FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246165. November 28, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEFFREY

MACASPAC y LLANETE and BRYAN MARCELO y PANDINO ,
accused-appellants.

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J : p

The Case
Appellants Joeffrey Macaspac y Llanete and Bryan Marcelo y Pandino
assail the Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 30, 2018, affirming their
conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA
9165). HTcADC

The Proceedings before the Trial Court

Appellants were charged 1 with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9 1 6 5 2 for transporting five hundred fifty-two (552) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu ), a dangerous drug.
On arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. 3 Trial ensued.
Prosecution's Version
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Special Investigator Joel Otic
testified that on December 13, 2015, around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he
received a report from a confidential informant that a drug trafficking group
from San Pablo, Laguna was set to transport drugs to another drug
trafficking group on the same day at the SM Mall of Asia (MOA). The
confidential informant relayed further that for this transaction, the first
group would use a silver Hyundai Accent with plate number AAV 8780, a
white Mitsubishi Mirage with plate number ACA 3243, and a gray Mitsubishi
van with plate number XLV 925. 4 Agent Otic, in turn, relayed the information
to Chief Joel M. Tuvera, head of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Division (AIDD). Chief
Tuvera approved the deployment of the team to the area. For this purpose,
Agent Otic formed a team composed of Agent Fatima Liwalug, Agent Jerome
Bomediano, Agent Bertrand Gamaliel Mendoza, Agent John Mark Santiago,
Agent Melvin Escurel and Agent Salvador Arteche Jr. The team coordinated
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the Pasay City
Southern Police District, and the Security Manager of SM MOA, after which, it
proceeded to the target area at the SM MOA. 5
Around 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a MOA Security personnel informed
Agent Otic that he saw a Hyundai Accent with plate number AAV 8780
parked in front of the SM Hypermarket. The team drove there and spotted
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the vehicle with three (3) persons on board. They were later identified as
Dario "Bong Cuenca" (who acted as driver) 6 and appellants Macaspac and
Marcelo. Appellants alighted from the vehicle and walked toward the
package counter of the SM Hypermarket where they claimed a plastic bag
containing a box labeled "Zest O."
As soon as appellants had returned to their vehicle, Agents Mendoza
and Escurel closed in, blocked the vehicle, and ordered the driver and
appellants to step out. But Bong reacted by revving up the engine and swiftly
heading to the direction of Agents Mendoza and Escurel with the clear intent
of hitting them. 7 When he missed his targets, Bong revved up the engine
anew, albeit this time, the car was blocked by Agent Otic's Toyota Fortuner.
Agents Arteche and Santiago alighted from the Toyota Fortuner and ordered
Bong and appellants to get off. But Bong once more accelerated the engine
and tried anew to run over the agents. The police officers were then forced
to shoot. 8 As a result, Bong and appellants got injured and were
immediately brought to the San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City. Bong
died later that evening. 9
Meantime, the police team inspected the Hyundai vehicle used by
appellants. Agent Otic recovered from the backseat a "Zest O" box
containing a plastic pack with white crystalline substance inside. Agent Otic
did an inventory and marked the seized item with his initials "JLO" in the
presence of media representative Ryan Ann, and Barangay Kagawad Andres
Ileja of Barangay 76, Zone 10, Pasay City. Agent Liwalug took photographs of
the seized item. 10
Agent Otic also prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination and
brought it to the NBI Manila's Forensic Chemist Division. Forensic Chemist
Loreto Bravo received from Agent Otic the specimen and the request for its
examination.
Per Certification dated December 14, 2015, Forensic Chemist Bravo
confirmed that the specimen weighed five hundred fifty-two (552) grams and
was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu ), a
dangerous drug. 11
The prosecution submitted the following evidence: 1) Joint Affidavit of
A r r e s t ; 12 2) Coordination Form; 13 3) Pre-Operation Report; 14 4)
Coordination Letter; 15 5) Inventory of Seized Item; 16 6) Request for
Laboratory Examination and Analysis; 17 6) Certification (of the qualitative
and quantitative results of the seized item); 18 and 7) Photographs of the
seized item. 19 CAIHTE

Defense's Version
Appellants interposed denial. They testified that on December 13,
2015, around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, they went to the SM MOA to meet
with Bong Cuenca, an interested car buyer. While they were strolling inside
the mall, Bong called appellant Marcelo to meet him near the ferris wheel at
the SM MOA. 20 There, they boarded Bong's Hyundai vehicle. 21 Suddenly,
armed men ran towards them and a car blocked Bong's vehicle. Another
group of armed men also started hitting the vehicle. Bong accelerated the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 car causing the armed men to shoot as a result of which, they got wounded.
They were brought to the San Juan de Dios Hospital for treatment. 22 After
their discharge from the hospital, they were taken to the NBI where they got
informed of the charge against them for illegal transporting of drugs. 23
The Trial Court's Ruling
By Decision 24 dated March 14, 2017, the trial court found appellants
guilty as charged, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused, JOEFFREY
MACASPAC and BRYAN MARCELO , are hereby found GUILTY of
transporting 552 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
otherwise known as "shabu" as penalized under Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act 9165, and are hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to coordinate with,
and transmit to the PDEA, the one (1) sachet of representative sample
earlier extracted from the specimen for its proper disposition.
Furnish the Legal and Prosecution Service of the PDEA, the NBI,
the prosecutor, the accused and his counsel, copies of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
The trial court found that the elements of transporting drugs were all
present here. Appellants had complete possession and control of the
prohibited drugs from the time they picked up the same at the SM
Hypermarket up until they boarded the drugs into Bong's car. 25 The trial
court also noted that since appellants were actually in the act of committing
an offense, the police officers had lawful reason to arrest them, search the
vehicle, and seize the prohibited item found therein. 26 Had it not been for
the timely interception by the police officers and NBI agents, both appellants
and the five hundred fifty-two (552) grams of shabu would have freely
moved out from the SM MOA undetected. 27
Finally, there was substantial compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
There was justifiable ground why the inventory and photograph of the seized
item were not made in the presence of appellants as both of them were
brought to the hospital for immediate treatment after sustaining gunshot
wounds during the encounter. In any case, the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item were preserved from the time it was seized until it
was presented in court. 28
The Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, appellants faulted the trial court for giving credence to
Agent Otic's testimony, albeit the same was allegedly only based on the
reports of his team. During the operation, Agent Otic stayed inside the
vehicle, hence, he had no personal knowledge that appellants indeed
retrieved a box containing shabu from the SM Hypermarket and brought it to
their vehicle. His testimony, therefore, deserved no probative weight. 29
Appellants further argued that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
corpus delicti were not preserved because the "Zest O" box which
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 supposedly contained the shabu was not marked nor included in the
inventory. 30
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered in the
main: 1) the elements of transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165 were all sufficiently established; 2) appellants were
caught in flagrante delicto while transporting five hundred fifty-two (552)
grams of shabu ; 31 3) the chain of custody was followed, thus, preserving the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item; 32 and 4) Agent Otic's
testimony was not hearsay as he was simply narrating independent relevant
statements which led to appellants' lawful arrest. 33
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
By a Decision 34 dated May 30, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's ruling. It ruled that the prosecution sufficiently established the
elements of illegal transporting of dangerous drugs. Appellants' possession
of the five hundred fifty-two (552) grams of shabu , by itself, indicated
appellants' purpose to transport the same. 35
Another, Agent Otic's testimony was not hearsay. Being the team
leader of the operation which coordinated with the PDEA, as well as the
mall's security personnel, he had personal knowledge of the illegal
transporting of the drugs in question. He was also personally present at the
target area during the operation. 36
Finally, the prosecution sufficiently proved that the chain of custody
rule was duly complied with, preserving the integrity and evidentiary value
of the corpus delicti. 37
The Present Appeal
Appellants now seek affirmative relief from the Court and plead anew
for a verdict of acquittal.
In compliance with the Resolution 38 dated June 10, 2019, the OSG
manifested that in lieu of supplemental brief, it was adopting its brief before
the Court of Appeals. 39
On August 28, 2019, appellant Macaspac filed a supplemental brief 40
reiterating there was no transporting of illegal drugs to speak of since the
prosecution failed to show they transferred the alleged illegal drugs from one
place to another. 41 Also, there was a gap in the chain of custody because
the forensic chemist was not presented in court to testify whether the seized
item he examined was the same item presented in court.
Issue
Did the Court of Appeals err when it affirmed appellants' conviction for
illegal transporting of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA
9165?
Ruling
The core element of illegal transporting of dangerous drugs is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. 42 As defined in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 People v. Mariacos , 43 "transport" means "to carry or convey from one
place to another." 44
I n People v. Matio , 45 the Court noted there was no definitive
moment when an accused "transports" a prohibited drug. When the
circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact
of transporting itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of
the criminal act. 46 The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to
support a finding that the act of transporting was committed. 47
Here, appellants claim there was no transporting of illegal drugs to
speak of since they were not able to actually leave the premises of the SM
MOA. 48
The argument fails.
Records bear the following facts: 1) appellants picked up from the
baggage counter of the SM Hypermarket a plastic bag containing a "Zest-O"
box filled with shabu ; 2) appellants walked towards the SM MOA where Bong
Cuenca's car was waiting; 3) appellants loaded the shabu into the car and
boarded; 4) as they and Bong were driving away, Agent Mendoza and Agent
Escurel blocked them; 5) but instead of halting, Bong accelerated the engine
and maneuvered to run over the agents; 6) when he missed his targets,
Bong revved up the engine anew and maneuvered another time to run over
the agents but this time, it was Agent Otic's Toyota Fortuner which blocked
the vehicle; and 7) when the driver and appellants were asked to step out,
the driver simply repeated what he did earlier, thus, forcing the agents to
shoot. Bong and appellants were consequently injured and later brought to
the hospital for treatment. Appellants survived, but the driver did not. HEITAD

True, appellants were not able to completely leave the SM MOA

premises because their car was blocked by Agent Otic and his team but the
fact remains — they had already moved the drugs from the SM Hypermarket
into the car and had actually started driving away with it. In fine, the
essential element of moving the drugs from one place to another was
already accomplished, no matter how far or near the same had gone from
their place of origin.
People v. Asislo 49 aptly noted that the law does not dictate the
threshold how far the drugs should have been transported in order to fall
within the limits of illegal transporting of dangerous drugs. People v.
Gumilao 50 further elucidated that in cases of illegal transporting of
prohibited drugs, it is immaterial whether or not the place of destination is
reached.
We also reckon with the rule that the intent to transport illegal drugs is
presumed whenever a huge volume thereof is found in the possession of the
accused until the contrary is proved. 51
I n People v. Asislo , 52 the Court found three (3) plastic bags of
marijuana leaves and seeds as a considerable quantity of drugs and that
possession of a similar amount of drugs showed appellant's intent to sell,
distribute, and deliver the same.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Also, in People v. Alacdis , 53 appellant was found in possession of
almost one hundred ten (110) kilos of marijuana. The Court ruled that such
sheer volume by itself clearly indicated one's purpose to transport these
drugs.
Here, five hundred fifty-two (552) grams or half kilo of shabu is by no
means a minuscule amount indicating as well appellants' intent to deliver
and transport them in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
So must it be.
Going now to the chain of custody rule, we reiterate that in illegal
drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The
prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally
possessed, sold, delivered, or transported by the accused is the same
substance presented in court. 54
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug, the prosecution must
account for each link in its chain of custody: 55 first, the seizure and marking
of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer; third , the turnover by the investigating officer of
the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the
forensic chemist to the court. 56
Here, the prosecution sufficiently complied with the chain of custody
rule, viz.:
One, in the place where the drugs were seized and in the presence of
insulating witnesses, i.e., media representative Ryan Ann and Barangay
Kagawad Andres Ileja from Barangay 76, Zone 10, Pasay City, Agent Otic
marked and inventoried the "Zest-O" Box containing the original packing of
the five hundred fifty-two (552) grams of shabu , 57 while Agent Liwalug took
photographs of the same. Notably, the prosecution recognized that at that
time, appellants themselves were not around anymore because they were
taken to the hospital for treatment of the injuries they sustained during the
encounter.
Two, Agent Otic remained in custody of the seized item from the time
it was seized until it was marked and inventoried. He testified, thus: aDSIHc

Q: So you were able to get the Zest-O on top of the seat?

A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Anything else?
A: After that, we conducted the inventory of the items seized in the
presence of the witnesses, the barangay officials, MOA
representatives and media representatives, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And then what happened next?
A: After that, we requested the media to take videos and
photographs while I marked the seized items in their presence,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ma'am.
Q: Who took the pictures?
A: From our side, it was Agent Liwalug, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And then?
A: We also requested the witnesses to sign the inventory sheet,
ma'am.
Q: You, what did you do?
A: I was the one who conducted the markings and inventory,
ma'am. 58
Three, Agent Otic turned over the dangerous drugs to Forensic
Chemist Loreto Bravo. We note that Agent Otic did not turn over the seized
item to an investigator at the police station but remained in custody of the
same until he turned it over to Forensic Chemist Bravo for qualitative
examination. This is not a breach of the chain of custody. In People v.
Santos, 59 NBI Agent Saul was the one who seized the marijuana leaves and
dangerous drugs paraphernalia from the accused. He, too, marked and
inventoried the seized items. He did not turn them over to an investigator as
he immediately submitted the same to the forensic chemist for qualitative
examination. The Court ruled there was no breach in the chain of custody
and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item remained intact
from their seizure to their presentation as evidence in court.
Four, Forensic Chemist Bravo received the specimen and request for
examination. Per Certification dated December 14, 2015, he confirmed that
the specimen yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. It is a
matter of record that both the prosecution and the defense agreed to
dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bravo, and in its stead,
stipulated among others, that: 1) Forensic Chemist Bravo who conducted the
laboratory examination of the specimen is a competent, qualified, and
expert witness; 2) his findings per Certification dated December 14, 2015
showed that the seized item weighed five hundred fifty-two [552] grams and
were found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride; and 3) he had no
personal knowledge of the offense imputed against appellants.
Forensic Chemist Bravo's Certification perfectly conformed with the
specifications in the inventory prepared by Agent Otic, thus, leaving no
doubt that the drugs received by Forensic Chemist Bravo for examination
were the same ones seized by Agent Otic from appellants and eventually
presented in court. To emphasize, the prosecution's formal offer of evidence
indicated that Exhibit I-1-a represented the seized drugs themselves
weighing five hundred fifty-two (552) grams. 60 ATICcS

I n People v. Moner , 61 the Court affirmed the verdict of conviction.

The Court noted that in lieu of the forensic chemist's testimony, the
prosecution and the defense stipulated that the forensic chemist received
the specimens for examination and her findings revealed the same yielded
positive results for shabu .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In People v. Cutara , 62 the forensic chemist did not testify in court. In
lieu of his testimony, the prosecution offered as evidence his chemistry
report showing that the seized item went through qualitative examination
and yielded positive for shabu , and it was the same item presented in court
as evidence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the
links in the chain of custody over the seized drugs from the time of its
confiscation, to its qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, up until it
was offered in evidence. The totality of the prosecution's evidence showed
that the integrity of the seized items had been duly preserved and its chain
of custody had been accounted for.
Too, in People v. Galicia , 63 the Court decreed that the prosecution's
failure to present the forensic chemist to testify on how the seized items
were handled and taken into custody was not fatal to the admissibility of
the seized drugs. People v. Padua 64 further elucidated, viz.:
Further, not all people who came into contact with the
seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing
in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same
that imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody of
the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and
that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized,
it is not indispensable that each and every person who came
into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. x
x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In any event, the Court keenly notes the large amount of shabu
involved here — five hundred fifty-two (552) grams or more than half kilo. In
Mallillin v. People , 65 the Court stated that the likelihood of tampering,
loss, or mistake with respect to a seized illegal drug is greatest when the
item is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature.
To repeat, five hundred fifty-two (552) grams or more than half kilo of shabu
is by no means a minuscule amount, thus, logically confirming the
improbability of planting, tampering, or alteration.
The Court has invariably ordained 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." The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items to
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, 66 as in this case.
In another vein, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found
Agent Otic's testimony to be credible, straightforward, and direct. More
important, both courts found that Agent Otic was not shown, nay accused, to
have been impelled by malice or ill will to falsely charge appellants with such
heinous offense 67 of illegal transporting of a huge amount of
methamphetamine hydrochloride. In People v. Flor , 68 the Court gave full
faith and credence to police officer's testimony in the absence of imputed
malice on his part to testify against the accused for violation of Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165. Here, Agent Otic was not shown to have any ulterior
motive to falsely charge appellants. The Court, therefore, finds no reason to
doubt his credibility. ETHIDa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Be that as it may, in cases involving violations of RA 9165, credence
should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses
especially when they are police officers who are not only presumed but have
been clearly shown to have performed their official duty in a regular manner.
People v. Cabiles 69 is apropos, viz.:
The direct account of law enforcement officers enjoys the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. It should
be noted that unless there is clear and convincing evidence
that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive
or did not properly perform their duty, their testimonies on
the operation deserve full faith and credit. Thus, unless the
presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Since,
accused-appellant failed to present or refute the evidence presented
against him, therefore, the conduct of the operation of the police
officers prevails and is presumed regular. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Surely, appellants' bare denial cannot prevail over Agent Otic's positive
testimony, much less, the presumption of regularity accorded him and his
team in the performance of their official duty. People v. Alcala 70 stressed
that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the
findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses
supported by positive evidence shall prevail over appellant's self-serving
defense of denial.
The Court accords great weight to the trial court's factual findings here,
particularly as regards credibility of witnesses. For it had the opportunity to
observe first-hand the deportment and demeanor of witnesses and it was in
a position to discern whether or not they were telling the truth. More so
because the trial court's factual findings here carried the full concurrence of
the Court of Appeals itself. People v. Perondo 71 is relevant:
x x x findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature
and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no
glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative,
arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such
findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better
position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their
testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the Court of
Appeals. x x x (Emphasis supplied).
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed the trial
court's verdict of conviction against appellants for violation of Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165.
As for the penalty, the same provision decrees:
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved x x x.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Verily, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed appellants' sentence to
life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision dated May
30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09437, is AFFIRMED.
Appellants Joeffrey Macaspac y Llanete and Bryan Marcelo y Pandino are
found GUILTY of illegal transporting of five hundred fifty-two (552) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as defined and
penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They are sentenced to
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a FINE of P500,000.00 each. TIADCc

SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Inting, * JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

* Designated as additional member per S.O. No. 2726 dated October 25, 2019.
1. Record, p. 1.
The Information reads:
That on or about the 13th of December 2015, in Pasay City, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused JOEFFREY MACASPAC Y LLANETE and BRYAN MARCELO Y
PANDINO, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another,
without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously bring and transport 552 (Five Hundred Fifty Two) grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu ), a dangerous drug, along SM Mall
of Asia Complex, this city, using a Hyundai Accent vehicle with Plate No. AAV
8780. Contrary to law.
2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Section 5, Article II states: Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any
of such transactions.
3. Rollo , p. 4.
4. Record, p. 7.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 5. Id. at 7; rollo, p. 5.
6. Record, p. 9.
7. Id. at 8.
8. Rollo , p. 6.
9. Id.

10. Record, p. 9.
11. Id. at 90.
12. Id. at 7.
13. Id. at 11.
14. Id. at 12.

15. Id. at 15.

16. Id. at 16.
17. Id. at 17.
18. Id. at 18.
19. Id. at 19-20.

20. TSN, November 11, 2016, p. 6.

21. Rollo , p. 7.

22. TSN, November 11, 2016, p. 6.

23. Rollo , p. 7.
24. Penned by Judge Racquelen Abary-Vasquez, CA rollo, pp. 30-48.

25. Id. at 39.

26. Id. at 39-40.

27. Id. at 40.

28. Id. at 45.

29. Id. at 24.

30. Id. at 28.

31. Id. at 60-61.

32. Id. at 63-64.

33. Id. at 65.

34. Rollo , pp. 3-12.

35. Id. at 10.

36. Id. at 10-11.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 37. Id. at 11.

38. Id. at 17.

39. Id. at 26-28.

40. Id. at 32-38.

41. Id. at 33.

42. See People v. Laba , 702 Phil. 301, 308 (2013).

43. See 635 Phil. 315, 333-334 (2010).

44. Id.

45. See 778 Phil. 509, 523 (2016).

46. Supra note 43.

47. Id.

48. Rollo , p. 33.

49. Supra note 45.

50. See People v. Gumilao , G.R. No. 208755, October 5, 2016, citing People v.
Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315, 333-334 (2010).
51. See People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509 (2016); See People v. Alacdis , 811 Phil. 219
(2017).

52. Supra note 45.

53. See 811 Phil. 219, 232 (2017).

54. See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 541-542 (2017).

55. As defined in Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series
of 2002:
xxx xxx xxx

b. "Chain of Custody" means the 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/confiscation 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[.]
xxx xxx xxx

56. See People v. Dahil , 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).

57. Record, p. 79.

58. TSN, April 11, 2016, pp. 29-30.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 59. See G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018.
60. Record, p. 76.

61. See G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018.

62. See 810 Phil. 999, 1002, 1005 (2017).

63. See G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018.

64. See 639 Phil. 235, 251 (2010).

65. See 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008).

66. See Saraum v. People , 779 Phil. 122, 133 (2016).

67. Rollo , p. 11; CA rollo, p. 45.

68. See G.R. No. 216017, January 19, 2018.

69. See 810 Phil. 969, 976 (2017).

70. See 739 Phil. 189, 194-195 (2014).

71. See 754 Phil. 205, 217 (2015).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com