items, because the same will be utilized in Municipal Police Station. Upon receipt of the
ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the P500.00 buy-bust money, appellant handed to
accused. PO1 Rosal the sachet containing 0.0343 gram of
white crystalline substance which later tested
The prosecution was able to demonstrate that the positive for shabu.
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
seized had been preserved. The prosecution The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision,
witnesses were categorical and consistent that promulgated on 7 November 2016, reads as
accused offered one plastic sachet containing follows:
shabu to PO1 Rosal. The consideration involved
was later recovered from accused himself even WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED.
though he tried to run away and evade arrest The Decision dated August 17, 2015 of the
from the police operatives. As soon as the police Regional Trial Court, Branch 19 of Bangui, Ilocos
officers, together with accused reached the police Norte in Criminal Case No. 2194-19 is hereby
station of Pasuquin, the seized sachet was AFFIRMED.
marked with the initials "CPM1" by PO1 Rosal.
This was done before the specimen was turned SO ORDERED.9
over to the station investigator for the The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) manifested
preparation of the request for laboratory appellant's intent to appeal in a Notice of
examination by PSI Ramos. Thereafter, the Appeal10 dated 24 November 2016.
specimen was forwarded to the crime laboratory
by the investigator, PO2 John-John Garan. The The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a
Chemistry Report prepared by the forensic Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) on
chemist listed the same specimen which bore the 31 January 201811 which stated that appellant's
initials of the police officers, and which were later brief filed before the CA amply demonstrated the
identified by PO1 Rosal and PSI Navarro in open guilt of appellant and thoroughly discussed all the
court as the same plastic sachet they marked issues presented for resolution. The Special and
with their initials.6 Appealed Cases Service of the PAO also filed a
The RTC did not see any evidence that will cast Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) on
doubt on the allegations against appellant, and behalf of appellant on 28 February 2018.12 The
gave credence to the evidence of the PAO manifested that he does not intend to file a
prosecution. The dispositive portion of the RTC Supplemental Brief, because all relevant issues
Decision reads: were already exhaustively discussed in the
Appellant's Brief dated 14 April 2016.
 miniscule amount of narcotics seized, thus:

The Issues While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is

by itself not a ground for acquittal, this
The PAO assigned the following errors in the brief circumstance underscores the need for more
for appellant it filed with the CA: exacting compliance with Section 21. In Malil[l]in
v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of
tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an
I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and
RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF is one that has physical characteristics fungible in
CONVICTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED- nature and similar in form to substances familiar
APPELLANT DESPITE THE MARKING AND to people in their daily lives."
INVENTORY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED
PLASTIC SACHET WAS MADE ONLY AT x x x x
THE POLICE STATION AND NOT
IMMEDIATELY AT THE PLACE OF ARREST, Trial courts should meticulously consider the
IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATORY factual intricacies of cases involving violations of
REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 21, Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND EXISTING an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced
JURISPRUDENCE. narrative must be scrupulously considered.
Courts must employ heightened scrutiny,
II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN consistent with the requirement of proof beyond
RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving
CONVICTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED- miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily
APPELLANT DESPITE BARANGAY planted and tampered. Also, doubt normally
CHAIRMAN PALALAY'S EXPLICIT REFUSAL follows in cases where an accused has been
TO SIGN THE INVENTORY RECEIPT, AS HE discharged from other simultaneous offenses due
WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE to mishandling of evidence. x x x.
CONDUCT OF THE INVENTORY.
It is lamentable that while our dockets are
III. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No.
RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF 9165 involving small-time drug users and
CONVICTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED- retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions
APPELLANT DESPITE PO1 ROSAL'S involving the proverbial "big fish." We are
ADMISSION OF PLACING THE ALLEGEDLY swamped with cases involving small fry who have
SEIZED PLASTIC SACHET IN HIS POCKET been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they
BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers
POLICE STATION. are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast
network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and
IV. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN prosecutors should realize that the more effective
RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF and efficient strategy is to focus resources more
CONVICTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED- on the source and true leadership of these
APPELLANT DESPITE THE BLATANT nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these
INCONSISTENCIES IN PO1 ROSALAND executive and judicial resources expended to
PO2 GARAN'S TESTIMONIES. attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram
of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements
V. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT might in fact be distracting our law enforcers
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE from their more challenging task: to uproot the
TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to
REASONABLE DOUBT.13 assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs
and the leadership of these cartels.15
The Court's Ruling Applying the need for an exacting compliance
with Section 21, we rule that, contrary to the
We acquit appellant based on reasonable doubt. rulings of the RTC and the CA, the prosecution
The Decisions of the RTC and CA should be set clearly failed to comply with the requirements of
aside. the chain of custody rule. As of 2 April 2014,
when the alleged crime was committed, the
In People v. Holgado, we declared that the effective law enumerating the requirements of
quantity of shabu seized, which was at 5 the chain of custody rule was Section 21 of RA
centigrams (0.05 gram), was miniscule.14 The 9165 as well as its Implementing Rules and
quantity of shabu seized in the present case is Regulations. Before its amendment by Republic
only 0.0343 gram, or even less than that seized Act No. 10640 (RA 10640) on 15 July 2014,
in Holgado. In the same case, we underscored Section 21 of RA 9165 read:
the need for an exacting compliance with Section
21 of RA 9165 especially when there is a Section 21. Custody and Disposition of
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous 19. FIRST, the sachet allegedly seized from the
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential accused-appellant was not marked at the place of
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or arrest, but only at the police station.
Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, x x x x
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as 23. This fact alone creates a gap or interim in the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory custodial chain between the time of seizure and
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or the time of actual marking rendering any
surrendered, for proper disposition in the subsequent compliance with the inventory and
following manner: photography requirements inconsequential. It
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody bears mentioning that PO1 Rosal did not
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after satisfactorily explain, why marking was not made
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and immediately at the place of arrest, or in front of
photograph the same in the presence of the the house of accused-appellant in Estancia,
accused or the person/s from whom such Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte.  During direct
items were confiscated and/or seized, or examination, he revealed that he marked the
his/her representative or counsel, a item at the police station because their Chief of
representative from the media and the Police ordered him to do so. This is simply
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any unjustified considering that he deviated from the
elected public official who shall be required to standard marking procedure, which should have
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a been made immediately at the place of arrest.
copy thereof;
24. Interestingly, neither did PO1 Rosal, PO2
x x x x (Emphasis supplied) Garan, nor SPO1 Caldito mention any impending
The implementing rule for Section 21(1) of RA threat visible in the area, which could possibly
9165 stated: affect the safety of their team. Neither was it
established that the neighborhood was a hostile
x x x x environment, which could warrant the team's
immediate transfer to the police station.
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, 25. SECOND, the inventory required under
immediately after seizure and confiscation, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was also made at the
physically inventory and photograph the same in police station.
the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, x x x x
or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the 29. Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No.
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected 9165 is a matter of exception duly established as
public official who shall be required to sign the a fact, premised on justifiable grounds,
copies of the inventory and be given a copy adequately explained by the arresting officers,
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and and not presumed by the courts. This, the
photograph shall be conducted at the place prosecution obviously failed to justify as PO1
where the search warrant is served; or at the Rosal simply reasoned that they held the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of inventory at the police station because their Chief
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is of Police ordered them so. Again, this is simply
practicable, in case of warrantless unacceptable in light of Barangay Chairman
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance Precidio Caliva Palalay's explicit denial of signing
with these requirements under justifiable the Inventory Receipt, x x x.
grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly 35. THIRD, the sachet allegedly confiscated from
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, the accused-appellant was placed in the pocket of
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of PO1 Rosal, x x x.
and custody over said items;
x x x x
xxxx
On 15 July 2014, RA 10640 amended Section 21 38. FOURTH, the testimonies of PO1 Rosal and
of RA 9165. RA 10640 now requires only two PO2 Garan are patently inconsistent as regards
more witnesses, other than the accused or who between them delivered the sachet to the
his/her counsel, to be present during the conduct crime laboratory.
of the physical inventory and taking of
photograph of the seized items.16 x x x x

The PAO enumerated the following lapses of the 42. FINALLY, accused-appellant's defense of
prosecution: frame-up is highly probable under the
circumstances.17 (Boldfacing and italicization in
the original)
From the above, we see that the prosecution the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips
failed to prove appellant's guilt beyond of confidential assets, prevented the law
reasonable doubt. The prosecution was already enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
lacking in the number of witnesses required by required witnesses even before the offenders
Section 21, and failed to give justifications for the could escape.
absence of any of the three other witnesses. This Apart from the non-observance of the three
lack is further emphasized after Brgy. Chairman witness rule, there is doubt as to whether the
Precidio Caliva Palalay asserted that he did not shabu allegedly seized from the appellant is the
affix the signature appearing on the Inventory same shabu subjected to laboratory examination
Receipt. and presented in the RTC.

People v. Lim18 enumerated this People v. Kamad enumerated the links that

Court's mandatory policy to prove chain of should be established in the chain of custody of
custody under Section 21 of RA 9165, as the confiscated item:
amended:
x x x [F]irst, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
their compliance with the requirements of apprehending officer to the investigating
Section 21(1) of RA 9165, as amended, officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
and its IRR. officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
2. In case of non-observance of the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
provision, the apprehending/seizing drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
officers must state the justification or court.20 (Italicization in the original)
explanation therefor as well as the steps As we review the submissions of both the
they have taken in order to preserve the prosecution and the defense, we find that PO1
integrity and evidentiary value of the Rosal was candid enough to testify that he placed
seized/confiscated items. in his pocket the miniscule amount of seized
shabu. The seized shabu was in his pocket from
3. If there is no justification or explanation the time of seizure until the alleged marking and
expressly declared in the sworn inventory at the police station. In a similar case,
statements or affidavits, the investigating we considered such act as "doubtful and
fiscal must not immediately file the case suspicious," "reckless," "dubious," "fraught with
before the court. Instead, he or she must dangers," as well as "blatantly irregular."
refer the case for further preliminary
investigation in order to determine the The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics
(non) existence of probable cause. in his own pockets precisely underscores the
importance of strictly complying with Section 21.
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case His subsequent identification in open court of the
despite such absence, the court may items coming out of his own pockets is self-
exercise its discretion to either refuse to serving.
issue a commitment order (or warrant of
arrest) or dismiss the case outright for The prosecution effectively admits that from the
lack of probable cause in accordance with moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until
Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court. the seized items' turnover for examination, these
items had been in the sole possession of a police
People v. Sipin19 ruled what constitutes justifiable officer. In fact, not only had they been in his
reasons for the absence of any of the three possession, they had been in such close
witnesses: proximity to him that they had been nowhere
else but in his own pockets.
(1) their attendance was impossible because the
place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their Keeping one of the seized items in his right
safety during the inventory and photograph of pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful
the seized drugs was threatened by an and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of
immediate retaliatory action of the accused or the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals'
any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary
the elected officials] themselves were involved in precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not
the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; dubious.
(4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a
DO J or media representative and an elected Even without referring to the strict requirements
public official within the period required under of Section 21, common sense dictates that a
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile single police officer's act of bodily-keeping the
through no fault of the arresting officers, who item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized
face the threat of being charged with arbitrary under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not
engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07746, which affirmed
requirements of Section 21 to view with distrust the 17 August 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial
the items coming out of PO1 Bobon's pockets. Court First Judicial Region, Branch 19, Bangui,
That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Ilocos Norte in Criminal Case No. 2194-19 finding
Appeals both failed to see through this and fell — appellant Crispin Mamuyac, Jr. y Palma guilty of
hook, line, and sinker — for PO1 Bobon's avowals violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
is mind-boggling. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, appellant Crispin Mamuyac, Jr. y
Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even Palma is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and
offering the slightest justification for dispensing is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from
with the requirements of Section 21. detention, unless he is being lawfully held for
another cause.
Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a proviso Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the
to the effect that "noncompliance [with] these Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long of Corrections in Muntinlupa City for immediate
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the implementation. The said Superintendent
seized items are properly preserved by the is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action
and invalid such seizures and custody over said he has taken.
items." Plainly, the prosecution has not shown
that - on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz SO ORDERED.
was arrested and the sachets supposedly seized
and marked - there were "justifiable grounds" for
dispensing with compliance with Section 21. All
that the prosecution has done is insist on its self-
serving assertion that the integrity of the seized
sachets has, despite all its lapses, nevertheless
been preserved.

Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by

PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets, it is also
admitted that no physical inventory and taking of
photographs in the presence of dela Cruz or of
any of the other persons specified by Section 21
were conducted.21
The multiple breaks in the links in the chain of
custody of the evidence cast serious doubt as to
appellant's guilt.

The failure to immediately mark the seized items,

taken together with the absence of a
representative from the media to witness the
inventory, without any justifiable explanation,
casts doubt on whether the chain of custody is
truly unbroken. Serious uncertainty is created on
the identity of the corpus delicti in view of the
broken linkages in the chain of custody. The
prosecution has the burden of proving each link
in the chain of custody - from the initial contact
between buyer and seller, the offer to purchase
the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money,
and the delivery of the illegal drug. The
prosecution must prove with certainty each link
in this chain of custody and each link must be the
subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to ensure
that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense.22
We underscore that the burden of proving the
guilt of the appellant lies on the strength of the
evidence of the prosecution. We cannot allow the
presumption of regularity in the conduct of police
duty to overthrow the presumption of innocence
of the accused in the absence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the appeal. The 7

November 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals