3&epublic of tbe llbtltpptneg

;;.,:·r ....:. ~·( ~r,! fl,·· Hte t:Hl!..•I': u ..;

~upreme ~ourt . .~;,"' , ......~ ~.10 • l'I
... ,, . . ,,,... ,. . ",,r ,...... ,, \
:··.' : .. ··1
r, •n.-.~·
·'~~f'··t•· ,·~: ........ ~ · ..
' I . - · •. .. .. - ~ ..... J.• , .• I . I I

;illflanila ' . I J '. ! •I: ~ I

i....·••I ,.
•\\,·
:'. JAN 0 7 ''"5
..\i!
,i•. ...'!: ' :,! I •

. ; ';i\:·'"'t~J-'t',•. ' ... - ...~J· j '· J

• •~ .....J '-"'~ -~ 'J ~...__,
:..::::.,::_ 9(;4: ~:z i
I

FIRST DIVISION :_

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 195194

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

SERENO, C. J.,
Chairperson,
-versus- VELASCO, JR., *
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN, and
PEREZ, JJ.

KAMAD AKMAD y ULIMPAIN Promulgated:

@ "Mhads" and BAINHOR
AKMAD y ULIMPAIN @ NOV 2 5 2015
"Bhads,"
Accused-Appellants.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------.1---------x

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

On appeal is the 19 February 2010 Decision 1 of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03376 which affirmed the
Decision dated 22 May 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Malolos City, Branch 21 finding the acc·used-appellants Kamad
Akmad y Ulimpain (Kamad) and Bainhor Akmad y Ulimpain
(Bainhor) guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.

Factual Antecedents

* Acting member per Special Order No. 2292 dated 23 November 2015.
Rollo, pp. 2-11; Penned by Associate Justice Japar 8. Dimaampao with Associate
Justices Ramon M. Sato, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez concurring.
~
 Decision 2 G.R. 195194

Kamad and Bainhor were charged before RTC, Branch 21,

Malolos, Bulacan for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 in an information that reads:

That on or about the 25th day of September, 2003 in the

[M]unicipality of Meycauayan, [P]rovince of Bulacan, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give
away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride weighing 49.606 grams in conspiracy with each other.2

On 11 November 2003, Kamad and Bainhor, assisted by their

counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Pre-trial and trial
thereafter ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

On 25 September 2003, senior Police Officer 1 Hashim Maung

(SPO1 Maung) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agengy (PDEA),
Bulacan Provincial Office received a report from a civilian informant
regarding the illegal drug activities of Kamad and Bainhor in the area
of Meycauayan, Bulacan. The two were allegedly capable of
disposing large volumes of shabu through consignment basis. SPO1
Maung instructed the civilian informant to set up a drug deal with the
suspects.

At around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same date, the

informant returned and reported that he had already negotiated for the
delivery of 50 grams of shabu worth Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00). The delivery would allegedly take place in front of
McDonald’s restaurant in Barangay Banga, Meycauayan, Bulacan.3

A team composed of Police Officer 3 Rolando Navarette (PO3

Navarette), as poseur-buyer, and SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co, as back-
up, was immediately formed to conduct a buy-bust operation.4

2
Records, p. 2.
3
TSN dated 25 June 2003, pp. 2-3.
4
Id. at 4.
 Decision 3 G.R. 195194

Upon arrival at the locus criminis at around 5:45 o’clock in the

afternoon, the informant introduced PO3 Navarette to Kamad and
Bainhor as an interested buyer. Kamad then took a medium-sized
plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from his pocket and gave it
to Bainhor, who, in turn, handed it to PO3 Navarette. Upon receipt of
the plastic sachet, PO3 Navarette immediately executed their pre-
arranged signal by scratching the back of his head with his right hand.
SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co immediately rushed in and introduced
themselves as PDEA operatives. The accused were informed of their
rights and brought to the police station for disposition and
documentation.5

PO3 Navarette testified that he marked the plastic sachet with

his initial “RCN.” He likewise testified that he prepared the request
for the laboratory examination that was brought by SPO1 Maung to
the crime laboratory together with the specimen, which later on tested
positive for shabu.6

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellants denied the accusations against them. They

maintained that they were merely drinking softdrinks at the
McDonald’s fastfood restaurant in Barangay Banga, Meycauayan,
Bulacan when three men suddenly approached them and poked a gun
at Kamad. They were dragged out of the restaurant and forced to
board a red car. Then, they were brought to a small house and were
ordered to remove their clothings. They were bodily searched but the
three men did not find anything on them. Thereafter, they were
brought to the provincial jail.

Ruling of the RTC

On 22 May 2008, the trial court promulgated a Decision7

finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00). The trial court ruled that the evidence presented by
the prosecution successfully established the elements of illegal sale of
a dangerous drug as accused-appellants were caught in flagrante
5
Id. at 4-6.
6
Id. at 6-7.
7
Records, pp. 124-133.
 Decision 4 G.R. 195194

delicto in a valid buy-bust operation. It noted that the defense of

denial and frame-up offered by the defense cannot overturn the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
accorded to the apprehending officers.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On intermediate appellate review, the CA found no reason to

disturb the findings of the RTC and upheld its ruling. The appellate
court agreed with the RTC that the testimony of the lone prosecution
witness was sufficient to establish the culpability of accused-
appellants. It also held that the apprehending officers complied with
the proper procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drug
and that the identity of the corpus delicti was properly preserved and
established by the prosecution.8

Issue

Whether the lower courts gravely erred in finding the accused-

appellants guilty of the crime charged notwithstanding the
prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.9

Our Ruling

We deny the appeal.

Accused-appellants allege that PO3 Navarette testified that they

were informed by a civilian informant that the accused-appellants can
dispose large volume of shabu through consignment basis, which
means that, at first, they will be given the shabu and on the next
delivery, they will give the payment for the shabu earlier delivered.
Accused-appellants maintain that the testimony defeated the
prosecution’s claim of illegal sale of drugs. They insist that no sale
transaction was consummated between them and PO3 Navarette
because one of the essential elements of a sale, i.e. the price certain in
money or its equivalent is absent.10

8
Rollo, p. 10.
9
CA rollo, p. 41; Brief for the Accused-appellants.
10
Land, Inc. v. CA, 335 Phil. 626, 629 (1997); Coronel v. CA, 331 Phil. 294, 309 (1996).
 Decision 5 G.R. 195194

The argument is erroneous. In the prosecution of a case of

illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not
create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale
of dangerous drug is adequately proven and the drug subject of the
transaction is presented before the court.11 Neither law nor
jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-
bust operation.12 What is material is the proof that the transaction or
sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti as evidence.13 In the instant case, the prosecution was able to
establish the consummated transaction between the poseur-buyer and
accused-appellants.

Moreover, we note that accused-appellants were charged with

selling, trading, delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and
transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165.14 The charge was not limited to the selling of dangerous drugs.
The aforesaid provision of law punishes not only the sale but also the
mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the
entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. In the distribution
of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial.
The mere act of distributing the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a
punishable offense.15

Accused-appellants also submit that the lower courts failed to

consider the procedural flaws committed by the arresting officers in
the seizure and custody of drugs as embodied in Section 21, paragraph
1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.16 They allege that the arresting team
should have conducted a physical inventory of the item seized and
took photographs thereof in their presence and in the presence of a
representative each from the media, the Department of Justice, and
any elected public official who shall further be required to sign copies
of the inventory.17 They further allege that the prosecution was not

11
People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957, 975-976 (2008).
12
People v. Astudillo, 440 Phil 204, 224 (2002).
13
People v. Chen Tiz Chang, 382 Phil. 669, 684 (2000).
14
Records, p. 2; Information,.
15
People v. Rodriguez, 429 Phil 359, 370 (2002).
16
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
17
CA rollo, p. 46; Brief for the Accused-appellants.
 Decision 6 G.R. 195194

able to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drug

when it failed to present SPO1 Maung, the one who prepared the
request and delivered the alleged confiscated specimen to the PNP
Crime Laboratory Service, Bulacan Provincial Office, Malolos,
Bulacan.

We are not persuaded. The procedure to be followed in the

custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs is outlined in
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of R.A. No. 9165, which states:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody

and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
(Emphasis supplied)

The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the exception

to the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect
chain of custody in the handling of evidence, “substantial compliance
with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item” is
sufficient.18 This Court has consistently ruled that even if the
arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and
will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.19 What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the

18
People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, 23 July 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 764.
19
People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, 5 September 2012, 680 SCRA 306, 323; People v.
Campos, G.R. No. 186526, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 462, 468 citing People v.
Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957, 971 (2008).
 Decision 7 G.R. 195194

determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.20 In other

words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to
present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the
dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by
the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer;
forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition;
and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the
chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the
procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was
not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.21

Here, the prosecution successfully established the unbroken

chain of custody over the seized drug. After the arrest of the accused-
appellants and the seizure of the suspected shabu, PO3 Navarette
conducted an inventory in the presence of Princesita Gaspar and Ma.
Theresa Lienado, officials of the barangay where the crime was
committed. PO3 Navarette then marked the item with his initials,
prepared the Receipt of Property Seized and had it signed by the
barangay officials. These were done in the presence of the accused-
appellants who refused to sign on the receipt. A request for laboratory
examination was thereafter prepared and the item was transmitted to
the crime laboratory for examination.22 The seized item was received
by Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Sta. Maria, who conducted a
chemistry examination of the substance. In his Chemistry Report No.
D-727-2003,23 the forensic officer stated that the specimen tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

It is clear from the foregoing that the substance marked, tested

and offered in evidence was the same item seized from accused-
appellants. This position by the prosecution was bolstered by the
defense’s admission during the pre-trial conference of the existence,
due execution and genuineness of the request for laboratory
examination, the Chemistry Report and specimen submitted.24

20
People v. Magundayao, G.R. No. 188132, 29 February 2012, 667 SCRA 310, 338;
People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583 citing People v. De
Leon, 636 Phil. 586, 598 (2010) further citing People v. Naquita, 582 Phil. 422, 442
(2008); People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957, 971 (2008).
21
People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427, 440-441 (2011) citing People v. Rosialda, G.R. No.
188330, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 507, 520-521 further citing People v. Rivera, 590
Phil. 894, 912-913 (2008).
22
Exhibit Folder, p. 1.
23
Id. at 2.
24
Records, p. 32; Pre-trial Order.
 Decision 8 G.R. 195194

We have previously ruled that as long as the state can show by

record or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been
compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the
object evidence at least between the time it came into the possession
of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory, then the
prosecution can maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.25

The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been

preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that
the evidence has been tampered with. Acussed-appellants bear the
burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in
order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of
exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers
properly discharged their duties.26 Accused-appellants in this case
failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part
of the arresting officers. Thus, the testimony of PO3 Navarette
deserves full faith and credit. In fact, accused-appellants did not even
question the credibility of the apprehending officers. Nor did they
present any reason why the apprehending would fabricate a story to
arrest them. They simply anchored their appeal on denial and the
alleged broken chain of the custody of the seized drug. We have
previously ruled that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has
been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as
easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in
most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.27

Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the penalty for the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, viz.:

Sect. 5 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.

25
Malilin v. People, 576 Phil 576, 588 (2008) citing Graham v. State, 255 NE2d 652, 655.
26
People v. Miranda, 560 Phil. 795, 810 (2007).
27
People v. Hernandez, 607 Phil. 617, 635 (2009).
D.ecision 9 G.R. 195194

We find the penalty imposed on accused-appellant m

conformity with the above-quoted provision of the law .

.
In fine, there is no reason to modify or set aside the Decision of
the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. We thus adopt its findings of fact and
conclusions oflaw.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-

G.R. CR-HC No. 03376 finding the accused Kamad Akmad y
Ulimpain and Bainhor Akmad y Ulimpain guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," sentencing
them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering them to pay a
fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PS00,000.00) is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

J EREZ

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
.
Chairperson
 Decision 10 G.R. 195194

PRESBITER0 J. VELASCO, JR.

~~~~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I

certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice