Fulltext H. Chain of Custody

H.
Chain of Custody
1. People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 9, 2008
G.R. No. 177222 October 29, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
RANILO DE LA CRUZ Y LIZING, appellant.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
On appeal is the Decision 1 dated 30 November 2006 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 01266
affirming in toto the judgment 2 dated 14 June 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong
City, Branch 211, finding appellant Ranilo Dela Cruz y
Lizing guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No.
9165) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a fine of
₱500,000.00. 3
On 13 September 2002, Dela Cruz was charged with the violation of the aforesaid offense in an
Information 4 that reads:
That on or about the 12th day of September 2002, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any lawful authority, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver, distribute, transport or sell to poseur-buyer PO2 Nick
Resuello[,] one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram each of white crystalline
substance, which were found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known
as "shabu," a dangerous drug, for the amount of ₱100.00 with Serial No. XY588120, without the
corresponding license and prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued with the prosecution
presenting as witnesses arresting officers PO2 Braulio Peregrino, PO2 Nick Resuello, PO2 Marcelino
Boyles, PO2 Allan Drilon, investigator-on-case PO3 Virgilio Bismonte and Forensic Chemist Joseph
Perdido.
Prosecution evidence shows that on 12 September 2002, the Office of the Station Drugs Enforcement
Unit (SDEU), Mandaluyong City received information that appellant, alias "Boy Tigre," of No. 73, Dela
Cruz Street, Barangay Old Zaniga, Mandaluyong City was engaging in the trade of illegal drugs. A team
composed of Peregrino, Boyles, Drilon and Resuello was dispatched to conduct a buy-bust operation in
the area at around 2:00 p.m. of the same day. Peregrino, Boyles, and Drilon positioned themselves at a
nearby area while Resuello, the designated poseur-buyer, approached appellant described as a long-
haired, medium built, not-so-tall male, sporting a moustache and frequently seen wearing short pants. 6 At
the time, appellant was standing outside of their gate and kept on glancing from side to side. 7 Resuello
then told appellant that he wanted to buy shabu. Dela Cruz looked surprised prompting Resuello to repeat
what he had said and handed him the ₱100 bill with Serial No. XY 588120. Appellant, in turn, handed him
a plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance. At which point, Resuello executed the pre-
arranged signal and Peregrino immediately rushed to the scene. 8
Peregrino, identifying himself as a policeman, held appellant and informed him of his constitutional rights.
Peregrino then recovered the buy-bust money from appellant. Subsequently, appellant was brought to
SDECU for investigation. Thereat, Peregrino placed his initials (BP) on the plastic sachet containing the
white crystalline substance before sending it to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory for chemical
examination. The sachet was later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Subsequently, Peregrino and Resuello accomplished the booking and information sheets regarding the
incident. Peregrino also executed an affidavit on the matter. 9 Appellant was later identified as Ranilo Dela
Cruz y Lising. 10
On cross-examination, Peregrino and Resuello admitted that the buy-bust money had neither been
dusted with fluorescent powder nor marked. They only made a photocopy of it prior to the operation for
purposes of identification. 11 Peregrino also testified that appellant had not been tested for the presence of
fluorescent powder; neither was a drug examination conducted on him. After the arrest, Peregrino
narrated that his office made a report on the matter which was forwarded to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 12 Boyles testified likewise on cross-examination that at the time of the
arrest, they had no coordination with PDEA. 13 Drilon, on the other hand, testified that he had not actually
seen the transaction. 14
Forensic Chemist Perdido testified that the plastic sachet was found to contain methamphetamine
hydrochloride. He, however, admitted that he examined the specimen and had made the markings on the
same without the presence of appellant. 15
For the defense, appellant testified that on 12 September 2002, at around 1:00 to 2:00 p.m., he was in his
house watching television with his wife when he heard a knock at the door. Outside, he came upon two
men looking for "Boy Tigre." After admitting that it was he they were looking for, he was told that the
barangay captain needed him. He went with the two men to see the barangay captain. Thereat, the
barangay captain asked whether he knew of anyone engaged in large-scale drug pushing. Appellant
replied in the negative and in response, the barangay captain stated that there was nothing more he (the
barangay captain) can do. Appellant was then told to go to the City Hall. At first, his wife accompanied
him there but he later asked her to go home and raise the money Bismonte had allegedly demanded from
him in exchange for his freedom. When appellant’s wife failed to return as she had given birth, a case for
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was filed against him. 16 Appellant added that he used to
be involved in "video-karera" and surmised that this involvement could have provoked the barangay
captain’s wrath. 17
Appellant’s wife, Jocelyn Dela Cruz, corroborated appellant’s testimony. She further stated that after
appellant had identified himself as "Boy Tigre," the two men held on to him and asked him to go with them
to the barangay captain. There, the barangay captain asked appellant if he knew a certain "Amon"
of Pitong Gatang. When appellant replied that he did not, he was then brought to the SDECU where
Bismonte allegedly demanded ₱100,000.00 from them or else a case without bail will be filed against
appellant. 18
Finding that the prosecution had proven appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC rendered
judgment against him, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a
fine of ₱500,000.00. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the challenged decision was affirmed in toto by
the appellate court, after it ruled that the trial court did not commit any reversible error in finding appellant
guilty of the offense charged.
Before the Court, appellant reiterates his contention that the apprehending police officers’ failure to
comply with Sections 21 19 and 86 20 of R.A. No. 9165 and that failure casts doubt on the validity of his
arrest and the admissibility of the evidence allegedly seized from him. 21 Through his Manifestation (In
Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated 4 September 2007, appellant stated that he had exhaustively argued all
the relevant issues in his Brief filed before the Court of Appeals and thus, he is adopting it as
Supplemental Brief. 22
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it was dispensing with the admission of a
supplemental brief. 23 Earlier,in its Appellee’s Brief, the OSG maintained that despite the non-compliance
with the requirements of R.A. No. 9165, the seized drugs are admissible in evidence because their
integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved in accordance with the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165. 24
At the outset, it is well to restate the constitutional mandate that an accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome
such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum evidence required. In so doing, the
prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the
prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present
evidence on its own behalf. In which case the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily
be acquitted. 25
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction
or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the
buyer and seller were identified. 26 The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense. 27
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 states that:
(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;
The IRR of the same provision adds a proviso, to wit:
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 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;
In the case at bar, the Court finds that the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the guidelines
prescribed by the law regarding the custody and control of the seized drugs despite its mandatory terms.
While there was testimony regarding the marking of the seized items at the police station, there was no
mention whether the same had been done in the presence of appellant or his representatives. There was
likewise no mention that any representative from the media, DOJ or any elected official had been present
during the inventory or that any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory.
Neither does it appear on record that the team photographed the contraband in accordance with law.
Peregrino testified as follows:
Q While you were at the office, what did you do with the physical evidence, subject of the buy-bust
operation?
A When we were at the office[,] we marked the subject physical evidence and requested for physical
examination[,] Ma’am.
ACP Indunan:
What were the markings placed on the physical evidence?

A What we put is initial "BP"
Q What does this BP means [sic]?
A My initial Ma’am, Braulio Perigrino [sic]. 28
Resuello likewise testified in this wise:
ACP Indunan:
Q Before you brought this item to the crime laboratory[,] what other markings you placed on the sachet?
A We put a marking BP, Ma’am.
Q That BP stands for what[,] Mr. witness?
A Braulio Perigrino[,] Ma’am. 29
Following the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in favor
of the accused, 30 the apprehending team’s omission to observe the procedure outlined by R.A. 9165 in
the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impairs the prosecution’s case.
Now, the prosecution cannot seek refuge in the proviso of the IRR in the absence of proof of entitlement
to such leniency. The prosecution rationalizes its oversight by merely stating that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved in accordance with law. The allegation
hardly sways the Court save when it is accompanied by proof. According to the proviso of the IRR of
Section 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165, non-compliance with the procedure shall not render void and invalid the
seizure of and custody of the drugs only when: (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds;
and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team. Clearly, there must be proof that these two (2) requirements were met before any
such non-compliance may be said to fall within the scope of the proviso. Significantly, not only does the
present case lack the most basic or elementary attempt at compliance with the law and its implementing
rules; it fails as well to provide any justificatory ground showing that the integrity of the evidence had all
along been preserved. 31
Failing to prove entitlement to the application of the proviso, the arresting officers’ non-compliance with
the procedure laid down by R.A No. 9156 is not excused. This inexcusable non-compliance effectively
invalidates their seizure of and custody over the seized drugs, thus, compromising the identity and
integrity of the same. We resolve the doubt in the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti in favor of
appellant 32 as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. 33 Considering that the prosecution failed to present the required quantum of evidence,
appellant’s acquittal is in order.
It is well to recall that in several cases that came before us, we have repeatedly emphasized the
importance of compliance with the prescribed procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized
drugs. We have over and over declared that the deviation from the standard procedure dismally
compromises the integrity of the evidence. 34
Anent the argument that the buy-bust operation was conducted without the assistance or consent of
PDEA, in violation of Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, it must be pointed out that the second paragraph of the
same provision states that the transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices into PDEA shall
take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of the law which was on 4 July 2002. 35 In view
of the fact that the buy-bust operation was conducted on 12 September 2002, it is excusable that the
same was not done in coordination with PDEA.
All told, the totality of the evidence presented in the instant case does not support appellant’s conviction
for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. Following the constitutional mandate, when the guilt of
the appellant has not been proven with moral certainty, as in this case, the presumption of innocence
prevails and his exoneration should be granted as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 14 June 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch
211 in Criminal Case No. MC02-5912-D is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant RANILO DELA CRUZ
y LIZING is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered
immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful case.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this Decision forthwith and to
INFORM this Court, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually released
from confinement.
Costs de oficio.
2. People v. Ramil Doria and Rommel Castro, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015
G.R. No. 212196 January 12, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
RAMIL DORIA DAHIL and ROMMEL CASTRO y CARLOS, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the September 27, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 05707, which affirmed the July 17, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles
City (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. DC 02-376, DC 02-377 and DC 02-378, finding accused Ramil Doria
Dahil (Dahil) and Rommel Castro (Castro) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On October 1, 2002, Dahil and Castro were charged in three (3) separate Informations before the RTC. In
Criminal Case No. DC 02-376, Dahil and Castro were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 for the sale of 26.8098 grams of marijuana in the Information which reads:
That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating and
mutually helping one another, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver to
a poseur buyer six (6) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY SIX GRAMS AND
EIGHT THOUSAND NINETY EIGHT TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (26.8098), which is a dangerous
drug, without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
In Criminal Case No. DC 02-377, Dahil was charged with possession of 20.6642 grams of marijuana in
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads: That on or about the
29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
in his possession and custody and control Five (5) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing
TWENTY GRAMS AND SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A
GRAM (20.6642), which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
In Criminal Case No. DC 02-378, Castro was charged with possession of 130.8286 grams of marijuana in
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads: That on or about the
29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
in his possession and custody and control One (1) brick in form wrapped in masking tape of dried
marijuana fruiting tops weighing ONE HUNDRED THIRTY GRAMS and EIGHT THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (130.8286), which is a dangerous drug,
without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
On November 14, 2002, Castro was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Dahil, on the other hand, filed a
motion for reinvestigation and his arraignment was deferred. Trial ensued and the prosecution presented
PO2 Arieltino Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz)and SPO1 Eliseo Licu (SPO1 Licu), as witnesses.
On August 6, 2009, the RTC discovered that Dahil was never arraigned through inadvertence.6 The RTC
informed the parties of the situation and the defense counsel did not interpose any objection to the
reopening of the case and the arraignment of Dahil. The latter was then arraigned and he pleaded not
guilty. Thereafter, the public prosecutor manifested that he was adopting all the evidence already
adduced.
Version of the Prosecution
Evidence of the prosecution tended to show that, for a couple of weeks, the agents of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing operations relative to the
information they received that a certain alias "Buddy" and alias "Mel" were trafficking dried marijuana in
TB Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. On September 29, 2002, the
Chief of PDEA formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of four (4) police
officers, namely, Sergeant Juanito dela Cruz (Sergeant dela Cruz), as team leader; and PO2 Corpuz,
SPO1 Licu and PO2 Javiar, as members. PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-buyer while SPO1
Licu was assigned as his back-up.
The team proceeded to the target place at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening. Upon arriving, PO2 Corpuz
together with the informant went to the house of Dahil which was within the TB Pavillon compound. When
PO2 Corpuz and the informant were in front of the house, they met Dahil and Castro. The informant then
introduced PO2 Corpuz as the buyer of marijuana. Dahil asked PO2 Corpuz how much would he be
buying and the latter answered that he would buy ₱200.00 worth of marijuana. At this juncture, Dahil took
out from his pocket six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana and handed them to PO2 Corpuz. After checking
the items, PO2 Corpuz handed two (2) ₱100.00 marked bills to Castro.
Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to signal that the sale had been consummated. The
rest of the buy-bust team then rushed to their location and arrested Castro and Dahil. PO2 Corpuz frisked
Dahil and recovered from his possession another five (5) plastic sachets containing marijuana while
SPO1 Licu searched the person of Castro and confiscated from him one (1) brick of suspected marijuana.
Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were then brought by the buy-bust team to
the PDEA office. There, the seized items were marked by PO2 Corpuz and SPO1Licu. First, the six (6)
plastic sachets of marijuana which were sold by Dahil to PO2 Corpuz were marked with "A-1" to "A-6" and
with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML." Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered from Dahil were
marked with "B-1" to "B-5" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML." Finally, the marijuana brick
confiscated from Castro was marked "C-RDRC." Sergeant dela Cruz then prepared the request for
laboratory examination, affidavits of arrest and other pertinent documents. An inventory of the seized
items7 was also prepared which was signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. Thereafter, PO2 Corpuz brought the
confiscated drugs to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, which
subsequently yielded positive results for marijuana.
The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the essential contents of the prospective
testimony of the forensic chemist, to wit:
1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by PO3 Dela Cruz;
2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent to the PNP Crime
Laboratory,Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;
3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;
4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance subject of the letter
request with qualification that said request was not subscribedor under oath and that the forensic
chemist has no personal knowledge as from whom and where said substance was taken;
5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-0518-
2002; and
6. The findings and conclusion thereof.8
The prosecution was ordered to formally offer its evidence on March 7, 2007.9 After much delay, the
public prosecutor was finally able to orally submit his formal offer of exhibits after almost two years, or on
January 6, 2009.10 He offered the following documentary evidence: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2)
Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Photocopy of the marked money, (4) Brown envelope containing the
subject illegal drugs, (5) Inventory of Property Seized, (6) Laboratory Examination Request, and (7)
Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002.
Version of the Defense
In his defense, Dahil claimed that on September 29, 2002, a tricycle driver came looking for him after he
had arrived home. He saw the tricycle driver with another man already waiting for him. He was then asked
by the unknown man whether he knew a certain Buddy in their place. He answered that there were many
persons named Buddy. Suddenly, persons alighted from the vehicles parked in front of his house and
dragged him into one of the vehicles. He was brought to Clark Air Base and was charged with illegal
selling and possession of marijuana.
For his part, Castro testified thaton September 29, 2002, he was on 4th Street of Marisol, Barangay Ninoy
Aquino, Angeles City, watching a game of chess when he was approached by some men who asked if he
knew a certain Boy residing at Hardian Extension. He then replied that he did not know the said person
and then the men ordered him to board a vehicle and brought him to Clark Air Base where he was
charged withillegal possession of marijuana.
RTC Ruling
In its Decision,11 dated July 17, 2012, the RTC found both accused liable for violating Sections 5 and 11
of R.A. No. 9165, and imposed upon them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00
each for the crime of illegal sale of marijuana;Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to
Fourteen (14) Years of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000.00 each for the crime
of illegal possession of marijuana.
The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the case of selling and possession of
illegal drugs against the accused. All the elements of the crimes were established. To the trial court, the
evidence proved that PO2 Corpuz bought marijuana from Dahil. The latter examined the marijuana
purchased and then handed the marked money to Castro.
The marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers, but the RTC ruled that the same was not
fatal considering that a photocopy of the marked money was presented and identified by the arresting
officers.12 It did not give credence to the defense of frame-up by Dahil and Castro explaining that it could
easily be concocted with no supporting proof.
CA Ruling
The accused then appealed to the CA. In their Brief for the Accused-Appellants,13 they argued that there
were irregularities on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal items seized from
them. The prosecution witnesses exhibited gross disregard of the procedural safeguards which generated
clouds of doubts as tothe identity of the seized items presented in evidence.14
In its Brief for the Appellee,15 the OSG contended that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements
of the crime of illegal sale and possession of marijuana. As to the chain of custody procedure, it insists
that the prosecution witnesses were able to account for the series of events that transpired, from the time
the buy-bust operation was conducted until the time the items were presented in court.
The CA denied the appeal in its Decision, dated September 27, 2013. In its view, the prosecution was
able to establish that the illegal sale of marijuana actually took place. As could be gleaned from the
testimony of PO2 Corpuz, there was an actual exchange as Dahil took out from his pocket six (6) sachets
containing marijuana, while PO2 Corpuz handled out the two (2) ₱100.00 marked bills, after they agreed
to transact ₱200.00 worth of the illegal drug.16 The charge of illegal possession of marijuana, was also
thus established by the prosecution.17 Another five (5) plastic sachets of marijuana were recovered from
Dahil’s possession while one (1) brick of marijuana from Castro’s possession.18
It was likewise proven that the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused during the buy-bust operation
were the same drugs presented before the RTC. As testified to by PO2 Corpuz, the six (6) plastic sachets
of marijuana, which were sold by Dahil toPO2 Corpuz were marked "A-1" to "A-6" and with letters
"RDRC," "ADGC"and "EML," the five (5) plastic sachets recovered in the possession of Dahil were
marked "B-1" to "B-5" and with the initials "ADGC" and "EML," while the marijuana brick confiscated from
Castro was marked "C-RDRC."19
It was also held that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody. PO2 Corpuz and SPO1
Licu testified that the said drugs were marked at the police station. An inventory of the seized items was
made as shown by the Inventory Report of Property Seized, duly signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. The
Request for Laboratory Examination revealed that the confiscated drugs were the same items submitted
to the PNP crime laboratory for examination. On the other hand, Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002
showed that the specimen gave positive results to the test of marijuana. The accused failed to show that
the confiscated marijuana items were tampered with, or switched, before they were delivered to the crime
laboratory for examination.20
Hence, this appeal.
This appeal involves the sole issue of whether or not the law enforcement officers substantially complied
with the chain of custody procedure required by R.A. No. 9165.
The Court’s Ruling
Let it be underscored that appeal incriminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is the
duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they
are assigned or unassigned.21 Considering that what is at stake here is no less than the liberty of the
accused, this Court has meticulously and thoroughly reviewed and examined the records of the case and
finds that there is merit in the appeal. The Court holds that that there was no unbroken chain of custody
and that the prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged.
A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an
effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-
bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is
susceptible topolice abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.22
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in every
prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the dangerous
drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court were the same
substances boughtduring the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165
as the chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring thatunnecessary doubts concerning the identity
of the evidence are removed.23 In People v. Catalan,24 the Court said:
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti.That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On the other
hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are
substantial gapsin the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous
DrugsBoard Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, explains the said term as
follows:
"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.
As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165
specifies that:
and confiscation, physically inventory and photographthe same in the presence of the accused or the
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)of R.A. No. 9165
enumeratesthe procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers toconfirm the chain of custody, to
wit:
xxx
(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 warrantis 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
xxx
The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with.
Although the prosecution offered inevidence the Inventory of the Property Seized signed by the arresting
officers and Kagawad Pamintuan, the procedures provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not
observed. The said provision requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to
immediately (1) conduct a physically inventory; and (2) photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/orseized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be
required tosign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
First,the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after seizure and confiscation as it was
only done at the police station. Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR allows the inventory to be done
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures. In this case, however, the prosecution did not even claim that the PDEA
Office Region 3 was the nearest office from TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The prosecution
also failed to give sufficient justification for the delayed conduct of the inventory. PO2 Corpuz testified, to
wit:
Q: What documents did you ask Kgd. Abel Pamintuan to sign?
A: The inventory of the property seized, sir.
Q: And did he sign that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where was he when he signed that?
A: In our office, sir.

Q: Already in your office?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who prepared the inventory of the property seized?
A: Our investigator, sir.
Q: And that was prepared while you were already at your office?
A: Yes, sir, because we did not bring with us the material or equipment for the preparation of the
documents so, we invited him to our office.25
PO2 Corpuz gave the flimsy excusethat they failed to immediately conduct an inventory because they did
not bring with them the material or equipment for the preparation of the documents. Such explanation is
unacceptable considering that they conducted a surveillance on the target for a couple of weeks.26 They
should have been prepared with their equipment even before the buy-bust operation took place.
Second,there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized.
According to the CA decision, it was Sergeant dela Cruzwho prepared the said document.27 PO2 Cruz on
the other hand, testified that it was their investigatorwho prepared the document while SPO1 Licu’s
testimony was that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their investigator.28
Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of
the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any
elected public official. During the cross-examination, PO2 Corpuz testified: Q: After you arrested Ramil
Dahil,did you conduct the inventory of the alleged seized items?
A: Yes, sir (sic).
Q: Where did you conduct the inventory?
A: In our office, ma’am
Q: Were pictures takenon the alleged seized items together with Ramil Dahil?
A: No, ma’am.29
[Emphases supplied]
SPO1 Licu when cross-examined on the same point, testified this was:
Q: After you conducted the alleged buy-bust operation, did you conduct an inventory of the
alleged seized items?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at the time you conduct the inventory?
A: No, ma’am.
Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items?

A: Pictures were takenon the accused, ma’am.
[Emphasis supplied]
In other words, when questioned on the conduct of the inventory, PO2 Corpuz testified that no pictures of
the seized items were taken while SPO1 Licu said that pictures of the accused were taken. From the
vague statements of the police officers, the Court doubts that photographs of the alleged drugs were
indeed taken. The records are bereft of any document showing the photos of the seized items. The Court
notes that SPO1 Licu could have misunderstood the question because he answered that "pictures were
taken on the accused" when the question referred to photographs of the drugs and not of the accused.
The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
preserved.
Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with
the law does not necessarily render the arrestof the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated
from him inadmissible.30 The issue of non-compliance with the said section is not of admissibility, but of
weight to be given on the evidence.31 Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial" and not
necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.32
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the proper chain
of custody of the seized items must be shown. The Court explained in People v. Malillin33 how the chain of
custody or movement of the seized evidence should be maintained and why this must be shown by
evidence, viz:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same.
In People v. Kamad,34 the Court identified the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, ifpracticable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized bythe 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.
First link: Marking of the Drugs Recovered from the Accused by the Apprehending Officer
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking
after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be
immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markingsas reference.
The marking of the evidence serves to separate the markedevidence from the corpus of all other similar
or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end
of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.35
It must be noted that marking isnot found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking and
photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however,
this Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would
cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.36
In the present case, PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu claimed that they had placed their initials on the seized
items. They, however, gave little information on how they actually did the marking. It is clear, nonetheless,
that the marking was not immediately done at the place of seizure, and the markings were only placed at
the police station based on the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, to wit: Q: So, after recovering all those
marijuana bricks and plastic sachets of marijuana and the marked money from the accused, what else did
you do?
A: We brought the two (2) suspects and the evidence and marked money to our office, sir.
Q: So, in your office, what happened there?
A: Our investigator prepared the necessary documents, sir, the request for crime lab examination, joint
affidavit of arrest, booking sheet, and all other documents necessary for the filing of the case against the
two (2), sir.
xxx
Q: What about the marijuana, subject of the deal, and the one which you confiscated from the accused,
what did you do with those?
A: Before sending them to Olivas, we placed our markings, sir.37
Hence, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office Region 3, the seized items were not marked. It
could not, therefore, be determined how the unmarked drugs were handled. The Court must conduct
guesswork on how the seized drugs were transported and who took custody of them while in transit.
Evidently, the alteration of the seized items was a possibility absent their immediate marking thereof.
Still, there are cases whenthe chain of a custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized
items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is
done in the presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases.38 Even a less stringent application of the
requirement, however, will not suffice to sustain the conviction of the accused in this case. Aside from the
fact that the police officers did not immediately place their markings on the seized marijuana upon their
arrival at the PDEA Office, there was also no showing that the markings were made in the presence of the
accused.
PO2 Corpuz testified that they only placed their markings on the drugs when they were about to send
them to Camp Olivas for forensic examination. This damaging testimony was corroborated by the
documentary evidence offered by the prosecution. The following documents were made at the PDEA
Office: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Inventory of Property Seized,
and (4) Laboratory Examination Request. Glaringly, only the Laboratory Examination Request cited the
markings on the seized drugs. Thus, it could only mean that when the other documents were being
prepared, the seized drugs had not been marked and the police officers did not have basis for identifying
them. Considering that the seized drugs wereto be used for different criminal charges, it was imperative
for the police officers to properly mark them at the earliest possible opportunity. Here, they failed in such a
simple and critical task. The seized drugs were prone to mix-up at the PDEA Office itself because of the
delayed markings.
Worse, not all of the seized drugs were properly marked. As noted by the RTC, Exhibit B-3 RC
RD,39 Exhibit A-5 RC RD and Exhibit A-6 RD RC40 did not have the initials of the apprehending officers on
the back. Bearing in mind the importance of marking the seized items, these lapses in the procedure are
too conspicuous and cannot be ignored. They placed uncertainty as to the identity of the corpus delicti
from the moment of seizure until it was belatedly marked at the PDEA Office.
Similarly, in People v. Garcia,41 the Court considered the belated marking of the seized drug by the
apprehending officer in acquitting the accused in the case. The officer testified that he marked the
confiscated items only after he had returned tothe police station. Such admission showed that the
marking was not done immediately after the seizure of the items, but after the lapse of a significant
intervening time.
Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating Officer
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a
supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing.42 This is a
necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the
proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly,
the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required
documents.
The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin.43 Surprisingly, there was no testimony
from the witnesses as to the turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly improbable for
an investigator in a drug-related case toeffectively perform his work without having custody of the seized
items. Again, the case of the prosecution is forcing this Court to resort to guesswork as to whether PO2
Corpuz and SPO1 Licu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the investigating officer or they
had custody of the marijuana all night while SPO4 Jamisolamin was conducting his investigation on the
same items.
In People v. Remigio,44 the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody
as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The
apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred
them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the
accused in the said case.
Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic Chemist
From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist. Once the seized drugs
arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of
the substance. In this case, it was only during his cross-examination that PO2 Corpuz provided some
information on the delivery of the seized drugs to Camp Olivas, to wit:
Q: How about the alleged marijuana, you stated that the same was brought to the crime laboratory, who
brought the same to the crime lab?
A: Me and my back-up, ma’am.
Q: When did you bring the marijuana to the crime lab for examination?
A: I think it was the following day, ma’am.45
As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, very little detail was offered on how the seized
marijuana was handled and transferred from the PDEA Office in Angeles City to the crime laboratory in
Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz kept possession of the seized drugs overnight
without giving detailson the safekeeping of the items. The most palpable deficiency of the testimony
would be the lack of information as to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas.
Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran, the forensic chemist who conducted the tests on the subject drugs, did not
appear in court despite the numerous subpoenas sent to her.46 Instead, the prosecution and the defense
agreed to stipulate on the essential points of her proffered testimony. Regrettably, the stipulated
testimony of the forensic chemist failed to shed light as to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas.
One of the stipulations was "that said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance of the
letter-request with qualification that said request was not subscribed or under oath and that forensic
chemist has no personalknowledge as from whom and where said substance was taken."47 This bolsters
the fact that the forensic chemist had no knowledge as to who received the seized marijuana at the crime
laboratory.
The recent case of People v. Beran48 involved irregularities in the third link. The police officer, who both
served as apprehending and investigating officer, claimed that he personally took the drug to the
laboratory for testing, but there was no showing who received the drug from him. The records also
showed that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he
preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. All those facts raised serious doubt that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised. Hence, the accused inthe
said case was also acquitted.
Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the Court.
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when
presented as evidence in the criminal case. No testimonial or documentary evidence was given
whatsoever as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until it was
transferred to the court. The forensic chemist should have personally testified on the safekeeping of the
drugs but the parties resorted to a general stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoenae were
sent to the forensic chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs arrived in court.49 Sadly,
instead of focusing on the essential links in the chain of custody, the prosecutor propounded questions
concerning the location of the misplaced marked money, which was not even indispensable in the
criminal case.
The case of People v. Gutierrez50 also had inadequate stipulations as to the testimony of the forensic
chemist. No explanation was given regarding the custody of the seized drug in the interim - from the time
it was turned over to the investigator up to its turnover for laboratory examination. The records of the said
case did not show what happened to the allegedly seized shabu between the turnover by the investigator
to the chemist and its presentation in court. Thus, since there was no showing that precautions were
taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of that object and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession thereof, the accused therein was likewise acquitted.
In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed, there was no compliance with the
procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical inventory
and the lack of photography of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro. No explanation
was offered for the non-observance of the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of
Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The four links required to establish the proper chain
of custody were breached with irregularity and lapses.
The Court cannot either agree with the CA that the evidentiary rule involving the presumption of regularity
of the performance of official duties could apply in favor of the police officers. The regularity of the
performance of duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the police officers because the records
were replete with indicia of their serious lapses.51 The presumption stands when no reason exists in the
records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the
presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused
to be presumed innocent.52
Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identity of the seized marijuana that the
prosecution presented as evidence before the Court. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the
elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.53
For said reason, there is no need to discuss the specific defenses raised by the accused. WHEREFORE,
the appeal is GRANTED. The September 27, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 05707 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants, Ramil Doria Dahil and Rommel
Castro y Carlos, are ACQUITTED of the crime charged against them and ordered immediately
RELEASED from custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this decision and to inform this
Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from receipt of
copy.
SO ORDERED.
3. People v. Anita Miranba, G.R. No. 205639, January 18, 2016
G.R. No. 205639
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
ANITA MIRANDA y BELTRAN, Appellant.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Appellant was charged before the Regional Trial, Court (RTC) of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch
39, with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.1 When arraigned, she pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution's evidence established that after a surveillance conducted outside appellant's house
located in Barangay Ibaba West, Calapan City, it was confirmed that she was engaged in the illegal sale
of shabu. Thus, at 12:00 noon of May 6, 2005, the police formed a buy-bust team designating PO2 Mariel
D. Rodil (PO2 Rodil) to act as the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Noel Buhay (SPO1 Buhay) and PO2 Ritchie Chan
(PO2 Chan) as the arresting officers and the other team members as back up. Marked and given to PO2
Rodil were four (4) one hundred peso bills. At 2:00 p.m., the buy-bust team arrived in Barangay Ibaba
West and PO2 Rodil proceeded to appellant's house, while the rest of the team hid somewhere near
appellant's house. PO2 Rodil saw appellant outside her house and after a brief conversation, told her that
she was buying shabu worth P400.00. Appellant then went inside her house and upon her return, handed
to PO2 Rodil one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After PO2 Rodil
gave appellant the marked money as payment, she then made a missed call to PO2 Chan's cell phone as
a pre-arranged signal. SPO1 Buhay and PO2 Chan effected appellant's arrest. PO2 Chan got the marked
money from appellant, while PO2 Rodil held on to the plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance. The team then informed Arnel Almazan, Barangay Councilor of Barangay Ibaba West, about
the operation and they all brought appellant to the Calapan Police Station.2
Both the inventory of the seized item and the taking of appellant's photos were made at the police station.
PO2 Rodil marked the seized item and submitted the same for laboratory examination on the same
day.3 The Forensic Chemist, Police Inspector Rhea Fe DC Alviar (PI Alviar) confirmed the specimen
submitted positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
Appellant denied selling illegal drugs saying that at 2:00 p.m. of May 6, 2005, she was at home watching
TV when the police officers entered her house, frisked her and searched her house. She was later
brought to the Calapan Police Station where she was asked to point to the shabu placed on top of a table;
and that she was also subjected to a drug test.4
On March 9, 2010, the RTC rendered its Decision5 as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused ANITA MIRANDA y BELTRAN
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime charged in the aforequoted information and in
default of any modifying circumstances attendant, hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS, with the
accessories provided by law and with credit for preventive imprisonment undergone, if any.
The 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) subject matter of this case is hereby ordered
confiscated in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with the law.6
Appellant filed her appeal with the CA, which in a Decision7 dated July 4, 2012, denied the same and
affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
Dissatisfied, appellant is now before us seeking a reversal of her conviction. We required the parties to
submit their Supplemental Briefs if they so desire.1âwphi1 Appellant filed a Supplemental Brief, while the
OSG representing the People did not, saying that it had already exhaustively discussed the issues in its
Appellee's Brief filed with the CA.
In her Supplemental Brief,8 appellant insists that: (1) the prosecution evidence showed no indication of full
compliance with Section 21(1) of Republic Act (RA) 9165 on the custody and disposition of confiscated,
seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs; (2) PO2 Rodil failed to establish that the shabu presented in
court was the very item seized from her at the time of her arrest; and (3) the person who received the
seized item from PO2 Rodil, as well as the person who was tasked to bring the illegal drug from the
laboratory to the court, were never presented in court nor their testimonies offered in evidence.
We find no merit in this appeal.
It is material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug that the drug, which is the corpus
delicti, be presented as evidence in court. Hence, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established
without any doubt. Even more than this, what must also be established is the fact that the substance
bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit.9 The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.10
Chain of custody, as defined under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, series of
2002, which implements RA 9165, states:
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.
In this case, we find that the prosecution was able to establish the crucial links in the chain of custody of
the seized sachet of shabu. After PO2 Rodil received the plastic sachet of white crystalline substance
from appellant, she was in possession of the shabu up to the time appellant was brought to the police
station for investigation. With the buy-bust team and appellant at the police station were the Kill Droga
Provincial President, Nicanor Ocampo, Sr. and Barangay Councilor Almazan. PO2 Rodil made an
inventory11 of the seized item which was attested by Ocampo. She also marked the seized item with her
initials "MDR".12 Appellant's photos were also taken pointing to the plastic sachet.13
PO2 Rodil prepared and signed the request14 for laboratory examination and brought the letter request
and the seized item to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office-4B Mimiropa, Suqui, Calapan City for
qualitative analysis. The specimen was received at the laboratory at 5:00 p.m. of the same day.15 PI Alviar
examined the white crystalline substance contained in a heat-sealed plastic transparent plastic sachet
with marking "MDR" on the same right and issued Chemistry Report No. D-025-05 wherein she stated
that the specimen was tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).16 The staple-sealed
brown envelope with markings D-025-05 RFDCA (PI Alviar's initials), which contained one rectangular
transparent plastic sachet sealed with masking tape with the same marking, was offered in evidence and
identified in court by PI Alviar.17
There is no doubt that the sachet of shabu, which was bought and confiscated from appellant, brought to
the police station, and was submitted to the crime laboratory for a qualitative examination, was the very
same shabu presented and identified in court. The police had sufficiently preserved the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item, thus, complying with the prescribed procedure in the custody and
control of the confiscated drugs.18
We find that the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is proper under the law.19
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 4, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04416, which affirmed in to to the Decision dated March 9, 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 39, finding appellant Anita Miranda y
Beltran guilty of violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
4. People of the Philippines vs. Salim Ismael Y Radang, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017
G.R. No. 208093

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
SALIM ISMAEL y RADANG, Accused-Appellant
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the June 14, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No.
00902, which affirmed the August 31, 2010 Judgment2 of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Zamboanga City in Criminal Case Nos. 5021 (19952) and 5022 (19953), finding appellant Salim Ismael y
Radang (Salim) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In Criminal
Case No. 5021 (19952), Salim was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of ₱500,000.00 for illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165; and in Criminal Case No.
5022 (19953), he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to fifteen (15) years and pay a fine of ₱300,000.00 for illegal possession of shabu under Section 11 of
the said law.
Factual Antecedents
Salim was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling and possessing
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The twin Informations3 instituted therefor alleged:
In Criminal Case No. 5021 (19952)
That on or about August 25, 2003, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport,
distribute or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, sell and deliver to SPO1 Roberto Alberto Santiago, PNP, Culianan Police Station, who acted
as poseur buyer, one (1) small size transparent plastic pack containing white crystalline substance as
certified to by PO1 Rodolfo Dagalea Tan as METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU), said
accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In Criminal Case No. 5022 (19953)
That on or about August 25, 2003, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control, two (2) small size
heat-sealed transparent plastic packs each containing white crystalline substance as certified to by PO1
Rodolfo Dagalea Tan asMETHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU), said accused knowing the
same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Arraigned on July 6, 2004, Salim, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to both charges. Upon
termination of the joint pre-trial conference, trial on the merits followed.
Culled from the records4 were the following operative facts:

On August 25, 2003, at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant reported to SPO4
Menardo Araneta [SPO4 Araneta], Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Culianan Police Station4 [at
Zamboanga City], that a certain "Ismael Salim" was engaged in selling shabu at Barangay Talabaan near
the Muslim [c]emetery [in that city.
To verify the report, SPO4 Araneta instructed the said informant to [monitor] the area. After the informant
confim1ed that the said Ismael Salim was indeed selling illegal drugs in the reported area, SPO4 Araneta
formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO1 Enriquez, SPO1 Eduardo N. Rodriguez (SPO1 Rodriguez),
SPO1 Roberto A. Santiago (SPO1 Santiago) and PO2 Rodolfo Dagalea Tan (PO2 Tan). It was then
agreed that SPO1 Santiago would act as poseur buyer with SPO1 Rodriguez as back-up. For the
purpose, SPO4 Araneta gave SPO1 Santiago a [₱100] bill bearing Serial No. M419145 as marked money
[to be used] in the buy-bust operation.
Upon arrival at Barangay Talabaan, the team parked their service vehicle along the road. SPO1 Santiago,
the confidential informant and SPO1 Rodriguez alighted from the vehicle and walked towards the [area
fronting] the Muslim cemetery. As they approached the area, the informant pointed to a man wearing a
brown T-shirt and black short pants with white towel around his neck [whom he identified] as appellant
Ismael Salim, the target of the operation.
SPO1 Santiago then [walked] towards appellant and [told] the latter that he [wanted] to buy shabu; to this
appellant replied "how much?" SPO1 Santiago answered that he [wanted to buy ₱100.00 worth of
the shabu, and gave appellant] the ₱100.00 marked money; [whereupon appellant] took from his left
pocket one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance [which he] handed over to SPO1
Santiago.
Upon seeing the exchange, SPO1 Rodriguez, who was positioned [some 10] meters away, rushed in and
arrested appellant[.] SPO1 Rodriguez made a precautionary search of appellant's body for any concealed
weapon[, and found none]. Instead, SPO1 Rodriguez found, tucked inside [appellant's left front pocket the
₱100.00] marked money and two (2) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance wrapped
in a golden cigarette paper.
The police officers then brought appellant to the Culianan Police Station [in Zamboanga City] with SPO1
Santiago keeping personal custody of the items confiscated from [him]. At the [police] station, the plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance subject of the buy-bust operation, the two (2) plastic
sachets also containing white crystalline substance[, and the ₱100.00] marked money bearing Serial No.
M419145 recovered from appellant's left pocket, were respectively turned over by SPO1 Santiago and
SPO1 Rodriguez to the Desk Officer, PO3 Floro Napalcruz [PO3 Napalcruz], who likewise turned [these
over] to the Duty Investigator, [PO2 Tan]. PO2 Tan then placed his initial "RDT" on the items recovered
from appellant.
PO2 Tan also prepared a request to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory 9, [at] Zamboanga City for
laboratory examination of the plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance subject of the sale
between appellant and SPO1 Santiago, and the other two (2) plastic sachet[s] found inside appellant's
pocket by SPO1 Rodriguez.
After conducting qualitative examination on the said specimens, Police Chief Inspector [PCI] Mercedes D.
Diestro, Forensic Chemist [Forensic Chemist Diestro], issued Chemistry Report No. D-367-2003 dated
August 25, 2003, finding [the above-mentioned] plastic sachets positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu) a dangerous drug.

The defense presented appellant as its lone witness. Appellant denied both charges; he denied
selling shabu to SPO1 Santiago, just as he denied having shabu in his possession when he was arrested
on August 25, 2003.
According to appellant, on August 25, 2003, he went to a store to buy cellphone load so that he could call
his wife. After buying the cellphone load, he went back to his house on board a sikad-sikad, a bicycle-
driven vehicle with a sidecar. When he was about 160 meters away from the Muslim cemetery
in Barangay Talabaan, he was arrested by five persons in civilian attire who introduced themselves as
police officers. The police officers conducted a search on his person but did not find any dangerous
dn1gs. Thereafter, he was brought to Culianan Police Station where he was detained for two days.
Appellant insisted that he never sold shabu to the police officers who arrested him. He said that the first
time he saw the alleged shabu was when it was presented before the trial court. He denied that the police
officers had confiscated a cellular phone from him. He also asserted that all these police officers took
away from him was his money and that he had never met the said police officers prior to his arrest.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On August 31, 2010, the RTC of Zamboanga City, Branch 12 rendered its Judgment finding appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sections 5 and 11,Article II of RA 9165.
The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of SPO1 Santiago and SPO1 Rodriguez who conducted
the buy-bust operation against appellant; it rejected appellant's defense of denial and frame-up. The RTC
noted that the defense of frame-up is easily concocted and is commonly used as a standard line of
defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the comprehensive dangerous drugs
act.5 Moreover, other than the self-serving statements of appellant, no clear and convincing exculpatory
evidence was presented in the present case.
The dispositive part of the Judgment of the RTC reads:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING; this Court hereby finds the accused herein, SALIM
ISMAEL y RADANG guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases, for violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
and hereby sentences the said accused, in Criminal Case No. 5021 (19952) for Violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00), and in Criminal Case No. 5022 (19953) for Violation of Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to suffer the penalty of Imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(₱300,000.00).
The dangerous drugs seized and recovered from the accused in these cases are hereby ordered
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed in accordance with the pertinent
provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 and its in1plementing rules and guidelines.
Cost against the accused.
SO ORDERED.6
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Dissatisfied with the RTC's verdict, appellant appealed to the CA, but on June 14, 2013, the CA
affirmed in toto the RTC's Judgment. The CA held that the elements of both illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs had been duly proven in the instant case. The CA joined the RTC in
giving full credence to the testimonies of the aforementioned police officers, as they are presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner, no evidence to the contrary having been adduced in the
twin cases. Moreover, the CA found that in these cases, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
drugs had not at all been compromised, but were in fact duly preserved.
The CA disposed as fol1ows:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch 12,
Zamboanga City finding accused-appellant Salim Ismael y Radang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.7
Taking exception to the CA's Decision, appellant instituted the present appeal before this Court and in his
Appellant's Brief8 argues that:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHEN [HIS]
GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.9
It is appellant's contention that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt because the
prosecution: (1) failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs allegedly seized from him and; (2)
likewise failed to comply with the strict requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, 1he
prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of
the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.10 What is
important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is
properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.
On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established:
"[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by law;
and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs."11
In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the
accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and
identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule
performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed."12
After a careful examination of the records of the case, we find that the prosecution failed to establish an
unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in violation of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
The pertinent provisions of Section 21 state:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs. Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment-The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:
Similarly, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further elaborate on the proper procedure to be
followed in Section 21(a) of RA 9165. It states:
(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, inm1ediately after
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these
requirement" under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
In Mallillin v. People,13 the Court explained the chain of custody rule as follows:
proponent clain1s it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (Emphasis supplied)
The first link in the chain is the marking of the seized drug. We have previously held that:
x x x Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized
contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings
as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all
other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of
at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, 'planting,' or contamination of evidence.14
It is important that the seized drugs be immediately marked, if possible, as soon as they are seized from
the accused.
Furthermore, in People v. Gonzales,15 the Court explained that:
The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related
items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending
officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made
in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt
marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the
marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related
items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of
the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short,
the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is
indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, SPO1 Rodriguez testified on the seizure of the sachets of shabu he found in appellant's
possession alter the latter was arrested. SPO1 Rodriguez shared the details of how the seized drugs
were handled following its confiscation as follows:
RSP II Ivan C. Mendoza, Jr.:
Q: You are telling the Honorable Court that instead of finding concealed weapon, yon x x x found two
small sized heat-sealed transparent plastic bag[s]?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where [were] these two small[-]sized heat-sealed transparent plastic [packs] found?
A: [In] his left-front pocket.
Q: Were they wrapped further in another piece of paper or were they just found in that pocket?
A: [They were] wrapped in a [golden-colored] cigarette paper.
Q: Would you x x x be able to remember that [golden- colored] cigarette paper? The wrapper of plastic
pack?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why will you be able to remember it?
A: Because I turned it over to the desk officer and the desk officer turned it over to the
investigator, the investigator marked it.
Q: Who is the investigator?
A: PO2 Rodolfo Tan.
Q: So did you see anything that the investigator Rodolfo Tan do in that golden paper?
A: He marked his initial [sic].
Q: Ah, you saw him [mark] an initial?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you see him [mark] on the paper?
A: RDT.
Q: And do you know the meaning of RDT?
A: Yes, Rodolfo Dagalea Tan. 16
The testimony of SPO l Rodriguez on the chain of custody of the seized drugs leaves much to be desired.
It is evident that there was a break in the very first link of the chain when he failed to mark the sachet'3
of shabu immediately upon seizing them from the appellant. According to SPO1 Rodriguez, after finding
sachets of shabu in appellant's possession, he turned the drugs over to the desk officer. SPO1 Rodriguez
did not even explain why he failed to mark or why he could not have marked the seized items immediately
upon confiscation. Allegedly, the desk officer, after receiving the seized items from SPO1 Rodriguez, in
turn handed them over to PO2 Tan. Notably, this desk officer was not presented in court thereby creating
another break in the chain of custody. Again, no explanation was offered for the non-presentation of the
desk officer or why he himself did not mark the seized items. It was only upon receipt by PO2 Tan,
allegedly from the desk officer, of the seized chugs that the same were marked at the police station. This
means that from the time the drugs were seized from appellant until the time PO2 Tan marked the same,
there was already a significant gap in the chain of custody. Because of this gap, there is no certainty that
the sachets of drugs presented as evidence in the trial court were the same drugs found in appellant's
possession.
SPO1 Santiago, the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, was presented to corroborate the testimony
of SPO1 Rodriguez. However, his testimony likewise showed that the arresting officers did not mark the
seized drugs immediately after the arrest and in the presence of the appellant. Similarly, no explanation
was given for the lapse. SPO1 Santiago testified as follows:
Q: So what did you do with the small transparent sachet after police officer Rodriguez came to assist
you?
A: After the arrest of a certain Ismael we proceeded to our police station when we arrived there I
turnover [sic] the transparent sachet to our desk officer.
Q: Who was the desk officer?
A: At that time it was PO3 Floro Napalcruz.
Q: Did you notice anything that he did with the specimen that you turnover [sic] to him, if any?
COURT: You are referring to the desk officer?
RSPII IVAN C. MENDOZA, JR.: Yes, Your Honor.
A: During that time, Your Honor, I gave to him the, [sic] which I buy from him [sic] the one (1) piece of
transparent small sachet of shabu then after that I get [sic] out from the office.17
During cross-examination, SPO1 Santiago reiterated that he did not mark the seized drugs. The sachets
were marked after they were received by PO2 Tan.
Q: Now, you said that this plastic sachet taken from the suspect, you turned it over to the desk officer of
the police station?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After turning it over, you left?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: You do not know what happened to the sachet?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not place your markings there?
A: None, sir.18
It is clear from the above that SPO1 Rodriguez and SPO1 Santiago did not mark the seized drugs
immediately after they were confiscated from appellant. No explanations were given why markings were
not immediately made. At this stage in the chain, there was already a significant break such that there can
be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination. The Court has previously held that, "failure
to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution
evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."19
Both arresting officers testified that they turned over the sachets of shabu to a desk officer in the person
of PO3 Napalcruz at the police station. Notably, PO3 Napalcruz was not presented in court to testify on
the circumstances surrounding the alleged receipt of the seized drugs. This failure to present PO3
Napalcruz is another fatal defect in an already broken chain of custody. Every person who takes
possession of seized drugs must show how it was handled and preserved while in his or her custody to
prevent any switching or replacement.
After PO3 Napalcruz, the seized drugs were then turned over to PO2 Tan. It was only at this point that
marking was done on the seized drugs. He revealed in his testimony the following:
4th ACP RAY Z. BONGABONG:
Q: [After the apprehension] of the accused in this case, what happened?
A: SPO1 Roberto Santiago turned over to the Desk Officer one (1) small size heat-sealed transparent
plastic pack containing shabu, allegedly a buy[-]bust stuff confiscated from the subject person and
marked money while SPO1 Eduardo Rodriguez turned over two (2) small size heat[-]sealed transparent
plastic packs allegedly confiscated from the possession of the subject person during a body search
conducted and one (1) Nokia cellphone 3310 and cash money of ₱710.00.
x x xx
Q: You as investigator of the case what did you do, if any, upon the turn over of those items?
A: I prepared a request for laboratory examination addressed to the Chief PNP Crime Laboratory 9, R. T.
Lim Boulevard, this City.
Q: This small heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet if you can see this again, will you be able to identify
the same?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: How?
A: Through my initial, Sir.

Q: What initial?
A: RDT
Q: What does RDT stands [sic] for?
A: It stands for my name Rodolfo Dagalea Tan.20
In fine, PO2 Tan claimed during his direct examination that he received the seized items from the desk
officer.
During cross-examination, however, PO2 Tan contradicted his previous statement on who turned over the
sachets of shabu to him, viz.:
ATTY. EDGARDO D. GONZALES:
Q: Santiago told you that he was the poseur buyer?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: He turned over to you, what?
A: He turned over to me small size heat[-]sealed transparent plastic pack containing white
crystalline substance, containing shabu.
x x xx
Q: You also identified two other pieces of sachet, correct, Sir?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Who turned over to you?
A: SPO1 Eduardo Rodriguez.21
Due to the apparent breaks in the chain of custody, it was possible that the seized item subject of the sale
transaction was switched with the seized items subject of the illegal possession case. This is material
considering that the imposable penalty for illegal possession of shabu depends on the quantity or weight
of the seized drug.
Aside from the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, the arresting officers also failed
to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the presence of the appellant. This requirement
must not be brushed aside as a mere technicality. It must be shown that the marking was done in the
presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved.
Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case.
The requirements of making an inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs were likewise
omitted without offering an explanation for its non-compliance. This break in the chain tainted the integrity
of the seized drugs presented in court; the very identity of the seized drugs became highly questionable.
To recap, based on the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that no markings were made immediately
after the arrest of the appellant.1âwphi1 The seized drugs were allegedly turned over to desk officer PO3
Napalcruz but the prosecution did not bother to present him to testify on the identity of the items he
received from SPO1 Rodriguez and SPO1 Santiago. PO3 Napalcruz supposedly turned over the drugs to
PO2 Tan who marked the same at the police station. During his direct testimony, PO2 Tan claimed that
he received the drugs from PO3 Napalcruz. However, during his cross-examination, PO2 Tan
contradicted himself when he admitted receipt of the seized drugs from SPO1 Santiago and SPO1
Rodriguez. Aside from these glaring infirmities, there was no inventory made, or photographs taken, of
the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, or in the presence of any
representative from the media, Department of Justice or any elected official, who must sign the inventory,
or be given a copy of the inventory as required by RA 9165 and its IRR.
Lastly, we note that the trial court, in its November 12, 2007 Order, already denied the admission of
Exhibits ''B-1" and "B-2" or the dn1gs subject of the illegal possession case. The relevant portions of the
Order are as follows:
Plaintiff's Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" however are DENIED admission on the grounds that Exhibit "B-1"
submitted by the prosecution in evidence is merely a cigarette foil, whereas Exhibit "B-2" is a heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0135 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride which are
inconsistent with its offer that Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" are two (2) plastic heat sealed transparent plastic
sachets containing shabu with a total weight of 0.0310 gram.22
Surprisingly, however, the trial court rendered a verdict convicting the appellant of violating Section 11,
RA 9165 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs based on the same pieces of evidence it previously
denied.
In sum, we find that the prosecution failed to: (1) overcome the presumption of innocence which appellai1t
enjoys; (2) prove the corpus delicti of the crime; (3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized
drugs; and (3) offer any explanation why the provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 were not complied with.
This Court is thus constrained to acquit the appellant based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed June 14, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-GR. CR HC No. 00902, which affirmed the August 31, 2010 Judgment of Branch 12, Regional Trial
Court of Zamboanga City in Criminal Case Nos. 5021 (19952) and 5022 (19953) is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
Accordingly, appellant Salim R. Ismael is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless
the latter is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform the Court of the date of his release or
reason for his continued confinement within five days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice
5. People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] dated April 16, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
05641, which affirmed the judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch
70, (RTC) finding accused-appellant (appellant) Vicente Sipin y De Castro guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, respectively, and sentencing him as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 07-476, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
2. In Criminal Case No. 07-477, to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The facts are as follows:
Appellant Vicente Sipin y De Castro was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 07-476
That, on or about the 11th day of August, 2007, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having
been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly possess and have in his custody and containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance
contained in one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the test for
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride also known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-
cited law.[3]
Criminal Case No. 07-477
That, on or about the 11th day of August, 2007, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having
been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell and give away to a
poseur-buyer one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline
substance, which was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride also known as
"shabu", a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of Php100.00, in violation of the above-cited
law.[4]
Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty to both charges. Trial ensued
with the prosecution presenting as witnesses the following members of Binangonan, Rizal, Philippine
National Police Station: (1) PO1 Arnel Diocena, the arresting officer; (2) PO1 Richard Raagas,
the poseur buyer, (3) PO1 Dennis Gorospe, the back-up and investing officer; and (4) Forensic Chemist
P/Insp. Mark Ballesteros.
According to the prosecution witnesses, on August 11, 2007 at about 12:00 midnight, a confidential asset
arrived at the Binangonan Police Station with an information that a certain Enteng was selling shabu
at Barangay Calumpang. The information was recorded in the blotter and reported to the chief, P/Supt.
Herminio Cantaco, who then ordered the formation of a buy-bust team and the conduct of an operation.
A poseur money was marked with the initials "GAD" by team leader SPO3 Gerardo Delos Reyes, and a
pre-operational coordination was made with the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Task Force by PO1 Gorospe.
Upon arrival aboard a motorcycle at Antazo Street, Barangay Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal, PO1
Raagas and the asset went into the alley, while PO1 Diocena stayed around 3 to 6 meters away from
where he could see everything. SPO3 Delos Reyes stayed in the police vehicle, while PO1 Gorospe who
served as back-up was around 20 meters away. Alias Enteng then approached the asset and PO1
Raagas, and asked if they would buy or "i-score." When PO1 Raagas replied that he
would, Enteng pulled out something out of his pocket and handed it to PO1 Raagas, who in turn
gave Enteng the marked P100 bill. Thereafter, PO1 Raagas revealed himself as a police officer and
removed his hat as pre-arranged signal. Upon seeing the signal, PO1 Diocena approached,
ordered Enteng to take out the contents of his pocket, placed him under arrest, and read him his rights.
PO1 Diocena confiscated the marked money and the plastic containing shabu, then turned them over to
PO1 Raagas who marked the item he bought and the other plastic container confiscated by PO1 Diocena
with the markings "VDS-1" and "VDS-2" in the presence of the accused, PO1 Diocena and PO1 Gorospe.
From the place of the incident to the police station, PO1 Raagas took custody and hand-carried the
specimens wrapped in a bond paper, then turned them over to PO1 Gorospe, who prepared the booking
sheet, the arrest report and the request for laboratory examination of the specimens. PO1 Gorospe also
took pictures of Enteng and the specimens in the presence of PO1 Raagas and PO1 Diocena. The
specimens were then given to PO1 Diocena who brought them to the crime laboratory. P/Insp.
Ballesteros personally received the request for laboratory examination and the subject specimens, which
later tested positive for shabu, a dangerous drug. Results of the examination were reflected in the Initial
Laboratory Report and the Chemistry/Physical Science Report. P/Insp. Ballesteros marked the sachet
with marking "VDS-1" as "A" and the sachet with marking "VDS-2" as "B" before turning them over to the
evidence custodian of the laboratory.
For the defense, only appellant testified. At around 10:00 p.m. of August 11, 2007, appellant was on his
way home from his sister's house when he met Rolly who was an asset of the "munisipyo". When Rolly
asked him to send a text message when he sees the notorious group of Jun Bisaya who frequents his
place, appellant refused to cooperate because his life and those of his loved ones would be in danger.
Rolly got angry and told him, "Enteng alam mo naman masama akong magalit, baka kung ano lang
mangyari sa iyo." Rolly then told appellant to just forget what they have talked about, and just accompany
him to the person they were talking about. When appellant accommodated Rolly's request, in less than 20
minutes, he saw 2 male persons approaching the place where he and Rolly were talking. Rolly then
said "Sir, ayaw pong makipagtulungan sa atin. " After Rolly held him, the person, who later turned out to
be a policeman, placed his arm on appellant's shoulder then told him that he would like to talk him at the
municipal building. Appellant went with the men peacefully, thinking that they would ask about Jun
Bisaya. The three men tried to convince appellant to cooperate with them and told him to send a text
message when he sees Jun Bisaya. Out of fear, appellant still refused to cooperate. The persons, who
happened to be policemen, got angry and ordered that he be put in jail. They also brought appellant to
Pritil for medical examination, and returned him to the police station where he was punched and forced to
point to a shabu.
After trial, the court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of 0.02 gram of shabu
and illegal possession of 0.02 gram of shabu, and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment, plus a fine of
P500,000.00 and imprisonment from 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months, and to pay the fine of
P300,000.00, respectively.
The trial court ruled that the clear and positive testimony of PO1 Raagas, corroborated by PO1 Diocena,
is more than sufficient to prove that an illegal sale of shabu took place. PO1 Raagas was able to give a
clear and consistent account that an illegal drug was sold to him and another sachet was found in
possession of appellant after his arrest. The court found no reason not to give full faith and credence to
the testimonies of the police officers. It also upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty in favor of the police officers, since appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence
to overturn such presumption.
The trial court found no evidence to prove his defenses of denial and frame-up, and rejected appellant's
claim that the police officers merely got mad at him for his refusal to send a text message in the event that
he sees Jun Bisaya's notorious group. The court also noted that no relative of appellant came forward to
testify, even as he supposedly wrote his siblings that he was in jail, and that they should keep such fact a
secret from their parents who were sick. As regards the non-presentation of the police asset, the court
held that it was no longer necessary because it would merely corroborate the testimony of PO1 Raagas
who already detailed the circumstances surrounding the illegal sale based on his personal knowledge
as poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation.
Anent compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the trial court noted that the police officers testified
that there was an inventory prepared by PO1 Gorospe at the police station but failed to submit it in
evidence, and that they did not have any barangay official or media person with them during the
operation. Be that as it may, the trial court held that such non-compliance is not fatal to the prosecution's
case because its evidence shows that the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimens were
safeguarded. In particular, the specimens were immediately marked at the place of the incident, the chain
of custody was preserved, and the evidence strongly prove beyond doubt that what was examined at the
crime laboratory and found positive for shabu were the same specimens bought from appellant and found
in his possession.
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), filed an appeal.
The PAO argued that the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor
of the police officers, and on the appellant's failure to impute ill motive on them. The PAO also pointed out
the conflicting testimonies of PO1 Diocena and PO1 Gorospe as to who actually gave PO1 Diocena the
specimens before they were brought to the crime laboratory. The PAO further faulted PO1 Diocena for
failing to remember and specifically name P/Insp. Ballesteros as the "officer-on-duty" who actually
received the specimens at the crime laboratory, as well as the prosecution for failure to demonstrate the
precautionary measures undertaken by the person who had temporary custody of the specimens. The
PAO likewise stressed that no inventory containing the signature of the appellant, a representative from
the media, any elected public official and a representative of the DOJ was presented and identified in
court by the prosecution witnesses, and that no justifiable reason was offered to excuse non-compliance
with Section 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the testimonies of PO1 Raagas and PO1 Gorospe
complimented each other, and showed that the latter was actually the one who turned over the plastic
sachets of shabu to PO1 Diocena, and that the handling of the sachets were always accounted for every
step of the way. The OSG also asserted that PO1 Diocena's testimony that the specimens were received
by a "person-in-charge," does not contradict the testimony of P/Insp. Ballesteros that he was the one who
actually received the specimens at the crime laboratory, as such fact was corroborated by the stamp
receipt on the request for chemistry evaluation. Assuming that the chain of custody of the seized drugs
was not perfectly observed, the OSG stressed that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Thus, the procedural infirmities concerning the lack of
DOJ, Barangay and media representatives neither affect the prosecution of the case, nor render
appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, and affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA
agreed with the trial court that the integrity of the seized items were duly preserved because the
prosecution has presented and offered in court the key witnesses who had established the chain of
custody of the seized drugs from their confiscation from appellant, to their marking and forwarding to the
crime laboratory for examination.
Dissatisfied with the CA Decision, the PAO filed this appeal. The PAO and the OSG manifested that they
are dispensing with the filing of supplemental briefs to avoid repetition of arguments raised before the CA.
The Court finds the appeal to be impressed with merit, and resolves to acquit appellant of the charges of
illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs for failure to establish the unbroken chain of
custody of said drugs, and to proffer any justifiable ground for the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165.
For a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, on the one hand, the
following essential elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[5] The delivery
of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully
consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale
transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, as evidence.[6] In prosecutions for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in
possession of an item or an object identified to be a dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the
drug.[7] The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction.[8]
Since the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drugs itself,[9] proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the seized item is the very same object tested to be positive for dangerous drugs
and presented in court as evidence is essential in every criminal prosecution under R.A. No. 9165. To this
end, the prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized items, thus:
The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or
drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in
court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question
is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened
to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
the chain to have possession of the same.[10]
The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, are as follows: (1) the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; (2) the turn-over of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turn-over by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn-
over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.[11]
Here, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the third link in the chain of custody.
As aptly pointed out by the PAO, there is an unreconciled conflict between the testimonies of PO1
Diocena and PO1 Gorospe as to who actually gave PO1 Diocena the specimens before they were
brought to the crime laboratory for examination. Investigating Officer PO1 Gorospe testified that he gave
PO1 Diocena the specimens for laboratory examination, whereas PO1 Diocena stated that it was PO1
Raagas who gave him the specimens for delivery to the crime laboratory.
[PROSECUTOR PACURIBOT]
Q. What else did you do then after you brought the accused for medical examination to Pritil?
[PO1 GOROSPE]
A. I gave the specimen to PO1 Diocena and then he brought it to the crime lab.[12]
xxxx
[COURT]
Q. But you stated earlier that you were the one who delivered them to the crime laboratory. So, how did
it come to be in your possession when according to you it was Raagas who had possession of the
specimen while on the way to the police station?
[PO1 DIOCENA]
A. He carried the items from the place of the incident to the Police station because we would prepare a
request in the crime laboratory at Camp Crame.
Q. So, how did it come to be in your possession?
A. After the request was made, I was the one who personally delivered them.
Q. How did the specimen get to be in your possession?
A. It was given to me by PO1 Raagas.
Q. Where? Where did he give it to you?
A. In the Police station, ma'am.
Q. While the request was being prepared, who had custody of the specimen?
A. He was the one in possession.
Q. Raagas. So, at what point did he transfer it to you?
A. Bago po maibigay sa akin iyon, pinicturean muna ng investigator namin. After the request was
made. Your Honor.
xxxx
Q. Who was the investigator who took the picture?
A. PO1 Dennis Gorospe, ma'am.
Q. So, at what point did the specimen come to be in your possession because when the picture was
taken where was the specimen.
A. It was with PO1 Raagas, your Honor. It was placed on a piece of paper, we took the pictures and
then they were placed inside the plastic bag.
Q. After it was placed in the plastic bag, what happened to the specimen?
A. We brought it to the crime laboratory.
Q. How did it come to be with you, did you pick it up?
A. He gave it to me.
Q. Who gave it to you?
A. PO1 Raagas.
Q. Who picked it up from the table?
A. He got it, ma'am.
Q. And then, he gave it to you?

A. Yes, ma'am[13]
Serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers also broke the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs from the time they were seized from appellant until they were presented in court,
thereby undermining the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence.
First, it is not clear whether it was PO1 Diocena or PO1 Raagas who confiscated the other sachet of
suspected shabu found in possession of appellant. PO1 Diocena testified that after ordering appellant to
empty his pocket, he confiscated the marked money and the said sachet, then gave them to PO1 Raagas
for marking. In contrast, PO1 Raagas stated that he was the only one who recovered both plastic sachets
from appellant.
Q. Now Mr. Witness, aside from the money and the one (1) piece of sachet of suspected shabu was
there anything else that was recovered from the said person?
[PO1 DIOCENA]
A. Aside from what I had confiscated, Officer Raagas also purchased something from him.
Q. What happened to that thing that was purchased by Officer Raagas?
A. He placed his initials on its markings.
Q. What about the sachet that you recovered?
A. Only one (1) sachet. I gave it to him and it was also marked.
Q. So, it was PO1 Raagas who marked it?
A. Yes, ma'am.[14]
xxxx
Q. At the time Diocena asked him [accused] to put out the content of his pocket, where were you?
[PO1 RAAGAS]
A. I was there right beside him.
Q. And then what happened?
A. I took the item and then Diocena read his rights.
Q. What item did you take?
A. The one in the plastic sachet.
Q. How many plastic sachet?
A. Only one (1), ma'am.
Q. From whom did you get the plastic sachet?
A. From Enteng, ma'am.
Q. You said Diocena asked him to take out the content of his pocket, did he comply?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. So, how did you take the plastic sachet from him?
A. I took it from him, from his hand.

Q. Then, after that, what happened?
A. I asked what his name was.
Q. What was the name given to you?
A. Vicente de Castro Sipin, then I placed marking on the plastic sachet.
Q. What marking did you place?
A. I placed his initial on it, ma'am, VDS.
Q. Then after the marking, what else happened?
A. We brought him to the Police station.
Q. Who was in custody of the specimen that you got?
A. Gorospe, ma'am.
Q. How many specimens did you get?
A. Two (2) ma'am.
Q. You said a while ago you only took one (1), so where [did] the other come from?
A. The one we had purchased.
Q. So, who recovered the other one from the said person?
A. I am the one, ma'am.

Q. How about the other specimen?
A. Ma'am, I was also the one?
Q. So you were the only one who recovered?
A. Yes, ma'am, I turned it over to Gorospe.[15]
Second, it is doubtful whether a commotion took place after appellant was arrested, which supposedly
prevented the police officers from making an inventory and taking pictures of the seized evidence. PO1
Raagas claimed that nobody else was present, and that appellant did not call the attention of anyone
when he was arrested, but PO1 Gorospe insisted that there was a commotion caused by appellant's
relatives.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTY. MA. VICTORIA LIRIO]
Q. Why did you not take pictures on the said place of the incident instead of doing that in the Police
station?
[PO1 GOROSPE]
A. Because a commotion have already broken out in the vicinity perpetrated by his relatives. They were
already beside us so we had to bring him to the Police station.[16]
xxxx
[ATTY. LIRIO]
Q. When these marked allegedly received items were made, were there any other independent persons
aside from your team and this alias Enteng, Mr. Witness?
[PO1 RAAGAS]
A. Nobody else, ma'am. We were the only ones, sir.

Q. What was the reaction then of the accused, at that time, Mr. Witness?
A. He had no reaction, ma'am.
Q. You mentioned a while ago that he was in front of his house. Did your operation not call the attention
of his housemates or any other persons, at that time?
A. No, ma'am.[17]
Third, a crucial question looms over the safekeeping of the seized items which were placed in a container
on the way back to the police station. PO1 Diocena testified that PO1 Raagas was in custody of
recovered items contained in a stapled plastic container, but PO1 Raagas said that the items were placed
in a mere bond paper.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTY. LIRIO]
Q. The recovered items, Mr. Witness, who was in custody of the recovered items, Mr. Witness?
[PO1 DIOCENA]
A. PO1 Raagas, Ma'am.
Q. Would you know whether the said articles were sealed or contained in a sealed container?
A. In plastic, ma'am.
Q. But it was not sealed?
A. It was stapled, ma'am.[18]
xxxx

Q. How did you carry the items? You describe how you brought it to the Police station.
[PO1 RAAGAS]
A. I placed it inside a bond paper. I wrapped it.
Q. How many items did you put inside the bond paper?
A. Two (2) ma'am.
Q. After you put it inside the folded bond paper, what did you do with the bond paper?
A. I turned it over to Gorospe, Your Honor.[19]
Fourth, the records do not indicate that an inventory was identified and formally offered in evidence, and
the prosecution witnesses could not agree on whether there was an inventory of the items seized from
appellant. PO1 Diocena claimed that there was none, but PO1 Raagas said that PO1 Gorospe prepared
one at the police station. PO1 Gorospe added that he did not give an inventory despite the presence of
appellant's relatives.
Q. By the way, Mr. Witness, did you make any inventory of the recovered specimens as well as the
marked money?
[PO1 DIOCENA]
A. None, ma'am.[20]
xxxx
Q. And then you mentioned a while ago that Officer Gorospe made an inventory of the specimen. How
did you do that?
[PO1 RAAGAS]
A. I was at the Police station.
Q. When you said that Officer made an inventory of the specimen, were you present at the time that the
picture was taken?
A. I was present then.
Q. And it was Officer Gorospe who took that picture?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. I am showing to you this picture marked as Exhibit "I", is this the picture when there was an
inventory of the items that you mentioned?
A. Yes, ma'am.[21]
xxxx
Q. Why did you not take pictures on the said place of the incident instead of doing that in the Police
station?
[PO1 GOROSPE]
A. Because a commotion ha[s] already broken out in the vicinity perpetrated by his [accused'] relatives.
They were already beside us so we had to bring him to the Police station.
Q. Having said that, Mr. Witness, your team failed, given the fact that there were relatives of the
accused present thereat, your team failed to give an inventory or copies of the items allegedly
recovered from alias "Enteng"?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Despite the presence of the relatives you failed to give them a copy of the alleged items recovered.
Q. Yes, ma'am.[22]
The failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody was compounded by the police
officers' non-compliance with the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs as
set forth m Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which provides:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
To properly guide law enforcement agents as to the proper handling of confiscated drugs, Section 21 (a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 filled in the details as to
where the inventory and photographing of seized items had to be done, and added a saving clause in
case the procedure is not followed:[23]
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.
It is not amiss to state that R.A. No. 10640, which amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, now only
requires two (2) witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of
photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official; and (b) either a representative from
the National Prosecution Service or the media.
In her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, which eventually became R.A. No. 10640, Senator
Grace Poe conceded that "while Section 21 was enshrined in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
to safeguard the integrity of the evidence acquired and prevent planting of evidence, the application of
said Section resulted in the ineffectiveness of the government's campaign to stop the increasing drug
addiction and also, in the conflicting decisions of the courts."[24] Senator Poe stressed the necessity for the
amendment of Section 21 based on the public hearing that the Senate Committee on Public Order and
Dangerous Drugs had conducted, which revealed that "compliance with the rule on witnesses during the
physical inventory is difficult. For one, media representatives are not always available in all comers of the
Philippines, especially in the remote areas. For another there were instances where
elected barangay officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts apprehended and, thus, it is
difficult to get the most grassroot elected public official to be a witness as required by law."[25]
In his Co-sponsorship speech, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III said that in view of a substantial number of
acquittals in drug-related cases due to the varying interpretations of prosecutors and judges on Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165, there is a need for "certain adjustments so that we can plug the loopholes in our
existing law" and ensure [its] standard implementation."[26] Senator Sotto explained why the said provision
should be amended:
Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to operations of highly organized and powerful local
and international syndicates. The presence of such syndicates that have the resources and the capability
to mount a counter-assault to apprehending law enforcers makes the requirement of Section 21(a)
impracticable for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of seizure extremely unsafe for the
proper inventory and photograph of the seized illegal drugs.
xxxx
Section 21(a) of RA 9165 need to be amended to address the foregoing situation. We did not realize this
in 2002 where the safety of the law enforcers and other persons required to be present in the inventory
and photography of seized illegal drugs and the preservation of the very existence of seized illegal drugs
itself are threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug syndicates at the place of seizure. The
place where the seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed has to include a location where the
seized drugs as well as the persons who are required to be present during the inventory and photograph
are safe and secure from extreme danger.
It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized illegal drugs be allowed to
be conducted either in the place of seizure of illegal drugs or at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending law enforcers. The proposal will provide effective measures to ensure the integrity of seized
illegal drugs since a safe location makes it more probable for an inventory and photograph of seized
illegal drugs to be properly conducted, thereby reducing the incidents of dismissal of drug cases due to
technicalities.
Non-observance of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that the seizure or
confiscation is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement officers could justify the same and could
prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. This is the effect of
the inclusion in the proposal to amend the phrase "justifiable grounds." There are instances where there
are no media people or representatives from the DOJ available and the absence of these witnesses
should not automatically invalidate the drug operation conducted. Even the presence of a public local
elected official also is sometimes impossible especially if the elected official is afraid or scared.[27]
However, under the original provision of Section 21 and its IRR, which is applicable at the time the
appellant committed the crimes charged, the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct a
physical inventory and photograph the drugs after their seizure and confiscation in the presence of no
less than three (3) witnesses, namely: (a) a representative from the media, and (b) the DOJ, and; (c)
any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. The presence of the three witnesses was intended as a guarantee against planting of evidence
and frame up, as they were "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from
any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."[28]
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid
down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance
thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any
perceived deviations from the requirements of law.[29] Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be
adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should
take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground,
but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took
to preserve the integrity of the seized items.[30] Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the
quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or
alteration of evidence.[31]
As correctly noted by the trial court, the police officers testified that there was an inventory prepared by
PO1 Gorospe at the police station, but failed to submit in evidence the said document, and that they did
not have any barangay official. or media person with them during the operation.[32] Even so, the
prosecution proffered no justifiable reason why the police officers dispensed with the requirements of
taking of photograph and conduct of physical inventory of the accused and the seized items in the
presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media, and an elected public official, not just at the
crime scene but also at the police station.
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was not obtained
for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of
arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs
was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in
his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to
be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and
an elected public official within the period required under Article 125[33] of the Revised Penal Code
prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with
arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often
rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
Invocation of the disputable presumptions that the police officers regularly performed their official duty
and that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, will not suffice to uphold appellant's
conviction. Judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the
lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally flawed because the lapses
themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity.[34] The presumption may only arise when there is a
showing that the apprehending officers/team followed the requirements of Section 21 or when the saving
clause found in the IRR is successfully triggered. In this case, the presumption of regularity had been
contradicted and overcome by evidence of non-compliance with the law.[35]
At this point, it is not amiss for the ponente to express his position regarding the issue of which between
the Congress and the Judiciary has jurisdiction to determine sufficiency of compliance with the rule on
chain of custody, which essentially boils down to the application of procedural rules on admissibility of
evidence. In this regard, the ponente agrees with the view of Hon. Associate Justice Teresita J.
Leonardo-De Castro in People v. Teng Maner y Adam[36] that "if the evidence of illegal drugs was not
handled precisely in the manner prescribed by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to
inadmissibility that would automatically destroy the prosecution's case but rather to the weight of evidence
presented for each particular case." As aptly pointed out by Justice Leonardo-De Castro, the Court's
power to promulgate judicial rules, including rules of evidence, is no longer shared by the Court with
Congress.
The ponente subscribes to the view of Justice Leonardo-De Castro that the chain of custody rule is a
matter of evidence and a rule of procedure, and that the Court has the last say regarding the appreciation
of evidence. Evidentiary matters are indeed well within the powers of courts to appreciate and rule upon,
and so, when the courts find appropriate, substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved may warrant the conviction of
the accused.
The ponente further submits that the requirements of marking the seized items, conduct of inventory
and taking photograph in the presence of a representative from the media or the DOJ and a local
elective official, are police investigation procedures which call for administrative sanctions in
case of non-compliance. Violation of such procedure may even merit penalty under R.A. No.
9165, to wit:
Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. – Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity,
shall suffer the penalty of death.
Section 32. Liability to a Person Violating Any Regulation Issued by the Board. – The penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person
found violating any regulation duly issued by the Board pursuant to this Act, in addition to the
administrative sanctions imposed by the Board.
However, non-observance of such police administrative procedures should not affect the validity of the
seizure of the evidence, because the issue of chain of custody is ultimately anchored on the admissibility
of evidence, which is exclusively within the prerogative of the courts to decide in accordance with the
rules on evidence.
At any rate, the burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution which must rely on the
strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.[37] When moral certainty as to
culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, irrespective of
the reputation of the accused who enjoys the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is shown.
[38]
For failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the unbroken chain of custody of
the drugs seized from appellant, and to prove as a fact any justifiable reason for non-compliance with
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR, appellant must be acquitted of the crimes charged.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 16, 2015 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05641, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court
of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 70, in Criminal Cases Nos. 07-476 and 07-477 for violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, respectively, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Vicente Sipin y De
Castro is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from
detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued
immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison,
Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court
within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Philippine National
Police (PNP) for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,* Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
6. People vs. Romy Lim y Miranda, GR No. 231989. September 4, 2018
G.R. No. 231989

vs.
ROMY LIM y MIRANDA, Accused-Appellant
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
On appeal is the February 23, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
01280-MIN, which affirmed the September 24, 2013 Decision2 of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25,
Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2010-1073 and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant Romy
Lim y Miranda (Lim) guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an Information dated October 21, 2010, Lim was charged with illegal possession of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), committed as follows:
That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being
authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
criminally and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug,
with a total weight of 0.02 gram, accused well-knowing that the substance recovered from his possession
is a dangerous drug.
Contrary to, and in violation of, Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.3
On even date, Lim, together with his stepson, Eldie Gorres y Nave (Gorres), was also indicted for illegal
sale of shabu, committed as follows:
That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law to sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell and/or offer for
sale, and give away to a PDEA Agent acting as poseur-buyer One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a
total weight of 0.02 gram, accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug, in consideration of Five
Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) consisting of one piece five hundred peso bill, with Serial No. FZ386932,
which was previously marked and recorded for the purpose of the buy-bust operation.
Contrary to Section 5, Paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.4
In their arraignment, Lim and Gorres pleaded not guilty. 5 They were detained in the city jail during the
joint trial of the cases.6
The prosecution presented Intelligence Officer (IO) 1 Albert Orellan, 101 Nestle Carin, 102 Vincent
Orcales, and Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Charity Caceres. Aside from both accused, Rubenia Gorres
testified for the defense.

Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at Regional Office X of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Based on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a
certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de
Oro City, they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. Edwin Layese, to gather for a buy-bust
operation. During the briefing, IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan, and IO1 Carin were assigned as the team leader,
the arresting officer/back-up/evidence custodian, and the poseur-buyer, respectively. The team prepared
a ₱500.00 bill as buy-bust money (with its serial number entered in the PDEA blotter), the Coordination
Form for the nearest police station, and other related documents.
Using their service vehicle, the team left the regional office about15 minutes before 10:00 p.m. and
arrived in the target area at 10:00 p.m., more or less. IOI Carin and the CI alighted froin the vehicle near
the comer leading to the house of "Romy," while IO1 Orellan and the other team members disembarked a
few meters after and positioned themselves in the area to observe. IOI Carin and the CI turned at the
comer and stopped in front of a house. The CI knocked at the door and uttered, "ayo, nong
Romy." Gorres came out and invited them to enter. Inside, Lim was sitting on the sofa while watching the
television. When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get one
inside the bedroom. Gorres stood up and did as instructed. After he came out, he handed a small
medicine box to Lim, who then took one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to
IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin paid him with the buy-bust money.
After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was the pre-
arranged signal. The latter, with the rest of the team members, immediately rushed to Lim's house. When
they arrived, IO1 Carin and the CI were standing near the door. They then entered the house because the
gate was opened. IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents and informed Lim and Gorres, who
were visibly surprised, of their arrest for selling dangerous drug. They were ordered to put their hands on
their heads and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them. Thereafter, IO1
Orellan conducted a body search on both. When he frisked Lim, no deadly weapon was found, but
something was bulging in his pocket. IO1 Orellan ordered him to pull it out. Inside the pocket were the
buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box about 3x4 inches in size. They could see that it
contained a plastic sachet of a white substance. As for Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was seized.
IO1 Orellan took into custody the ₱500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance,
and a disposable lighter. 101 Carin turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While
in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. Despite exerting efforts to secure the
attendance of the representative from the media and barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the
inventory-taking.
The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with IO1 Orellan in possession
of the seized items. Upon arrival, they "booked" the two accused and prepared the letters requesting for
the laboratory examination on the drug evidence and for the drug test on the arrested suspects as well as
the documents for the filing of the case. Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the
confiscated items. It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also, there was no signature of an elected public
official and the representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media as witnesses. Pictures
of both accused and the evidence seized were taken.
The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug specimens to Regional
Crime Laboratory Office 10. IO1 Orellan was in possession of the sachets of shabu from the regional
office to the crime lab. PSI Caceres, who was a Forensic Chemist, and Police Officer
2 (P02) Bajas7 personally received the letter-requests and the two pieces of heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PSI Caceres got urine samples from Lim and
Gorres and conducted screening and confirmatory tests on them. Based on her examination, only Lim
was found positive for the presence of shabu. The result was shown in Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM-
I96 and I97-2010. With respect to the two sachets of white crystalline substance, both were found to be
positive of shabu after a chromatographic examination was conducted by PSI Caceres. Her findings were
reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-228-2010. PSI Caceres, likewise, put her own marking on the
cellophane containing the two sachets of shabu. After that, she gave them to the evidence custodian. As
to the buy-bust money, the arresting team turned it over to the fiscal's office during the inquest.
Around 10:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, Lim and Gorres were in their house in Cabina, Bonbon,
Cagayan de Oro City. Lim was sleeping in the bedroom, while Gorres was watching the television. When
the latter heard that somebody jumped over their gate, he stood up to verify. Before he could reach the
door, however, it was already forced opened by the repeated pulling and kicking of men in civilian
clothing. They entered the house, pointed their firearms at him, instructed him to keep still, boxed his
chest, slapped his ears, and handcuffed him. They inquired on where the shabu was, but he invoked his
innocence. When they asked the whereabouts of "Romy," he answered that he was sleeping inside the
bedroom. So the men went there and kicked the door open. Lim was then surprised as a gun was pointed
at his head. He questioned them on what was it all about, but he was told to keep quiet. The men let him
and Gorres sit on a bench. Lim was apprised of his Miranda rights. Thereafter, the two were brought to
the PDEA Regional Office and the crime laboratory. During the inquest proceedings, Lim admitted, albeit
without the assistance of a counsel, ownership of the two sachets of shabu because he was afraid that
the police would imprison him. Like Gorres, he was not involved in drugs at the time of his arrest. Unlike
him, however, he was previously arrested by the PDEA agents but was acquitted in the case. Both Lim
and Gorres acknowledged that they did not have any quarrel with the PDEA agents and that neither do
they have grudges against them or vice-versa.
Rubenia, Lim's live-in partner and the mother of Gorres, was at her sister's house in Pita, Pasil,
Kauswagan the night when the arrests were made. The following day, she returned home and noticed
that the door was opened and its lock was destroyed. She took pictures of the damage and offered the
same as exhibits for the defense, which the court admitted as part of her testimony.
RTC Ruling
After trial, the R TC handed a guilty verdict on Lim for illegal possession and sale of shabu and acquitted
Gorres for lack of sufficient evidence linking him as a conspirator. The fallo of the September 24, 2013
Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds that:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1073, accused ROMY LIM y MIRANDA is hereby found GUILTY of violating
Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging
from twelve [12] years and one [1] day to thirteen [13] years, and to pay a Fine in the amount of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos [P300,000.00] without subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of
Fine;
2. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1074, accused ROMY LIM y MIRANDA is hereby found GUILTY of violating
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and to pay the Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00].
3. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1074, accused ELDIE GORRES y NAVE is hereby ACQUITTED of the
offense charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Warden of
the BJMP having custody of ELDIE GORRES y Nave, is hereby directed to immediately release him from
detention unless he is being charged of other crimes which will justify his continued incarceration. 8
With regard to the illegal possession of a sachet of shabu, the RTC held that the weight of evidence
favors the positive testimony of IO1 Orellan over the feeble and uncorroborated denial of Lim. As to the
sale of shabu, it ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the identity of the buyer, the seller, the
money paid to the seller, and the delivery of the shabu. The testimony of IO1 Carin was viewed as simple,
straightforward and without any hesitation or prevarication as she detailed in a credible manner the buy-
bust transaction that occurred. Between the two conflicting versions that are poles apart, the RTC found
the prosecution evidence worthy of credence and no reason to disbelieve in the absence of an iota of
malice, ill-will, revenge or resentment preceding and pervading the arrest of Lim. On the chain of custody
of evidence, it was accepted with moral certainty that the PDEA operatives were able to preserve the
integrity and probative value of the seized items.
In so far as Gorres is concerned, the R TC opined that the evidence presented were not strong enough to
support the claim that there was conspiracy between him and Lim because it was insufficiently shown that
he knew what the box contained. It also noted Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM 196 & 197-2010, which
indicated that Gorres was "NEGATIVE" of the presence of any illicit drug based on his urine sample.
CA Ruling
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. It agreed with the finding of the trial court that the
prosecution adequately established all the elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drug as the collective
evidence presented during the trial showed that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted. Likewise, all
the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug was proven. Lim resorted to denial and could not
present any proof or justification that he was fully authorized by law to possess the same. The CA was
unconvinced with his contention that the prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the seized
prohibited drugs. For the appellate court, it was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the confiscated drugs were not compromised. The witnesses for the prosecution were able to
testify on every link in the chain of custody, establishing the crucial link in the chain from the time the
seized items were first discovered until they were brought for examination and offered in evidence in
court. Anent Lim's defense of denial and frame-up, the CA did not appreciate the same due to lack of
clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by an improper motive. Instead the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was applied.
Before Us, both Lim and the People manifested that they would no longer file a Supplemental Brief, taking
into account the thorough and substantial discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs
before the CA.9 Essentially, Lim maintains that the case records are bereft of evidence showing that the
buy-bust team followed the procedure mandated in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Our Ruling
The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and Lim should be acquitted based on reasonable
doubt.
At the time of the commission of the crimes, the law applicable is R.A. No. 9165. 10 Section 1(b) of
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements the law, defines chain of
custody as -
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. 11
The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior
to its admission into evidence. 12 To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible,
the proponent needs only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what the
party claims it to be. 13 In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence
from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is what the government claims it to
be. 14 Specifically in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established federal evidentiary rule in the
United States is that when the evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by
tampering or contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody of the
item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged
with another or been contaminated or tampered with. 15 This was adopted in Mallillin v. People, 16 where
this Court also discussed how, ideally, the chain of custody of seized items should be established:
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
the chain to have possession of the same. 17
Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of
the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the illegal
drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and ( 4) the turnover
and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 18
Seizure and marking of the illegal

drug as well as the turnover by the
apprehending officer to the
investigating officer
Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 states:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]19
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates:
a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DO.T), and any elected public official who
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
seizures of and custody over said items. 20
On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. Among other modifications, it
essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in the IRR, thus:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
In her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, which eventually became R.A. No. 10640, Senator
Grace Poe admitted that "while Section 21 was enshrined in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act to
safeguard the integrity of the evidence acquired and prevent planting of evidence, the application of said
section resulted in the ineffectiveness of the government's campaign to stop increasing drug addiction
and also, in the conflicting decisions of the courts."21 Specifically, she cited that "compliance with the rule
on witnesses during the physical inventory is difficult. For one, media representatives are not always
available in all comers of the Philippines, especially in more remote areas. For another, there were
instances where elected barangay officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts
apprehended."22 In addition, "[t]he requirement that inventory is required to be done in police station is
also very limiting. Most police stations appeared to be far from locations where accused persons were
apprehended."23
Similarly, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III manifested that in view of the substantial number of acquittals in
drug-related cases due to the varying interpretations of the prosecutors and the judges on Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165, there is a need for "certain adjustments so that we can plug the loopholes in our existing
law" and "ensure [its] standard implementation."24 In his Co-sponsorship Speech, he noted:
Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to operations of highly organized and powerful local
and international syndicates. The presence of such syndicates that have the resources and the capability
to mount a counter-assault to apprehending law enforcers makes the requirement of Section 21(a)
impracticable for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of seizure extremely unsafe for the
proper inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs.
xxxx
Section 21(a) of RA 9165 needs to be amended to address the foregoing situation. We did not realize this
in 2002 where the safety of the law enforcers and other persons required to be present in the inventory
and photography of seized illegal drugs and the preservation of the very existence of seized illegal drugs
itself are threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug syndicates at the place of seizure. The
place where the seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed has to include a location where the
seized drugs as well as the persons who are required to be present during the inventory and photograph
are safe and secure from extreme danger.
It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized illegal drugs be allowed to
be conducted either in the place of seizure or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
law enforcers. The proposal will provide effective measures to ensure the integrity of seized illegal drugs
since a safe location makes it more probable for an inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs to be
properly conducted, thereby reducing the incidents of dismissal of drug cases due to technicalities.
Non-observance of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that the seizure or
confiscation is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement officers could justify the same and could
prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. This is the effect of
the inclusion in the proposal to amend the phrase "justifiable grounds." There are instances wherein there
are no media people or representatives from the DOJ available and the absence of these witnesses
should not automatically invalidate the drug operation conducted. Even the presence of a public local
elected official also is sometimes impossible especially if the elected official is afraid or scared.25
We have held that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place
of arrest may be excused in instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the
witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as
retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault.26 The
present case is not one of those.
Here, IO1 Orellan took into custody the ₱500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white
substance, and a disposable lighter. IO1 Carin also turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought
from Lim. While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. IO1 Orellan testified that he
immediately conducted the marking and physical inventory of the two sachets of shabu.27 To ensure
that .they were not interchanged, he separately marked the item sold by Lim to 101 Carin and the one
that he recovered from his possession upon body search as BB AEO 10-19-10 and AEO-RI 10-19-10,
respectively, with both bearing his initial/signature.28
Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the
media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. 29 In fact, their signatures do
not appear in the Inventory Receipt.
The Court stressed in People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro: 30
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for noncompliance with the procedure laid
down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance
thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any
perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be
adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should
take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground,
but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took
to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity
of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of
evidence.31
It must be alleged and proved that the -presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and
photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety
during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected
official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to
secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period
required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers,
who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the
anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from
obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.32
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v.
Ramos33 requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated
items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and
sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced.
In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed
in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives
were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look
for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere
statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are
unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police
officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the
information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust
operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they
would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police
officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince
the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the
given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 34
In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived at the
crime scene because it was late at night and it was raining, making it unsafe for them to wait at Lim's
house.35 102 Orcales similarly declared that the inventory was made in the PDEA office considering that it
was late in the evening and there were no available media representative and barangay officials despite
their effort to contact them.36 He admitted that there are times when they do not inform the barangay
officials prior to their operation as they might leak the confidential information.37 We are of the view that
these justifications are unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the
law.
The testimony of team-leader IO2 Orcales negates any effort on the part of the buy-bust team to secure
the presence of a barangay official during the operation:
ATTY. DEMECILLO:
xx xx
Q x x x Before going to the house of the accused, why did you not contact a barangay official to
witness the operation?
A There are reasons why we do not inform a barangay official before our operation, Sir.
Q Why?
A We do not contact them because we do not trust them. They might leak our information. 38
The prosecution likewise failed to explain why they did not secure the presence of a representative from
the Department of Justice (DOJ). While the arresting officer, IO1 Orellan, stated in his Affidavit that they
only tried to coordinate with the barangay officials and the media, the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses failed to show that they tried to contact a DOJ representative.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to
coordinate with and secure presence of the required witnesses. They also failed to explain why the buy-
bust team felt "unsafe" in waiting for the representatives in Lim's house, considering that the team is
composed of at least ten (10) members, and the two accused were the only persons in the house.
It bears emphasis that the rule that strict adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 21(1) of
R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR may be excused as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the confiscated items are properly preserved applies not just on arrest and/or seizure by reason
of a legitimate buy-bust operation but also on those lawfully made in air or sea port, detention cell or
national penitentiary, checkpoint, moving vehicle, local or international package/parcel/mail, or those by
virtue of a consented search, stop and frisk (Terry search), search incident to a lawful arrest, or
application of plain view doctrine where time is of the essence and the arrest and/or seizure is/are not
planned, arranged or scheduled in advance.
To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are
typically made without a warrant; hence, subject to inquest proceedings. Relative thereto, Sections 1
(A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations directs:
A. I. I 0. Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 2I (1)
of R.A. No. 9I65, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the
apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the
PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9I65 shall be presented.39
While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most
cases elevated before Us. Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket
any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a
mandatory policy:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with
the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the
justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized/ confiscated i terns.
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the
investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the
case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to
either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of
probable cause in accordance with Section 5,40 Rule 112, Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February 23, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR HC No. 01280-MIN, which affirmed the September 24, 2013 Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch
25, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2010-1073 and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant
Romy Lim y Miranda guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda is
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless
he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, B.E.
Dujali, Davao del Norte, for immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to
this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, as well as to the
Head/Chief of the National Prosecution Service, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Public Attorney's
Office, the Philippine National Police, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the National Bureau of
Investigation, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance. Likewise, the
Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to DISSEMINATE copies of this Decision to all trial courts,
including the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
7. People vs. Ubungen, GR No. 225497, July 23, 2018
G.R. No. 225497

vs.
MARCIANO UBUNGEN Y PULIDO, Accused-Appellant
DECISION
MARTIRES, J.:
This is an appeal from the 31 March 2015 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
04686, which affirmed the 29 July 2010 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, San Fernando
City, La Union (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 7580, convicting defendant-appellant Marciano Ubungen y
Pulido (Marciano) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
THE FACTS
In an Information, dated 12 February 2007, Marciano was charged with the crime of violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the information reads:
That on or about the 17th day of January 2007, in the City of San Fernando (La Union), Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," weighing ZERO POINT ZERO FIFTY
FOUR (0.054) gram to one PO1 ABUBO who posed as poseur buyer thereof and in consideration of said
shabu, used marked money, two (2) hundred peso bills (₱200.00) with Serial Nos. AH425840 and
AB205120, without first securing the necessary permit or license from the proper government agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
On 21 March 2007, Marciano was arraigned and, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged.4
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented two witnesses, namely: PO1 Jimmy Abubo (PO1 Abubo), the police officer
who acted as the poseur-buyer; and PO1 Armando Bautista (PO1 Bautista), a police officer detailed at
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) at the time material to the case, and a member of the
buy-bust team.
The prosecution also presented the forensic chemist, Police Inspector Meilani Joy R. Ordofio (PI
Ordoño), but the RTC dispensed with her testimony in an Order,5 dated 18 September 2008, in view of
the defense's admission of the stipulations offered by the prosecution with respect to the following: (1) the
specimen as indicated in the Chemistry Report; (2) the findings as stated in the Chemistry Report; and (3)
the due execution and genuineness of the Chemistry Report. 6
The combined testimonies of the prosecution witnesses tended to establish the following:
On 17 January 2007, at around 8:30 a.m., PO1 Abubo was in their office at the Philippine National Police,
Region 1, 2nd Regional Mobile Group (2nd RMG), Bio, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, when a friend arrived and
reported to him the rampant selling of shabu at Pagdalagan, San Fernando City, La Union, by a
certain "Ciano." PO1 Abubo referred the matter to his Commanding Officer, Police Senior Inspector
Christopher Rebujio (PSI Rebujio) who, in turn, relayed the information to the PDEA Region I.7
After verifying that "Ciano" was included in the PDEA's watchlist, PO1 Abubo, the informant, and four (4)
other police officers from 2nd RMG proceeded to the PDEA office at San Fernando City, La Union, for a
briefing. 8 Thereafter, a team consisting of 2nd RMG personnel and PDEA agents was formed to conduct
an entrapment operation. Two (2) one hundred-peso bills were prepared as marked money, and PO1
Abubo was designated as the poseur-buyer. 9 The team then proceeded to the house of "Ciano" at
Pagdalagan, San Fernando City, La Union. 10
Later, PO1 Abubo and the informant arrived outside the target's house, 11 while the other members of the
buy-bust team, including PO1 Bautista and a certain PO1 Lagto, positioned themselves in the
vicinity. 12 The informant introduced "Ciano" to PO1 Abubo as Marciano Ubungen; 13 while PO1 Abubo
was introduced as the buyer of shabu. Marciano then asked how much PO1 Abubo wanted to buy. PO1
Abubo replied he was buying shabu worth ₱200.00 and handed Marciano the marked bills. Marciano
entered his house and when he came back, he handed one (1) small plastic sachet to PO1
Abubo. 14 Immediately after receiving the sachet, PO1 Abubo called PO1 Lagto by cellphone, their pre-
arranged signal. 15 Thereafter, the members of the buy-bust team arrested Marciano and recovered the
marked bills from him. 16 Meanwhile, PO1 Abubo placed the markings "JA" on the plastic sachet. 17
After the buy-bust operation, Marciano was taken to the PDEA office in San Fernando City, La Union,
where they conducted an inventory and prepared the booking sheet, affidavit of arrest, request for
physical examination of Marciano, and request for laboratory examination of the specimen seized from
him. 18
Chemistry Report No. D-004-07, 19 dated I 7 January 2007, and prepared by PI Ordoño revealed that the
contents of a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "A JA" tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. However, PI Ordoño did not take the
witness stand to verify the contents of Chemistry Report No. D-004-07 because the RTC dispensed with
her testimony in view of the stipulations reached by the parties.
The prosecution further submitted in evidence the following, among others: (1) Request for Laboratory
Examination of the contents of the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet seized from Marciano, signed
by PSI Rebujio (Exhibit "D")20 ; (2) Certificate of Inventory, signed by PO1 Abubo (Exhibit "E")21 ; (3) two
₱100-bills (Exhibit "F")22 ; and (4) Chemistry Report No. D-004-07, prepared by PI Ordoño (Exhibit "G"). 23
Evidence for the Defense
On its part, the defense presented Marciano himself and his nephew, Gilbert Ubungen (Gilbert). Their
combined testimonies sought to establish Marciano's innocence, as follows:
On 17 January 2007, at around three o'clock in the afternoon, Marciano, together with Gilbert, Wilfredo
'Pido' Pancho (Wilfredo), and Ricky Ducusin were drinking at a neighbor's house in Padalagan Norte, San
Fernando City, La Union, when six non-uniformed policemen arrived. The policemen arrested Marciano,
Gilbert, and Wilfredo and brought them to Camp Diego Silang in San Fernando City, La Union, where
they were detained for three (3) days.24 On the third day of their detention, the three were brought to
Camp Florendo in San Fernando City, La Union, for drug tests. Afterwards, Marciano was brought back to
Camp Diego Silang; Pido and Gilbert were released.25
In fine, Marciano denied the accusations against him. He insisted that no explanation was given him on
why he was arrested or made to undergo drug tests.26
The RTC Ruling
In its decision, the RTC found Marciano guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The trial
court gave credence to the testimonies of PO1 Abubo and PO1 Bautista ratiocinating that they gave a
candid, clear, and straightforward narration of the events leading to the arrest of Marciano. In fine, the trial
court was convinced that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of drugs.
The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Marciano Ubungen
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of
five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00).
SO ORDERED.27
Aggrieved, Marciano appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed that of the RTC. The appellate court concurred with the trial
court's assessment that the prosecution, through the testimony of PO1 Abubo, had successfully
established the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs. It was also convinced that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the drug seized from Marciano was preserved by the prosecution. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant APPEAL is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the Decision dated July 29, 2010 rendered by RTC, Branch 66, City of San Fernando, La
Union, in Criminal Case No. 7580 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.28
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES
Marciano manifested that he would re-plead and adopt all the arguments raised in his Appellant's Brief,
dated 28 March 2011, 29 as follows:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DESPITE

THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ACCUSEDAPPELLANT'S GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROCEDURAL LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
SEIZED ILLEGAL DRUG.
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DESPITE

THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EVERY LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. 30
THE COURT'S RULING
The appeal is meritorious.
Jurisprudence teaches that to secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (I) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. 31 What is material is the proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with
the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. 32
In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the
accused constitutes the campus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity
and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of custody rule
performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.33
The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in
the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered
to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that
there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same. 34
In particular, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated
item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 35
With these considerations and after a thorough review of the records of this case, the Court opines that
the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in violation of Section
21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The identity of the subject drug was therefore not established with moral
certainty.
As already stated, the only witnesses presented by the prosecution are PO1 Abubo and PO1 Bautista
who both participated in the buy-bust operation allegedly conducted against Marciano. While the two
witnesses were able to establish the first link in the chain of custody with their respective testimonies
regarding the arrest of Marciano and the seizure of the prohibited drug from him as well as the marking
thereof, their testimonies were insufficient to establish the remaining three (3) links in the chain of
custody.
First, the prosecution failed to show the second link in the chain of custody as no testimony was offered
relating to the transmittal of the subject sachet from the arresting officer to the investigating officer. During
his direct examination, PO1 Abubo narrated the actions his team took after the buy-bust operation. He
also enumerated the documents which would prove that the said actions were indeed undertaken, thus:
PROS. MANGIBIN:
Q. Now Mr. Witness, after arresting the accused, you went to PDEA, what did you do there?
A. The subject and the confiscated evidence were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for technical
analysis, sir.
Q. Do you have documents to show that you have done that Mr. Witness?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are those documents, Mr. Witness?
A. The Certificate of Inventory, the Crime Laboratory Examination, sir.36
PO1 Abubo's testimony, however, is silent as to the name of the investigating officer to whom the seized
sachet of drug was transmitted, or on whether he transmitted the confiscated item to an investigating
officer in the first place. The prosecution's Exhibit "E" or the Certificate of Inventory also failed to disclose
the person who received the seized drug from PO1 Abubo. While the said document was signed by PO1
Abubo, no addressee or recipient was indicated therein.
The prosecution's Exhibit "D" or the Request for Laboratory Examination also suffers from substantially
the same infirmity. While the said request was signed by PSI Rebujio and addressed to the Chief of the
Crime Laboratory of Camp Florendo in San Fernando City, there was no indication of how and from
whom PSI Rebujio received the subject sachet. Likewise, there was no mention of the person who
submitted the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Thus, there is uncertainty as to
who had custody of the sachet from the time it left the custody of PO1 Abubo.
Even assuming arguendo that PSI Rebujio could be considered as the investigating officer to whom PO1
Abubo transmitted the seized specimen, and from whom PI Ordoño received the specimen which she
examined, no mention was made on how PSI Rebujio handled the said specimen while it was in his
custody. This is indispensable because the prosecution must satisfy the court that every person who had
custody of the exhibit took the necessary precaution to preserve the integrity of the said evidence as well
as to ensure that no opportunity would be afforded any other person to contaminate the same.
Clearly, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence presented failed to
establish the second link in the chain of custody of the subject drug.
Second, there exists serious doubt that the sachet confiscated by PO1 Abubo from Marciano is the same
specimen submitted to and examined by the forensic chemist. As such, the third link in the chain of
custody of the subject transparent plastic sachet was not established.
In his testimony, PO1 Abubo recalled the marking he placed on the sachet which he bought as poseur-
buyer. He confirmed that the sachet presented before the RTC is the same sachet containing the illegal
drug; thus:
PROS. MANGIBIN:
Q. Now, after doing that, was there anything that happened after that?
A. After that I immediately marked the plastic containing white crystalline with marking JA, sir.
Q. Now, I am showing to you a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, will you
please go over if this is the one you are referring to?
A. (After examining) Yes, sir.
Q. Why do you say that that was the exact item that was given to you?
A. I have a marking JA, sir.37 [emphases supplied]
POI Abubo's testimony, however, is materially inconsistent with Chemistry Report No. D-004-07. In the
said report, PI Ordoño stated that the specimen submitted to her was a plastic sachet marked
as "AJA," thus:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A - One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "A JA" containing 0.054 gram of white
crystalline substance. xxx 38 [emphasis supplied]
Because of this discrepancy between the marking on the sachet seized by PO1 Abubo and the marking
on the sachet submitted to the crime laboratory, it could not be reasonably and safely concluded that they
are one and the same.
Indeed, it is possible that the forensic chemist committed a typographical error when she typed the
marking "AJA" instead of "JA" in her chemistry report. The Court, however, could not just accept this
supposition considering that the prosecution gave no explanation for this glaring and obvious variance. As
such, there is reasonable doubt that the third link in the chain of custody - the transfer of the sachet from
the investigating officer to the forensic chemist- was not complied with.
Finally, compliance with the fourth link in the chain of custody was not satisfactorily demonstrated by the
prosecution. It must be recalled that the trial court dispensed with the testimony of PI Ordoño, the forensic
chemist, in view of the stipulation entered into by the prosecution and the defense during the hearing of
the case on 18 September 2008.
In People v. Pajarin,39 the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the
attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would
have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as
marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that
he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.40
In this case, there is no record that the stipulations between the parties contain the aforesaid conditions.
In its Order, dated 18 September 2008, wherein it dispensed with the testimony of PI Ordoño, the trial
court enumerated the stipulations agreed upon by the parties which were made the bases of the order:
In today's hearing, Public Prosecutor Bonifacio Mangibin and defense counsel Atty. Alexander Andres
stipulated on the following:
1) The specimen as indicated in the Chemistry Report;
2) The findings as stated in the Chemistry Report; and
3) The due execution and genuineness of the Chemistry Report.41
Clear from the foregoing is the lack of the stipulations required for the proper and effective dispensation of
the testimony of the forensic chemist. While the stipulations between the parties herein may be viewed as
referring to the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and to the analytical results obtained,
they do not cover the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic
chemist and after it left her possession. 42 Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and
preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized herein after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in
the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established.
The lapses committed by the prosecution and the law enforcers herein could not be considered minor.
Indeed, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity,
identity, and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. Failure to demonstrate compliance with even just
one of these links creates reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same
substance offered in evidence.
In this case, the prosecution miserably failed to establish three out of the four links in the chain of
custody.1avvphi1 As a consequence of this serious blunder, the Court finds the acquittal of accused-
appellant Marciano to be in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the appealed 31 March 2015 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G .R. CRHC No. 04686, which affirmed the 29 July 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 66, San Fernando City, La Union, in Criminal Case No. 7580 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendant-appellant Marciano Ubungen y Pulido is
hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is
ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice
8. People vs. Victoria, GR No. 238613, August 19, 2019
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JEFFREY VICTORIA Y TARIMAN,

ACCUSED -APPELLANT.
DECISION
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
This appeal1 assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CR-H.C. No. 07849 dated June
28, 2017,2 affirming appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) 9165.3
The Proceedings Before the Trial Court
The Charge
By Information dated January 3, 2005, appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of
RA 9165, thus:
That on or about the 30th day of December 2004, in the Municipality of Taytay,
Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without having been authorized by law to sell any dangerous drug,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to PO1
Hector D. Lico, who acted as poseur buyer, 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance
contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which was found positive to
the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "Shabu" a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law."
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) - Branch 73, Antipolo City.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
During the trial, PO3 Froilan Loyola, PO1 Dexter Pangilinan, PSI Lourdeliza C. Cejes, and PO1
Hector Lico testified for the prosecution. Appellant Jeffrey Victoria was the lone witness for the defense.5
The Prosecution's Version
PO3 Loyola testified that on December 28, 2004, acting on a confidential informant's report, P/Supt.
Jaime B. Piloneo ordered his subordinate officers to conduct surveillance on a certain Jeffrey Victoria who
was purportedly selling shabu at the corner of Ma. Clara St. and Ocampo St., Brgy. Sta. Ana, Taytay,
Rizal. The next day, around 8 to 10 o'clock in the evening, the officers observed appellant standing in the
area while several persons on motorcycles approached and made quick exchanges with him. According
to the confidential informant, these were sales of shabu.6
On December 30, 2004, the police officers conducted a buy-bust operation with him (PO3 Loyola) as
team leader, PO1 Lico as poseur-buyer, and PO1 Pangilinan as back-up. They prepared the buy-bust
money consisting of a Php 100.00 bill marked with his initials "FRL." The confidential informant also
accompanied the team.7
At the place of operation, PO3 Loyola instructed PO1 Lico and the confidential informant to approach
appellant. PO3 Loyola saw PO1 Lico hand over the buy-bust money to appellant who, in turn, turned over
something to PO1 Lico. At that point, PO1 Lico gave the pre-arranged signal by lighting a cigarette.8
PO3 Loyola and the rest of the team immediately approached and introduced themselves as police
officers. PO1 Lico gave PO3 Loyola the transparent plastic sachet which he received from appellant. PO3
Loyola asked appellant to take out the contents of his pocket and recovered from the latter the marked
money. After informing appellant of his constitutional rights, the police officers brought him to the police
headquarters.9
PO1 Pangilinan corroborated PO3 Loyola's testimony. He testified that the recovered plastic sachet
was marked by the officer-on-case with the initials "RVM" at the police station.10 Thereafter, the officers
prepared a request for laboratory examination and sent the sachet to the crime laboratory.11
The prosecution and defense stipulated on the testimony of forensic chemist PSI Lourdeliza
Cejes viz: she was assigned at the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office; received a letter
request dated December 31, 2004 for qualitative examination of the seized item; and conducted the
qualitative examination of the seized item. PSI Cejes prepared the report showing that the confiscated
item tested positive for the methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug known as shabu.12
Lastly, PO1 Lico testified that he acted as poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. He and the
confidential informant approached appellant while the rest of the team remained in the vehicle about ten
to fifteen (10-15) meters away. When the two approached appellant, the latter greeted them, "O, Jay-R,
kukuha ba kayo?" He responded "Oo, piso lang" referring to Php100.00 worth of shabu. Appellant then
pulled out one (1) plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it to him, saying "Last na 'yan. Kukuha na
lang ako." He (PO1 Lico) thereafter lit his cigarette to signal that the sale had been consummated. He
introduced himself to appellant as a police officer and held the latter by his belt until other members of the
team reached them. The rest of his testimony essentially corroborated PO3 Loyola's narration.13
On cross, PO1 Lico testified that his companions were deputized by the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency to operate without coordination with the agency; he did not see what were exchanged between
appellant and the persons on motorcycles who passed by and relied on the confidential informant's report
that the transactions were sales of shabu; and they did not secure the presence of any barangay official
or media to witness any part of the operation.14 More, PO1 Lico did not know whether an inventory was
conducted and who brought the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory. He only knew it was PO3 Loyola
who handled the specimen from the area of operation until they reached the police station.15
The prosecution marked in exhibit the following evidence: Sinumpaang Salaysay nina PO2 Froilan R.
Loyola, PO1 Hector D. Lico, PO1 Dexter B. Pangilinan; Php 100.00 bill with marking "FRL" (photocopy);
Request for Laboratory Examination; Physical Sciences Report No. D-815-04E; Turned-over Letter dated
January 3, 2005.16
The Defense's Evidence
Appellant denied the allegations against him. On December 30, 2004, around 7 o'clock in the evening,
he was playing billiards at a hall three (3) streets away from E. Mateo St., Taytay, Rizal when three (3)
police officers arrived. They searched the people in the place, albeit they did not have any document to
justify the operation. They slapped and hit him with a pool cue before bringing him out of the billiard hall to
board a tricycle. They took him to the municipal hall and covered his face with a rag before putting him in
jail. It was only during the inquest proceedings when appellant learned that he was being charged with
selling drugs.17
The Trial Court's Ruling
As borne by its Decision dated July 15, 2015,18 the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction, viz:
WHEREFORE, taking all the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered

finding accused Jeffrey Victoria y Tariman GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer LIFE
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos.1âшphi1
The Acting Branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately transmit to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) the subject specimen confiscated from the accused for
said agency's appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED.19
It ruled that all the elements of the crime were sufficiently established and that the chain of custody
was duly observed. On the other hand, appellant merely interposed a sweeping denial without presenting
clear and convincing evidence to support his claim. As against the positive testimonies of the prosecution,
appellant's plain denial failed.
The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, appellant faulted the trial court for rendering a verdict of conviction despite the
prosecution's failure to establish the elements of the offense and the procedural lapses and gaps in the
chain of custody,20 viz:
First, the alleged sale of the drugs was not properly established. The supposed buy-bust
money was excluded in evidence by the trial court for being a mere photocopy;21
Second, the arresting officers failed to mark the seized item at the place of the arrest.22 It
was the officer-on-case who marked the sachet at the police station;23
Third, the inventory and photograph requirements under Section 21, RA 9165 were not
accomplished. PO3 Loyola even admitted that the specimen was immediately submitted to the
PNP Crime Laboratory after it was marked;24
Fourth, the stipulation of both parties on to the testimony of PCI Cejes did not cover how the
specimen was handled. Hence, the custodial chain was broken;25 and
Finally, appellant's defenses of alibi and frame-up must stand in view of the aforesaid
procedural lapses.26
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through Assistant Solicitor General Herman R. Cimafranca
and State Solicitor Sheila Marie V. Sison-Javier defended the verdict of conviction. It argued that
testimonial, documentary, and object evidence established appellant's sale of dangerous drugs: PO3
Loyola and PO1 Lico positively identified appellant as the person who sold shabu to the poseur-buyer;
exclusion of the buy-bust money as evidence is immaterial for it is merely corroborative; and the corpus
delicti was presented and identified in court.27
More, the procedural lapses appellant cited did not affect the admissibility and evidentiary weight of
the drugs recovered from him. The failure of the police officers to mark the sachet of shabu at the place of
seizure did not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody. Too, police officers are presumed
to have acted regularly in the performance of their official functions, absent any proof to the contrary or
any ill will.28
At any rate, appellant failed to object to the admissibility of the seized item. Since he did not challenge
the custody or preservation of the corpus delicti during the trial below, he cannot be allowed to do so at
this late stage.
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
By Decision dated June 28, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed.29 It found that the chain of custody
was not broken and that the corpus delicti was established with reasonable certainty.30 It agreed with the
OSG that the marked money was not an essential element in proving the crime of selling illegal drugs; the
lack of coordination with the PDEA and failure to photograph and inventory were not fatal to the
prosecution's cause; appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his defense of denial
and frame-up; and the presumption of regularity of performance of official duties must stand.31
The Present Appeal
Appellant now asks the Court for a verdict of acquittal.32
In compliance with Resolution dated July 11, 2018, both appellant and the OSG manifested that in
lieu of supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs before the Court of Appeals.33
Issue
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction despite the attendant
procedural deficiencies relative to the marking, inventory, and photograph of the seized item?
Ruling
We acquit.
In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review.34 Thus, even with the
failure of appellant to object against the admissibility of the seized shabu or to challenge the custody
disposition or preservation thereof, the Court is not barred from reviewing the irregularities appellant
raised on appeal.
Here, petitioner is charged with unauthorized sale of dangerous drug allegedly committed on
December 30, 2004. The governing law is RA 9165 before its amendment in 2014.
Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug
cases, viz:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
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; (emphasis added)
xxxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further commands:
Section 21. (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 added)
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 by the accused is the same
substance presented in court.35
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain
of custody:36 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.37
This is the chain of custody rule. It came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs
which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or
substitution either by accident or otherwise.38
Records show that the prosecution here had breached the chain of custody in several instances.
Prosecution witness PO3 Loyola testified:
PROS. SAMPAYO
xxxx
Q: After all the preparations, what did you do?
A: We proceeded to the place
Q: Did you actually arrived (sic) at the place?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What happened there?
A: We saw our target.
Q: What date was that?
A: December 30, 2004.
Q: What time did you arrive there?
A: More or less 9:40 P.M.

Q: When you arrived there, what happened?
A: We saw our target Jeffrey Victoria.
xxxx
Q: What did Lico do?
A: He approached the target.
Q: What happened when he approached the target?
A: I saw Lico hand over the money.
Q: What did Jeffrey Victoria do after he received the money?
A: He pulled out something from his pocket.
Q: After that what happened?
A: He gave the pre-arranged signal.
Q: What happened next?
A: We approached him.
Q: After that?
A: I introduced ourselves as police officers.
Q: What happened next?
A: PO1 Lico hand (sic) over to me the shabu.
Q: After the specimen was turned over to you, what happened?
A: I recovered from the possession of Jeffrey Victoria marked money used in the buy-bust operation.
Q: After that where did they bring the person?
A: After informing him of his constitutional rights, we brought him to the Headquarters. (Emphasis
supplied)
xxxx
Q: You said that the specimen was turned over to you, what did you do with the specimen?
A: I turned it over to the investigator.
Q: Before you turned over to the investigator, what was done to the specimen?
A: The investigator marked the specimen.39 (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
Prosecution witness PO1 Pangilinan further testified:
PROS. SAMPAYO
xxxx
Q: What happened when you arrested Jeffrey Victoria?
A: He was apprised of his constitutional rights and directed to put out the contents of his pockets.
Q: What was in his pocket?
A: The Php 100 was recovered.
Q: After recovering the marked money, what did you do as a team?
A: We brought him to the police station.
Q: What did you do there?
A: We prepared the recovered one (1) plastic sachet and sent it to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service
for examination.
Q: What do you mean you prepared?
A: We prepared a request for laboratory examination.
Q: What about the specimen?
A: We placed the markings.
Q: Do you know the markings that were put on the specimen?
A: RVM, the initials of the investigator.40 (Emphasis supplied)
PROS. BANGUI
xxxx
Q: Was there any physical inventory of the items confiscated from the accused?
A: None.
Q: Who put the marking on the sachet?
A: The officer-on-case.
Q: It was done at the police station?
A: Yes, Sir.41 (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
As admitted by the prosecution witnesses themselves: First, the seized item was not marked at the
place of the arrest. The Court clarified in People v. Ramirez,42 that marking of the seized item
immediately after seizure is vital to ensure its integrity and veracity by preventing switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence.43 In Ramirez, the Court acquitted the accused because the seized item was
marked at the barangay hall and not at the place of arrest.
Second, the inventory and photograph requirements were not complied with either. PO1 Pangilinan
did not explain this omission. In Jocson v. People,44 the Court acquitted petitioner for the same
omission coupled with the sheer lack of an explanation or justification therefor.
Third, it was not arresting officer PO3 Loyola who marked the sachet, but investigating officer PO1
Marundan. Notably, the latter was not even presented by the prosecution to testify on how he handled the
seized item. This is another break in the chain of custody. In People v. Ismael, the Court ruled that this
break in the chain of custody cast doubt on to the identity of the corpus delicti.45
Finally, PCI Cejes merely confirmed the existence of the specimen, but did not testify on how the
specimen was handled. In People v. Ubungen46 the Court ruled that absent any testimony on the
management, storage, and preservation of the seized illegal drug, the fourth link in the chain of custody
could not be reasonably established.
Indeed, the repeated breach of the chain of custody rule here had cast serious uncertainty on the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The metaphorical chain did not link at all, albeit it unjustly
restrained petitioner's right to liberty. Verily, therefore, a verdict of acquittal is in order.
Strict adherence to the chain of custody rule must be observed;47 the precautionary measures
employed in every transfer of the seized drug item, proved to a moral certainty. The sheer ease of
planting drug evidence vis-a-vis the severity of the imposable penalties in drugs cases compels strict
compliance with the chain of custody rule.
We have clarified, though, that a perfect chain may be impossible to obtain at all times because of
varying field conditions.48 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 offers a saving
clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist which warrant deviation from established
protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.49 The
prosecution's witnesses, however, did not even offer any excuse for the deviation from the strict requisites
of the law.
In fine, the condition for the saving clause to become operational was not complied with. For the same
reason, the proviso "so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved," too, will not come into play.
For perspective, life imprisonment is imposed for unauthorized sale of dangerous drugs even for the
minutest amount. It, thus, becomes inevitable that safeguards against abuses of power in the conduct of
buy-bust operations be strictly implemented. The purpose is to eliminate wrongful arrests and, worse,
convictions. The evils of switching, planting or contamination of the corpus delicti under the regime of RA
6425, otherwise known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," could again be resurrected if the lawful
requirements were otherwise lightly brushed aside.50
As heretofore shown, the chain of custody here had been breached several times over; the
metaphorical chain, irreparably broken. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the seized drug item
were not deemed to have been preserved. Perforce, petitioner must be unshackled, acquitted, and
released from restraint.51
Suffice it to state that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions52 cannot
substitute for compliance and mend the broken links. For it is a mere disputable presumption that cannot
prevail over clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.53 And here, the presumption was amply
overturned, nay, overthrown by compelling evidence on record of the repeated breach of the chain of
custody rule.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 28, 2017 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07849 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant JEFFREY VICTORIA y TARIMAN is ACQUITTED. The Director of the Bureau of

Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release appellant Jeffrey Victoria y Tariman
from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his report on the action
taken within five (5) days from notice. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
9. Luna vs. People, GR No. 231902, July 30, 2021
DENNIS OLIVER CASTRONUEVO LUNA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by
petitioner Dennis Oliver Castronuevo Luna (petitioner Luna), assailing the Decision2 dated January 5,
2017 (assailed Decision) and Resolution3 dated May 29, 2017 (assailed Resolution) of the Court of
Appeals, Special Fifteenth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07733, which affirmed the
Judgment4 dated September 14, 2015 rendered by Branch 79, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
(RTC) in Criminal Case No. Q-10-165971, titled "People of the Philippines v. Dennis Oliver Castronuevo
Luna," finding petitioner Luna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,"5 as
amended.
The Facts
On September 23, 2005, an Information was filed against petitioner Luna for violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The said Information reads:
That on or about the 28th day of July, 2005, in Quezon City, accused without authority of the law did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly possess a dangerous drug, to wit: five (5) kilos and two
hundred twenty six (226.00) grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
As narrated by the CA in the assailed Decision, the essential facts are as follows:
On July 10, 2005, Police Superintendent Acierto of the Philippine National Police Anti-Illegal Drug Special
Operation Task Force (PNPAIDSOTF) received an information from a confidential informant concerning
Peter Angeles and other Chinese members belonging to his group, who were allegedly involved in drug
trafficking activities. To verify the truth of such information, the SOTF operatives conducted a casing
surveillance in coordination with the Quezon City Police Station and [Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA)] per Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet dated July 28, 2005. Having found the information
reliable after several surveillance monitoring operations, the police operatives decided to conduct a buy-
bust operation on that day. At around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a certain "Sexy", known as the
negotiator of Peter Angeles, called the mobile number of the confidential informant, who was then at
Camp Crame. "Sexy" then discussed the details regarding the delivery of the "shabu" at Kowloon House
located on West Avenue, Quezon City. "Sexy" also discussed with SPO3 Parreño, the designated
poseur-buyer disguised as "Mike", as regards the manner of payment.
SPO3 Parreño immediately reported the matter to P/Supt. Acierto and P/Chief Insp. Fajardo. Thereafter,
coordination with the PDEA and the Quezon City Police was made. At around 4:30 in the afternoon
"Sexy" called the informant's mobile phone again and told them to proceed to Hap Chan Restaurant
instead, which is also located along Quezon Avenue, and look for a silver-colored Toyota Revo with plate
number XHY 278. As regards the payment, "Sexy" instructed them to give the money to the driver and
take the drugs found thereat.
With the information complete, the buy bust team proceeded to Hap Chan Restaurant and saw instantly
the silver-colored Toyota Revo parked in front of the said restaurant. They decided to park the undercover
vehicle face-to-face with the Toyota Revo. SPO3 Parreño alighted and walked towards the parked car.
When he opened the door, he saw [petitioner Luna] to whom he asked where "Sexy" is. Instead of giving
a responsive answer, [petitioner Luna] asked him if he is "Mike" to which he answered in the affirmative.
Forthwith, [petitioner Luna] told him to get the blue bag at the back seat and leave the money there as
instructed by "Sexy". At once, SPO3 Parreño took the blue bag from the Toyota Revo and opened it. He
then saw six (6) brown envelopes containing white crystalline substance inside a plastic bag which he
suspected to be "shabu". Promptly, he disembarked from the Toyota Revo and left the boodle money,
which was dusted with ultraviolet light, at the back seat. He immediately waved his right hand signaling
his team of the consummation of the buy bust operation.
At that point, PO1 Caluag and PO1 Nepomuceno approached the Toyota Revo and apprehended
[petitioner Luna] while the remaining members of the team secured the perimeter area. Upon arrest, PO1
Caluag and PO1 Nepomuceno apprised [petitioner Luna] of his constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, the six (6) packs containing white crystalline substance were seized. SPO3 Parreño labeled
them as "RCP Item 1" until "RCP Item 6". Other evidence recovered from [petitioner Luna] were cellular
phone, boodle money, six (6) pieces genuine Five Hundred Peso (Php500.00) bills and some cash
money belonging to [petitioner Luna]. SPO3 Parreño escorted PO1 Nepomuceno in submitting the seized
white crystalline substance to the crime laboratory for laboratory examination on that same day. The day
after, the initial laboratory result was released indicating that the seized substances were tested positive
for "shabu".
Accordingly, [petitioner Luna] was subjected to Drug Test Examination. During the same time, a
Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was prepared which was witnessed by SPO Pirote and PO3
Liwanag. While [petitioner Luna] was then present, he refused to sign the inventory. However,
photographs of [petitioner Luna] with the seized items were taken. After [petitioner Luna] was subjected
for inquest, he was released for further investigation. He was later re-arrested by virtue of a warrant of
arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City as requested by the National Bureau of
Investigation.
As expected, [petitioner Luna] impugned the prosecution's version and presented a completely different
tale. He denied ownership or knowledge of the confiscated shabu. According to him, the car is owned by
Susan Lagman, his former neighbor, who often hires him to drive for her. He also happened to drive
several times for a certain "Sexy", a woman introduced by Susan to him. During those instances, "Sexy"
would contact Susan and the latter would go to his house to ask him if he can drive for someone the
following day. If he agrees, he will wait at the corner of Retiro Street in Sampaloc, Manila where Susan
will pick him up. When Susan arrives, she will instruct him to drive for "Sexy". In all those times, "Sexy"
carried a handbag and papers kept inside a brown envelope.
On July 28, 2005, his passenger was "Sexy". He recalled that in the morning, Susan was already with
"Sexy" when they picked him up at his usual spot on Retiro Street. Thereat, Susan alighted from the
Toyota Revo while he and "Sexy" went to Icebergs located [in] Timog, Quezon City. Upon arrival, "Sexy"
disembarked and went inside the restaurant while he parked the vehicle and waited for "Sexy" until noon.
When "Sexy" came out of the restaurant, she directed [him] to drive towards Sandiganbayan along
Commonwealth Avenue. When they reached Sandiganbayan around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, "Sexy"
instructed him to park the vehicle along Filinvest Street while she went to an alley nearby. "Sexy" returned
to the vehicle at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon and told him to proceed to Hap Chan along Quezon Avenue
by himself as her companions brought their vehicles. "Sexy" instructed her that if "Mike", whom she was
supposed to meet, will arrive early at Hap Chan, he will have to tell "Mike" to get the bag at the rear
passenger's seat and if "Mike" has something to leave for "Sexy", he will just have to leave it at the back
of the Toyota Revo. Afterwards, he drove towards Hap Chan and waited inside the vehicle. At around
4:30 in the afternoon, a man approached the Toyota Revo, introduced himself as "Mike" and asked where
"Sexy" was. In reply, he told "Mike" to get the bag placed at the back seat and wait for "Sexy" because
she was on her way. As instructed, "Mike" took the bag. Suddenly, "Mike" announced that he is arresting
him for carrying illegal drugs.
After trial, [in its Judgment dated September 14, 2015,] the RTC found [petitioner Luna] guilty beyond
reasonable of the charge against him in the Information.7
The dispositive portion of the RTC Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused DENNIS OLIVER CASTRONUEVO

LUNA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and he is
hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
The Officer-in-Charge of this Court is ordered to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of the
accused to the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.
The drug specimens, the subject matter of this case, covered by Chemistry Report D-698-05, are forfeited
in favor of the Government and the Officer-in-Charge of this Court is directed to tum them over to the
PDEA Crime Laboratory for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.8
Hence, petitioner Luna filed an appeal before the CA.
The Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction of petitioner Luna. The dispositive portion
of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Judgment dated September 14, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 79 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-10-165971 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.9
In sum, the CA held that since petitioner Luna was driving the vehicle where the bag, which supposedly
contained the seized packs of drug specimen, was retrieved, he constructively possessed the alleged
packs of drug specimen. Further, the CA held that the chain of custody rule was observed by the
authorities despite failure of the police to strictly comply with the procedure on the custody and handling
of seized drugs under Section 21 Article II of RA No. 9165.
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
Stripped to its core, for the Court's resolution is the issue of whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting
petitioner Luna for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Court acquits petitioner Luna for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
There is reasonable doubt that

petitioner Luna freely, consciously,
and with full knowledge possessed
the alleged seized packs of drug
specimen
Petitioner Luna was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, which is defined
and penalized under a special law — Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
It is well-settled that criminal intent need not be proved in the prosecution of acts mala prohibita. A person
may not have consciously intended to commit a crime. But if he did intend to commit an act, and that act
is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself, then he can be held liable for the malum prohibitum. In
other words, "[i]ntent to commit the crime is not necessary, but intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by
the special law must be shown."10
Nevertheless, despite the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs being malum prohibitum,
"[t]his, however, does not lessen the prosecution's burden because it is still required to show that the
prohibited act was intentional."11 In cases involving the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, "the
prosecution is not excused from proving that possession of the prohibited act was done 'freely and
consciously,' which is an essential element of the crime."12
Hence, a critical element of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is the element of intent to
possess or animus possidendi.
The Court has held that in criminal cases involving prohibited drugs, there can be no conviction unless the
prosecution shows that the accused knowingly, freely, intentionally, and consciously possessed the
prohibited articles in his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be present together with his
possession or control of such article.13
Stated differently, the concept of possession contemplated under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 goes
beyond mere actual and physical possession of the drug specimen. Otherwise, an unsuspecting person
who is victimized by the planting of evidence will be unjustly prosecuted based on the sheer fact that
illegal drugs were found to be in his possession. It must be proven that the person in whose possession
the drug specimen was found knew that he/she was possessing illegal drugs.
Therefore, to prosecute an accused for illegally possessing illegal drugs, it is not enough to show that the
accused knowingly and intentionally possessed the bag or receptacle that contained illegal drugs. The
prosecution must go beyond and provide evidence that the accused knowingly, freely, consciously, and
intentionally possessed illegal drugs.
Jurisprudence tells us that since knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness of a fact and, therefore,
courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort
to other evidence is necessary.14 Hence, animus possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on
a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as
well as the surrounding circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant
events in each particular case.15
After a careful review of the evidence on record, the Court believes that there is, at the very
least, reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner Luna possessed the bag with any knowledge,
consciousness, and awareness that the said bag contained the allegedly seized packs of drug specimen.
Otherwise stated, the surrounding factual circumstances, as established by the evidence on record, fail to
clearly establish that there was animus possidendi on the part of petitioner Luna.
During the trial, petitioner Luna testified under oath that he is engaged in a lawful livelihood as a driver.
He is an on-call driver for a construction company, a part-time driver for his aunt who is engaged in the
jewelry business, and occasionally drives for a woman named Susan Lagman (Lagman) and the latter's
clients.16
On July 28, 2005, the day of the buy-bust operation, he was engaged by Lagman to drive for her client,
an unknown woman with the alias Sexy, using Lagman's vehicle, i.e., a Toyota Revo. After
driving Sexy to the Sandiganbayan complex along Commonwealth Avenue, the latter instructed petitioner
Luna to proceed to Hap Chan Restaurant without her and to meet with a certain Mike who would get
Sexy's bag, which the latter placed on the backseat of the Toyota Revo.17
The testimony of petitioner Luna establishes that the bag retrieved from the vehicle during the buy-bust
operation did not come from and was not owned by petitioner Luna. Neither has it been indubitably
established that the said bag and its contents were under the effective control and dominion of petitioner
Luna. It was Sexy who placed the bag at the backseat of the vehicle. It was also Sexy who instructed
petitioner Luna to immediately proceed to Hap Chan Restaurant and allow a certain Mike to get the said
bag. In short, the person who effectively wielded control over the bag was Sexy and not petitioner Luna.
In convicting petitioner Luna, the RTC stressed the disputable presumption created under Section 3(j) of
Rule 131 that "things which a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him."
Further, citing prevailing jurisprudence, the RTC explained that:
[s]ince knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he
exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the
dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such
premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.18
In finding that petitioner Luna had control or dominion over the vehicle where the alleged packs of drug
specimen were retrieved, the RTC reasoned that "[n]o documentary evidence was submitted by
[petitioner Luna] to prove that the Revo was owned by one Susan Lagman."19
The RTC seriously erred.
The RTC manifestly overlooked that one of the prosecution's witness, SPO3 Ronald Parreño (SPO3
Parreño), unequivocally admitted that the Toyota Revo is registered under the name of a certain Carol
Bulacan and not petitioner Luna:
Q: If you recall and you will agree with me that the Revo was registered under the name of a certain Carol
Bulacan?
A: Yes, sir.20
SPO3 Parreño also readily admitted that the vehicle where the drug specimen was allegedly retrieved is a
private vehicle for hire:
Q: Is it a public utility vehicle?
A: No your Honor, private vehicle but the vehicle is for hire.21
Therefore, with petitioner Luna not being the owner of the vehicle where the alleged drug specimen was
recovered, which is an undeniable fact, and with petitioner Luna being a mere driver for hire who was
simply engaged by other persons and merely followed the instructions of his principal, Lagman, and the
latter's client, Sexy, which, on their face, were lawful instructions, it cannot be said that petitioner Luna
exercised control and dominion over the vehicle where the bag of specimen was recovered. Necessarily,
the presumption of animus possidendi did not arise.
Further, the Court finds that the RTC incorrectly upheld the presumption of animus possidendi on the
basis of Rule 131, Section 30).
Based on the RTC's line of reasoning, since the bag was in the possession of petitioner Luna, the
aforesaid rule on evidence creates the presumption that the alleged packs of drug specimen found inside
the bag are owned by petitioner Luna, and therefore, the presumption of animus possidendi is
established.
On this point, the RTC seriously erred yet again.
Striking is the clear and categorical admission by SPO3 Parreño on cross-examination that petitioner
Luna is not the owner of the alleged illegal drugs found inside the bag:
Q: He did not. I want you to be honest Mr. Witness, accused Dennis Luna is not actually the owner of
these dangerous drugs that were the subject of your buy-bust operation? You will be honest to tell us
that?
A: Yes, sir, because when we investigated him, he told us that he was just rented by Sexy and he was
given only P400.00. x x x
Q: And he told you that he is just an employee of a certain Carol Bulacan who is the owner of that Toyota
Revo, did he tell you that?
A: According to him he was only a driver renting the vehicle for service, sir.22 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
SPO3 Parreño likewise testified that the bag was not really and effectively controlled by petitioner Luna as
he was merely acting under the instructions of Sexy.23
Therefore, with the unequivocal admission by the prosecution that the alleged bag of drug specimen is
not owned and controlled by petitioner Luna, the RTC's reliance on the presumption of animus
possidendi should be reversed.
Neither can it be said that the factual circumstances in the instant case would have created some
suspicion on the part of any reasonable person that would ordinarily lead such person to verify for
himself/herself the contents of the bag.
Petitioner Luna had no capacity to check the contents of the bag left by Sexy, not only because he had no
right to do so as he was not the owner of the bag and that he was merely a hired driver of a car that was
not owned by him, but because it was physically impossible for him to do so as he was driving the
vehicle and the bag was simply left by Sexy at the backseat of the car that was not easily accessible to
him. Further, petitioner Luna had already previously driven for Sexy on several occasions without any
incident. Hence, the factual circumstances are not enough to have seriously alerted petitioner Luna that
the bag he was asked to deliver on behalf of Sexy contained illegal drugs.
This is in sharp contrast with People v. Peñaflorida, Jr.,24 where the accused therein was convicted for
illegal possession of drugs, even if the latter testified that he lacked knowledge as to the contents of the
package he delivered, because the edges of the marijuana leaves were plainly evident from the outside of
the package, which should have thus reasonably alerted the accused therein as to the presence of illegal
drugs. Such analogous circumstance is not present in the instant case.
The circumstances of the instant case are likewise vastly different to those in People v. Lacerna,25 where
the conviction of the accused therein was upheld because "[h]is bare, unpersuasive, feeble and
uncorroborated disavowal — that the plastic bag was allegedly given to him by his uncle without his
knowing the contents — amounts to a denial which by itself is insufficient to overcome this
presumption."26 In the instant case, petitioner Luna does not merely rely on his own denial. The
prosecution itself, through SPO3 Parreño, admitted that the alleged drug specimen was not owned and
was not controlled by petitioner Luna.
Simply stated, the evidence on record lead to the reasonable but inescapable conclusion that petitioner
Luna had no knowledge and consciousness whatsoever as to the contents of the bag and that he had no
intention whatsoever to possess illegal drugs.
Hence, considering that petitioner Luna enjoys the presumption of innocence, it was incumbent upon the
prosecution to show that there were prior or contemporaneous acts committed by petitioner Luna, as well
as surrounding circumstances, which show that petitioner Luna freely and intentionally possessed the bag
with full knowledge that it contained illegal drugs.
Upon review of the evidence of the prosecution, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to do so.
On cross-examination, SPO3 Parreño, a witness for the prosecution who was part of the buy-bust team,
testified that, according to the information gathered by the authorities prior to the buy-bust operation,
petitioner Luna was never identified to be a part of the group of Peter Angeles and Sexy, the persons
alleged to be involved in illegal drugs:
Q: And during your surveillance, Mr. witness, will you be honest to tell us, that you never
seen (sic) accused Dennis Luna involved with this alias Sexy, correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You also mentioned today about the group of Peter Angeles and at the time of the confiscation of this
(sic) drugs involved in this case[,] there was an information that they are going to transfer the 70 kilos
of shabu and do you also agree with me that accused Dennis Luna was never part of the group of Peter
Angeles according to your information?
A: Yes, sir.27 (Emphasis supplied)
In fact, SPO3 Parreño expressly admitted under oath that petitioner Luna bad nothing to do with the
transaction, referring to the supposed sale of illegal drugs:
Q: Mr. witness at that time when you arrested the accused, is it not a fact that he has nothing to do with
the transaction?
To further bolster petitioner Luna's defense that he in fact had no knowledge that the bag contained illegal
drugs and that he had no intention whatsoever to possess illegal drugs, SPO3 Parreño testified that
during the buy-bust operation, petitioner Luna merely told him that he was just instructed by Sexy to
deliver the bag, revealing that there was no clear indication that petitioner Luna actually knew the
contents of the bag retrieved:
Q: But Mr. Witness, accused Dennis Luna did not even bother to see what's inside the bag, he did not
even bother to see what's inside the bag before he told you that there is a bag there intended for you?
You did not even mention in your affidavit that he checked the bag that you carry with you (sic)?
A: Yes, sir.29
These admissions on the part of the prosecution reinforce the defense's theory that petitioner Luna really
had no knowledge as to the contents of the bag he was asked to deliver to Mike as he was merely a hired
driver asked to deliver items in behalf of his clients.
Simply stated, there is a dearth of evidence on record showing that petitioner Luna had actual knowledge
of the contents of the bag or that there is reasonable expectation to believe that petitioner Luna knew or
should have known what was inside the bag. Necessarily, without knowledge as to the contents of the
bag, petitioner Luna could not have intended to possess illegal drugs.
In sum, upon careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed
to satisfy the required quantum of evidence that would show that petitioner Luna had knowledge as to the
contents of the bag seized by the police. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
there was animus possidendi on the part of petitioner Luna. Therefore, petitioner Luna is acquitted of the
crime charged against him.
There is reasonable doubt as to the

integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized packs of drug specimen
Even assuming arguendo that petitioner Luna constructively possessed the packs of drug specimen
found inside the bag, all the same, the Court acquits petitioner Luna as there is serious doubt in the mind
of the Court with respect to the integrity and evidentiary value of the packs of drug specimen retrieved.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden of proving these elements, but
also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the
very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.30 While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally
effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and
distributors,31 the law nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to
ensure that rights are safeguarded.
In all drugs cases, therefore, compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that
follows such operation. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation, to receipt in the forensic
laboratory, to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction.32 The rule is imperative, as it is
essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance
offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt.33
In this connection, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,34 the applicable law at the time of the
commission of the alleged crimes, lays down the procedure that police operatives must follow to maintain
the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence. The provision requires that: (1) the seized items
be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and
photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or
counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from
the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.
This must be so because the possibility of abuse is great, given the very nature of anti-narcotics
operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with
which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting
provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals.35
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 further requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. The said
inventory must be done in the presence of the aforementioned required witness, all of whom shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The phrase "immediately after
seize and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended
by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension.
It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the apprehending team reaches the
nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.36 In this connection, this
also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of
apprehension — a requirement that could easily be complied with by the apprehending team considering
that the operation was a planned activity. In fact, prior to the operation, the team was able to procure a
search warrant. Verily, the authorities had more than enough time to gather and bring with them the said
witnesses and ensure the strict observance of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
In the instant case, it cannot be denied that the authorities seriously and, in a wholesale manner, swept
aside the compulsory procedures mandated under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
First, the inventory and marking of the evidence allegedly retrieved were not done immediately after the
seizure of the packs of drug specimen at the area where the buy-bust operation was conducted.
As testified by SPO3 Parreño, after the apprehension of petitioner Luna by the buy-bust team, the team
proceeded to "[its] office for proper investigation and disposition, [referring to Camp Crame, Quezon
City.]"37
On cross-examination, when asked as to why the inventory was not conducted at the place where
petitioner Luna was arrested as mandated under the law, SPO3 Parreño answered: "because we were
exhausted at that time."38 It goes without saying that mere exhaustion and weariness are unacceptable
and obviously do not warrant a departure of the mandatory rules of procedure under the law.
To stress once more, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandatorily requires the apprehending team to
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after
seizure and confiscation at the place of apprehension. Further, to reiterate, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165
allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the apprehending team reaches the nearest
police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.39 There is no clear showing that the
police station where the authorities conducted the inventory and marking is the nearest police station or
nearest office of the apprehending team from the place of the apprehension.
Second, the prosecution readily admits that there were no representatives from the media, the DOJ, and
an elected official who witnessed the inventory and marking of the evidence seized.
As unequivocally admitted by SPO3 Parreño, none of the required witnesses was present during the
inventory and that the buy-bust team failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165:
Q: So there was no representative from the media, there was no representative from the Department of
Justice and there was nobody who was an elected official who witnessed the inventory?
A: Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q: Mr. Witness, since there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ, you will be honest to
tell us now that you did not comply with Section 21 as you said?
There is no acceptable and reasonable excuse that the prosecution can offer to account for the failure of
the authorities to fulfill the mandatory rules on witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because, as
admitted by a witness of the prosecution, PO1 Glen Marlon Caluag, the police had more than enough
time to ask procure the presence of the witnesses, yet failed to do so:
Q: You have more than enough time to ask from the representative of the DOJ, the media and any
elected official to [witness] the intended buy-bust operation on July 28, 2005?
The Court must again stress that the procedural requirements laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
purpose.ℒαwρhi ৷ In People v. Tomawis,42 the Court explained that these requirements are crucial in
is mandatory, and that the law imposes these requirements to serve an essential
safeguarding the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the evidence:
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to
protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of
the Court in People v. Mendoza,43 without the insulating presence of the representative from the media
or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of
switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the
regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the
integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that were evidence of
the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.44
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more
importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest.
It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the
time of seize and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the
seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses
would also controvert the usual defense of frame up as the witnesses would be able testify that the buy-
bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section
21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when
they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and
photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not
achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of
drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must
be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or
near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and
photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and
confiscation."45 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
Regrettably, both the RTC and CA seriously overlooked the long-standing legal tenet that the starting
point of every criminal prosecution is that the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed
innocent,46 and this presumption of innocence is overturned only when the prosecution has discharged
its burden of proof in criminal cases, and has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.47 The procurement must prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to
warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.48 Differently
stated, there must exist no reasonable doubt as to the existence of each and every element of the crime
to sustain a conviction.
Concededly, Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides that "noncompliance of 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 and
custody over said items[.]" For this provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first (1)
recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and (2) be able to justify the same.49
In this case, to reiterate, the prosecution failed to sufficiently justify its blatant deviation from the
procedure contained in Section 21, R.A. No. 9165.
Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the police officers, left insufficiently
justified by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti would necessarily have been compromised.50 As
the Court explained in People v. Reyes:51
Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a saving mechanism has
been provided to ensure that not every case of non-compliance with the procedures for the preservation
of the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's case against the accused. To warrant
the application of this saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses,
and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be the basis for applying the saving
mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and did not even tender any token
justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain underscored the doubt and suspicion
about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been
compromised, the accused deserves acquittal.52 (Emphasis supplied)
In People v. Umipang,53 the Court dealt with the same issue where the police officers involved did not
show any genuine effort to secure the attendance of the required witnesses before the buy-bust operation
was executed. In the said case, the Court held:
Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory and the marking of the seized
items does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. However, we take note that,
in this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even attempt to contact the barangay chairperson or any member of
the barangay council. There is no indication that they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do
the records show whether the police officers tried to get in touch with any DOJ representative. Nor does
the SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason for failing to do so — especially considering that it had
sufficient time from the moment it received information about the activities of the accused until the time of
his arrest.
Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the apprehending police
officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement
that representatives were unavailable — without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts
were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances — is to be regarded as a flimsy
excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts
were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165, or
that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.54 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Therefore, considering the foregoing, the Court acquits petitioner Luna of the offense of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 because the prosecution failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the existence of animus possidendi on the part of petitioner Luna and failed to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence supposedly seized during the operation.
Final Note
The Court is aware that the amount of drugs involved in this case is not miniscule and thus may create
the appearance that the same cannot be planted, switched, or tampered with. However, the Court has
consistently emphasized that the requirements of Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be
brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality, or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction
of illegal drugs suspects. Thus, regardless of the amount involved, the Court must not create an exception
and the policemen who miserably failed to follow the requirements under Section 21 must see the gravity
of the consequences of their actions. Apropos to this, the Court stresses its pronouncement in People v.
Luna:55
The law, being a creature of justice, is blind towards both the guilty and the innocent. The Court, as
justice incarnate, must then be relentless in exacting the standards laid down by our laws — in fact, the
Court can do no less. For when the fundamental rights of life and liberty are already hanging in the
balance, it is the Court that must, at the risk of letting the guilty go unpunished, remain unforgiving in its
calling. And if the guilty does go unpunished, then that is on the police and the prosecution — that is for
them to explain to the People.56
It is unfortunate that petitioner Luna, the accused in this case, took the fall for the real menaces in society
— the drug dealers who ultimately profit from the proliferation of dangerous drugs. Instead of pinning
petitioner Luna, the agents of the State could have very well utilized him to go after the people who are
most guilty. In a disastrous turn of events, however, an innocent driver was prosecuted to no end, and
suffered the consequences for simply trying to make a living through legitimate means. This
shortsightedness puts into question not only the integrity of the corpus delicti, but the very efforts of the
State agents to curtail the drug problem.
The Court shares the belief that the menace of illegal drugs must be curtailed with resoluteness and
determination. However, in the process of eliminating the drug menace, the authorities should not resort
to shortcuts and quick fixes, as they did in the instant case. The constitutional right to due process should
never be sacrificed for the sheer sake of convenience. The rule of law should never be compromised.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated January 5,
2017 and the Resolution dated May 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07733 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, petitioner Dennis Oliver Castronuevo Luna is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the
ground of reasonable doubt and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is
being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prisons,
Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court
within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
10. Nisperos vs. People, GR No. 250927, November 29, 2022
G.R. No. 250927 – Criminal Law – Special Penal Laws – R.A. 9165; Dangerous Drugs Act – Section 21;
Presence of Insulating Witnesses; Mandatory but they need not witness actual buy-bust
Marking of drug evidence must be done immediately after seizure
In June 2015, Mario Nisperos was arrested in a buy-bust operation. During trial, the DOJ representative
admitted that he was thirty minutes late and that when he was first shown the alleged drug items seized
from Nisperos, they were unmarked.
ISSUE: Whether or not Nisperos should be acquitted.
HELD: Yes.
Firstly, the marking, which is the first step in the chain of custody, must be done immediately after seizure.
The marking must be done in the presence of the offender except if the offender eluded arrest. Here, the
drug evidence was not immediately marked because, as admitted by the DOJ representative, the drug
evidence was still unmarked when they were shown to him.
Secondly, the inventory must be done immediately after the seizure and marking. The inventory must be
done in the presence of the insulating witnesses. Here, the DOJ representative was late. Hence, the
requirement that the inventory must be made immediately after the seizure was not complied with.
In warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present “at or
near” the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, in order to comply with the statutory rule that the
inventory should be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation. Since they may be present
“near” the place of apprehension, they need not witness the arrest itself or the seizure or confiscation of
the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They only need to be readily available to witness the immediately
ensuing inventory.
In sum, in buy-bust operations, the following must be observed:
1. The marking of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:
a. Immediately upon confiscation;
b. At the place of confiscation; and
c. In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest);
2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:
a. Immediately after seizure and confiscation;
b. 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; and
c. Also in the presence of the insulating witnesses;
3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and
prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item/s.
11. People vs. Flores, GR No. 262686, October 11, 2023
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GERALD FLORES Y ALAGDON,

HARROLD FRANCISCO Y GABAT A.K.A. "PUNONOY", AND LOUIE TRUELEN Y GREZOLA,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
DECISION
GAERLAN, J.:
Before the Court is a Notice of Appeal1 filed relative to the Decision2 dated December 22, 2020 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11650. Said Decision of the CA is an affirmation and slight
modification of the Joint Decision3 dated January 19, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City, Branch 77, which convicted Gerald Flores y Alagdon, Harrold Francisco y Gabat a.k.a. "Punonoy",
and Louie Truelen y Grezola (accused-appellants) in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14780-CR for violation
of Section 5 (sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended. Said Joint
Decision of the trial court also convicted accused-appellant Loui G. Truelen (Truelen) in Criminal Case
No. R-QZN-16-14784-CR for violation of Section 13 (possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social
gatherings or meetings) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
Factual Antecedents
The Information4 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14780-CR states, thus:
INFORMATION
The undersigned accuses GERALD FLORE y ALAGDON, also known as "GERALD" [sic], HARROLD
FRANCISCO y GABAT, also known as "PUNONOY," and LOUIE TRUELEN y GREZOLA, also known as
"LOUIE" [sic], of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drug[s] Act of 2002), committed as follows:
That, on or about the 12th day of December 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, without lawful authority, did
then and there willfully [and] unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing zero point ten (0.10) gram[s] of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Quezon City, Philippines. December 14, 2016.5
Additionally, the Information6 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14784-CR states the following:
INFORMATION
The undersigned accuses LOUIE TRUELEN y GREZOLA, also known as "LOUIE" [sic], of the crime of
Violation of Section 13, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug[s] Act of
2002), committed as follows:
That, on or about the 12th day of December 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not
being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously and knowingly [sic] have in his possession and control one (1) small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero five (0.05) gram[s] of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting or in the proximate company of at least
two (2) persons, in violation of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Quezon City, Philippines. December 14, 2016.7
The foregoing indictments were filed in court as a result of the Amended Resolution8 of the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Quezon City in Inquest Case No. XV-03-INQ-16L-06301. Attached to the said
Amended Resolution is the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension9 executed by Police Officer (PO) 1 Emmer
Amar (PO1 Amar), PO1 Lesly Allan Corpuz (PO1 Corpuz), and PO1 Sherwin Bumagat (PO1 Bumagat),
who were then members of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs - Special Operations Task Group of Novaliches
Police Station 4 of the Quezon City Police Department (QCPD). These police officers essentially alleged
that on December 12, 2016 at about 8:20 p.m., a confidential informant informed them of the alleged
illegal activities of accused-appellant Gerald Flores y Alagdon (Flores), whom the confidential informant
tagged as a drug "pusher" who plied his trade in Area 6, Sitio Cabuyao, Barangay Sauyo, Novaliches,
Quezon City. A buy-bust operation was then organized, with PO1 Amar designated as the poseur-buyer
and PO1 Corpuz and PO1 Bumagat designated as perimeter back-up.
That same night at about 8:45 p.m., the confidential informant supposedly contacted "GERALD" for
the purchase of shabu worth ₱500.00 at the instructions of the police officers. "GERALD" then apparently
instructed the confidential informant to proceed directly to the farmer's house located in Area 6
in Sitio Cabuyao for the consummation of the drug transaction. The buy-bust team arrived discreetly
thereat at around 9:00 p.m., and they spotted all accused-appellants standing in front of the identified
house. The confidential informant and PO1 Amar approached them and thus conducted the drug
transaction with the marked ₱500.00 bill with serial no. CQ665954.
The conversation relative to the said drug transaction was brief. "GERALD" uttered the following to
PO1 Amar: "[k]asang lima ba kukunin mo? Akin na limang daan." PO1 Amar, thereafter, handed over the
marked money over to "GERALD," and the latter then instructed his companion "PUNONOY" to give PO1
Amar one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which
"PUNONOY" is said to have pulled out from the garter around the waist of his undergarment. PO1 Amar
then commented "pare, talo naman 'tong bigay niyo," to which "GERALD" answered "t*ngina, parehas
yan, pare." "GERALD" then is said to have instructed "LOUIE" to weigh the sold product inside the
identified house. PO1 Amar went with "LOUIE" into the house, where the latter confirmed the weight of
the sold product. PO1 Amar then casually exited the front door of the house and gave the pre-arranged
signal of removing his bull cap. The buy-bust team then closed in and arrested all accused-appellants.
A total of four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance were
recovered and confiscated: the one sold to PO1 Amar (0.10 gram, marked as EA-GF-12-12-16); another
confiscated "GERALD" after frisking the same (0.12 gram, marked as EA-GF1-12-12-16); the one
confiscated from "PUNONOY" after frisking the same (0.03 gram, marked as LC-HF-12-12-16); and the
one recovered from "LOUIE" (0.05 gram, marked as SB-LT1-12-12-16). Confiscated from "LOUIE" as well
was one digital weighing scale (marked as SB-LT-12-12-16). All accused-appellants were read their
constitutional rights. Crucially, the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension states the following important
paragraphs:
12. That, after we marked the recovered pieces of evidence at the place of arrest and we're [sic]
about to conduct the inventory, several bystanders started shouting invective words against us and to
prevent unnecessary injuries and damage to our service vehicle we decided to directly proceed to the
police station.
13. That, the apprehended suspect[s] w[ere] brought to our Office and presented to the duty desk
Officer together with the seized evidence for investigation and proper disposition.
14. That, we (PO1 Amar, PO1 Bumagat and PO1 Corpuz) in compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165,
prepared inventory and chain of custody upon arrival at our Office.10
The Chemistry Report No. D-2256-16,11 which was issued by the QCPD Crime Laboratory Office
Station 10, confirmed that all specimens contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. It is also
evident from the record that the arresting officers duly accomplished the Chain of Custody Form12 and
the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property Form.13 At the bottom of the latter appear the names
and signatures of the following insulating witnesses: Jun E. Tobias, a senior reporter for the media
outlet Hirit/Saksi, and Nelson N. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), a barangay kagawad. The press identification
card of the media representative Jun Tobias (Tobias) is attached to the record,14 but there appears to be
no other document that identifies Kagawad Dela Cruz as such.1aшphi1
Trial ensued after the arraignment of the Accused-Appellants. On the witness stand, PO1 Amar
testified as to the circumstances he personally knew of the buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of
Accused-Appellants and the confiscation of the drugs, by which basically confirmed the details of the Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension.15 He also confirmed the fact that the buy-bust team failed to make any
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) before the buy-bust operation itself
due to the urgency presented by the supposed need of "GERALD" to unload and sell his drug inventory
immediately in order to remit to his suppliers,16 and that the buy-bust team failed to take any pictures of
the marking of the confiscated items at the place of arrest.17 The confiscated items were duly turned over
to the investigator, PO1 John Dalle Ang (PO1 Ang), who then returned the same to the arresting officers
for safekeeping and eventual turnover to the crime laboratory, as evidenced by the record of the Chain of
Custody Form.
Also, the following pertinent lines from PO1 Amar's testimony stand out:
Q: Where did you make these markings at the area of the arrest?
A: Yes, sir. [sic]
Q: How about the inventory, would you know if there was an inventory conducted in connection with the
recovered items?
A: Sir, we conducted the inventory at the police station.
Q: Why did you make the inventory in the police station and not in the area where you arrested the accused
in this case?
A: We can't the inventory [sic], sir, because there are several persons who are approaching and asking me
"Ano 'yan?" And they are starting a commotion, sir.
Q: And who were present in order to witness the conduct of the inventory of the items seized?
A: The media representative, sir, Jun Tobias and the barangay official, sir, Nelson dela Cruz, sir.18
xxxx
Q: You made mention a while ago that there were [sic] a media representative who witnessed the conduct of
the inventory?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In the person of Jun Tobias. What proof do you have to show to this Court that indeed he is a media
personality?
A: Sir, he presented to us his ID, sir, and Jun Tobias was a regular representative every time we have a buy-
bust operation, sir, we contacted him to witness.
Q: I'm showing to you an ID of a certain purportedly [sic] Jun Tobias, can you go over this ID and tell us if that
[sic] is the ID you are referring to?
A: Yes, sir. That is the ID.
ACP BADIOLA:
May we pray, your Honor, that the ID identified to [sic] by the witness be marked in
evidence for the prosecution as Exhibit "C-1," your Honor.
COURT:
"C-1," mark it.

ACP BADIOLA:
No, your Honor. I'm sorry, your Honor. The picture, your honor, as "D-1."
COURT:
Mark it. "D-1."19
xxxx
Q: Who contacted the media representative?
A: Our team leader, sir.
Q: And how long did he [sic] take him to arrive?
A: Saglit lang din, sir. Not too long, sir, because Mr. Tobias is from Bagbag, so it took him at least 15-30
minutes, sir.
Q: Was he present at the time the recovered evidence were being inventoried?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was he present all the time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any proof that he was present at the time of the inventory?
A: Yes, sir. He has his signature and the ID, sir.
Q: Aside from that, Mr. Witness, do you have any proof that it [sic] being inventoried at the presence [sic] of
the media representative?
ACP BADIOLA:
Already answered, your Honor.20
The testimony of PO1 Bumagat indicates the following relative to the presence of the insulating
witnesses during the inventory at the police station, viz.:
Q: You said the inventory was witnessed by Kag. Nelson Dela Cruz. Do you have any prove [sic] to show that
indeed Dela Cruz was present at the time?
A: His signature, sir.
Q: How about Tobias, the reporter, do you have any prove [sic] to show that indeed, he was present also to
witness the conduct of the inventory?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What prove [sic] do you have?
A: His signature and his ID, sir.
Q: You mention [sic] of an ID of Jun Tobias. If shown to you said ID, will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I'm showing to you an ID of [a] certain Jun Tobias, is this the ID that you are referring to, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes sir.
FISCAL BADIOLA:
May I pray, your Honor, that this ID identified to [sic] by the witness be marked in evidence for the
prosecution as Exhibit "D-1," your Honor.
COURT:
Mark it.21
xxxx
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, when you arrived at the police station, was this Kagawad already present?
A: Our team leader called the kagawad, sir.
Q: Do you know where did this kagawad comes from? How long did you have to wait for him to arrived [sic]?
A: Around 15 minutes.
Q: And during that [sic] 15 minutes, what were you doing?
A: We were just in the station, sir.
Q: Did the kagawad witnessed [sic] the actual inventory?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was there [a] picture depicting the kagawad actually witnessing the inventory?
A: None.
Q: So, aside from the signature, Mr. Witness, what other proof [is there] that the kagawad actually witnessed
the inventory?
A: Siya po.
COURT:
Ano daw ebidensiya mo na nakita niya yung imbentaryo?

WITNESS:
Signature lang po.
ATTY. SESE:
That is all, your Honor, for the cross.22
In their defense, all accused-appellants took to the witness stand. Accused-appellant Flores narrated
that police officers in civilian attire suddenly barged into his house on the night of December 12, 2016 and
were actually searching for a certain "Jun Pugad."23 He averred that the said police officers had beaten
him and brought him directly to the police station thereafter.24 Accused-appellants Harrold Francisco y
Gabat and Truelen, for their part, also testified that they were arrested by aimed police officers in civilian
attire who were looking for a certain "Jun Pugad." Crucially, accused-appellants Flores and Truelen
averred that they were subjected to drug tests and that they spent some time in a different police
precinct before they were brought back to QCPD Station 4.25 After their testimonies, the case was
deemed submitted for decision subject to the submission of the parties' respective trial memoranda.26
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Joint Decision dated January 19, 2018, the RTC-Quezon City convicted all accused-appellants
as follows:
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
1. WHEREFORE, Above premises considered [sic], Accused GERALD FLORES y Alagdon,

HARROLD FRANCISCO y Gabat and LOUIE TRUELEN y Grezola are FOUND GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT in [C]riminal [C]ase no. R-QZN-16-14780-CR, for selling and trading without
authority of law, [0.10 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. They are hereby sentenced to suffer
lifetime imprisonment, and to pay the FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) each;
2. Accused LOUIE TRUELEN y Grezola is FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for
violation of Section 13, Republic Act 9165, in [C]riminal [C]ase no. R-QZN-16-14784-CR, for possession
and having in his control and custody [0.05 gram[s] of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the proximate
company of at least two persons. He is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for twenty (20) years,
and to pay the FINE of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00);
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately turn over to the Chief of [the] PDEA Crime
Laboratory, the subject drugs to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of R.A. 9165 and its
implementing rules and regulations in the matter.
Issue mittimus.
SO ORDERED.27
In fine, the trial court reasoned that there was a legitimate buy-bust operation and the same was not
affected by the fact that there was no preparatory coordination with PDEA. Additionally, the RTC-Quezon
City simply noted that the police officers' actions enjoyed the presumption of regularity absent any
showing of ill motive or intent on the part of the police officers to illegally incriminate accused-appellants.
The trial court also noted that the police officers' testimonies were made categorically and positively, and
that the prosecution's presentation of the Chain of Custody Form shows that the police officers took pains
in assuring the integrity of the confiscated items. Finally, the mere unsubstantiated denials of accused-
appellants cannot overcome the prosecution's evidence.
Accused-appellants accordingly interposed their Notice of Appeal.28
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision dated December 22, 2020, the CA ruled as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, we MODIFY the Joint Decision dated 19 January 2018 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 77, Quezon City, as follows:
1.) [I]n Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14780-CR, we find the appellant Gerald Flores y Alagdon a.k.a.
"Gerald," the appellant Harrold Francisco y Gabat a.k.a. "Punonoy," and the appellant Louie Truelen y
Grezola a.k.a. "Louie," GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and
sentence them to life imprisonment, and to pay the fine of P500,000.00; and
2.) [I]n Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14784-CR we find the appellant Loeuie Truelen y Grezola a.k.a
"Louie," GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs In The Company of
At Least Two Persons [sic], and sentence him to life imprisonment, and to pay the fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED.29
The appellate court basically reasoned that the prosecution below had been able to prove all the
elements of the crimes charged, as well as all four links of the chain of custody. The CA categorically
stated that "[i]t is clear that there was no significant gap in the chain of custody of the contraband," and
that the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses "all proved that the police preserved the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal substance[s]."30
Hence, the instant Notice of Appeal.
Further Preliminaries
At this stage, the Court must note for the record the Letter31 dated March 22, 2023 of Corrections
Chief Inspector Josemari D. Alambro, Acting Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, which informs of
the death of accused-appellant Truelen on June 17, 2021 while in detention. The accompanying
Certificate of Death32 and Notice of Death33 were also attached to the record. As such, and in
accordance with Article 89, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the "Revised Penal Code,"
the criminal liability of accused-appellant Truelen has thus been totally extinguished. Accordingly, his
conviction in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14784-CR must be set aside, and the said case must be
dismissed, closed, and terminated.
The Court also notes the Manifestation and Motion34 of the Office of the Solicitor General filed on
behalf of plaintiff-appellee, which respectfully prays that plaintiff-appellee be excused from filing a
supplemental brief due to the exhaustive and judicious ruling of the appellate court. The Court also notes
as well the Manifestation35 of the Public Attorney's Office on behalf of accused-appellants, which informs
of their decision not to file their supplemental brief in order to avoid repetition of the issues and
arguments.
Issue before the Court
The sole issue for the Court's consideration is whether the present appeal vis-à-vis the remaining
accused-appellants should be granted after a careful review of both evidence on record and the rulings of
the trial and appellate courts.
Ruling of the Court

The Court grants the present appeal, and accordingly, the remaining accused-appellants are
acquitted.
The Court must first discuss the applicability of the presumption of regularity vis-à-vis the performance
of the police officers' duties in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the marking and inventory of the
confiscated evidence. It is apparent from the trial court's Joint Decision that it cited very outdated
jurisprudence relative to the applicability of the said presumption to drug cases.36 These have been
overtaken by more recent rulings such as, and especially, People v. Ordiz.37 In the said case the Court
categorically stated that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of law enforcement duties and
functions could not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, viz.:
In convicting accused-appellant Ordiz, both the RTC and CA relied so much on the presumption of
regularity and the weak defense offered by accused-appellant Ordiz. It is well to point out that while the
RTC and the CA were correct in stating that denial is an inherently weak defense, it grievously erred in
using the same principle to convict accused-appellant Ordiz. Simply put, the presumption of regularity
in the conduct of police officers cannot trump the constitutional right to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty.
Both courts overlooked the long-standing legal tenet that the starting point of every criminal
prosecution is that the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent. And this
presumption of innocence is overturned only when the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof in
criminal cases: and has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, by proving each and
every element of the crime charged in the information, to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any
other crime necessarily included therein. Differently stated, there must exist no reasonable doubt as to the
existence of each and every element of the crime to sustain a conviction.
It is worth emphasizing that this burden of proof never shifts. Indeed, the accused need not
present a single piece of evidence in his defense if the State has not discharged its onus. The accused
can simply rely on his right to be presumed innocent. In this connection, the prosecution therefore, in
cases involving dangerous drugs, always has the burden of establishing the elements of the clime, as
well as compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. x x x
xxxx
The Court stresses that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot
overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of
evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. xxx
xxxx
Premises considered, owing to the prosecution's miserable failure in establishing beyond reasonable
doubt the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, coupled with the blatant non-
observance of the chain of custody rule due to the non-establishment of the key links of the chain of
custody, as well as the wholesale violation of Section 21 of RA 9165 on the part of the PNP, the Court
acquits accused-appellant Ordiz of the crime charged.
The Court is aware that, in several instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence
to extract information or even to harass civilians. In light of this grim reality, the Court finds highly
reprehensible the police authorities' complete and utter disregard of the mandatory requirements under
RA 9165 that ensure the integrity and reliability of buy-bust operations. Equally reprehensible is the RTC's
and CA's attitude of obliviousness over the PNP's clear and palpable failure to establish accused-
appellant Ordiz's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For the guidance of the Bar, the Bench, and the public,
the instant case is an exemplar of ineptitude and careless abandon on the part of the PNP, the
prosecution, the trial court, and the appellate court in upholding the basic constitutional right of
presumption of innocence. The clear and manifest negligence exhibited in convicting accused-appellant
Ordiz has led to the unjust incarceration of an innocent person for almost 15 years. No decision
overturning the conviction of accused-appellant Ordiz can fully rectify this grave injustice.
Therefore, the Court sternly reminds the trial and appellate courts to exercise extra vigilance
in trying drug cases and directs the PNP to conduct an investigation on this incident and other
similar cases, lest innocent persons, most of whom come from the marginalized sectors of
society, be made to unjustly suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.38 (Emphases,
italics, and underscoring in the original citations omitted)
The Court put heavy emphases on the constitutional importance and primacy of the presumption of
innocence by stating the following as a final note, viz.:
The Court believes that the menace of illegal drugs must be curtailed with
resoluteness and determination. Our Constitution declares that the maintenance of peace
and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general
welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
Nevertheless, the authorities' perpetration of violations of the constitutional rights of due
process and the presumption of innocence in the name of peace and order cannot be
accepted.
By sacrificing the sacred and indelible rights to due process and presumption of
innocence for the sheer sake of convenience and expediency, the very maintenance of
peace and order sought after is rendered wholly nugatory. By thrashing basic
constitutional rights as a means to curtail the proliferation of illegal drugs, instead of
protecting the general welfare, oppositely, the general welfare is viciously assaulted. This
cannot be so in our constitutional order.39
It is thus the Court's duty in appeals such as this to determine whether the police officers in turn
followed their duties, especially with regard to the rules on chain of custody as defined by the strictures of
extant jurisprudence that operationalize the provisions of law.
In particular, Section 21, paragraph 1 of RA. No. 9165, as amended by Section 1 of R.A. No. 10640,
mandates the following:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of [sic] 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 and custody over said items. (Emphases, italics, and underscore supplied)
The Court has recently elaborated on the operationalization of this critical provision in People v.
Tomawis,40 viz.:
Section 21 plainly requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. In addition, the
inventory must be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel, or representative, a
representative of the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official, who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. And only if this is not practicable, the IRR allows that the inventory and photographing
could be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team. By the same token, however, this also means that the three required
witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension—a requirement that can
easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by nature, a
planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said
witnesses.
The buy-bust team in this case utterly failed to comply with these requirements. To start, the conduct
of the inventory in this case was not conducted immediately at the place of arrest but at the barangay hall
of Pinyahan, Quezon City, as explained by the buy-bust team of the PDEA, IO1 Alejandro and IO1 Lacap,
they could not conduct the inventory at Starmall, Alabang, because a commotion ensued as bystanders in
the food court tried to assist Tomawis who shouted for help. Evidently, this happened because the buy-
bust operation was conducted in a shopping mall.
While the IRR allows alternative places for the conduct of the inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs, the requirement of having the three required witnesses to be physically present at the time
or near the place of apprehension, is not dispensed with. The reason is simple, it is at the time of arrest—
or at the time of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation"—that the presence of the three witnesses is most
needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the
police practice of planting evidence.41 (Emphases in the original)
In the same case, the Court also elaborated on the reasons behind the law's strict requirement of the
presence of the mandatory "insulating" witnesses, viz.:
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to
protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of
the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or
the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching,
"planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of
RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and
thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more
importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest.
It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at
the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of
the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating
witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify
that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance
with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses,
when they could easily do so—and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and
photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished—does not achieve
the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs
must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be
at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and
photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and
confiscation."42 (Emphases, italics, and underscoring in the original)
More recently, the Court's latest landmark pronouncement in Nisperos v. People43 (Nisperos)
clarified that the mandatory insulating witnesses "are not required to Witness the arrest and the seizure or
confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They need only be readily available to witness the
immediately ensuing inventory."44 The Court therein also issued the following guidelines for strict
compliance with, and adherence to, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, by law enforcement
officers and personnel, viz.:
In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our law enforcement officers, the
Court hereby adopts the following guidelines:
1. The marking of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:
a. Immediately upon confiscation;
b. At the place of confiscation; and
c. In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest);
2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:
a. Immediately after seizure and confiscation;
b. 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; and
c. Also in the presence of the insulating witnesses, as follows:
i. if the seizure occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No. 9165, or from July 4, 2002
until August 6, 2014, the presence of three (3) witnesses, namely, an elected
public official; a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative; and a media
representative;
ii. if the seizure occurred after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640, or from August 7,
2014 onward, the presence of two (2) witnesses, namely, an elected public
official; and a National Prosecution Service representative or a media
representative.
3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and
prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item/s.45 (Italics in the original)
Going now to the application of the foregoing guidelines and jurisprudential precedents to the instant
appeal, the Court immediately notes that both the trial and appellate courts seem to have overlooked
some critical inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence which, had they been able to spot early on,
would have immediately cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case against accused-appellants.
The most glaring inconsistency here is the fact that the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension categorically
states the start of the buy-bust operation at 9:00 p.m. of the night in question,46 in contrast to the time
indicated on the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property Form, which is also 9:00 p.m.47 This
alone already casts doubt as to the prosecution's version of events. Although one may make an educated
guess as to when the said inventory form was accomplished by simply checking the Chain of Custody
Form48 and the Investigator's Affidavit49 – which would indicate 9:40 PM as the time when the
confiscated items were turned over by the arresting officers to the assigned investigator (i.e., PO1 Ang) –
this critical discrepancy was still not explained by the prosecution at all.
The doubt as to what time the inventory of the confiscated items was actually conducted is all the
more exacerbated by another critical lacuna that seems to have escaped both the trial and appellate
courts: proof of the presence of the insulating witnesses during the inventory itself. The Court immediately
notes that the signature of Tobias, the senior reporter for Hirit/Saksi, on the inventory form does not
match at all the signature as indicated on his identification card.50 More crucially, there is nothing
attached to the record that attests to both the identity and credentials of the supposed barangay
kagawad, i.e., Dela Cruz. This is despite the trial court's insistent questioning during trial regarding the
identification card of the media representative, i.e., Tobias, which was duly marked and presented as
evidence by the prosecution.51 This is also besides the fact that the record indicates undoubtedly that
both witnesses took at least 15 minutes to arrive at Novaliches Police Station 4 after the police officers
contacted them and requested their presence for the required inventory.
Thus, the doubt cast over the case is ironically clear: there is troubling uncertainty with regard to the
time of the actual conduct of the inventory, and the presence of the mandatory insulating witnesses is
also put into question due to the deficiencies in the inventory form itself. Moreover, it is evident from the
admissions under oath of the police officers that the insulating witnesses were not readily available for
performance of their statutory functions, since it took them a significant amount of time – and 15 minutes
or more is no small amount of time when it comes to law enforcement operations – to arrive at the police
station. These all shatter the presumption of regularity here of the performance of the police officers'
duties with respect to the first link in the chain of custody, and they essentially put the prosecution's case
on an untenable evidentiary foundation.
Anent the specific issue of the deficiencies in the inventory form – which the Court is forced to discuss
due to the focus of the trial court on the same but which the trial court also failed to discuss in detail in its
Joint Decision – the Court notes that Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No.
10640 and standing jurisprudence simply require the presence of the mandatory insulating witnesses
during the inventory of the confiscated items, and their signatures on the said inventory form. These are
the substantive requirements of the law, which cannot be done away with, save for a subsequent
amendment to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 by the legislature. However, to necessarily comply with these
substantive requirements, proof of the same in accordance with standing procedural precepts is
necessary. This simply means that there needs to be proof of the mandatory insulating witnesses' identity
and credentials that comply with the extant rules on evidence – a requirement plain and simple enough.
However, this is admittedly a hidden aspect of Section 21 that has regrettably been taken for granted
by trial courts, the CA, and even by this Court over the years. Also, this is because evidentiary issues
regarding the identities and credentials of mandatory insulating witnesses have not reached the Court for
adjudication – until now. It must be emphasized that it is the trial court's own questions during trial below
which have forced the issue wide and open in this appeal. For the trial court here to have elicited
responses from the police officers that point to the lack of proof of the presence, identities, and
credentials of the insulating witnesses – only to simply make a pro forma declaration that the rules on the
chain of custody were fully complied with – is sheer en-or on its part. The trial court was obligated to fully
discuss how it weighed the evidence or lack thereof, even if not timely raised or pointed out by the
defense.
It may be raised, however, as a counter-point to the lack of proof of identities and credentials of the
mandatory insulating witnesses that there exists a disputable presumption under Rule 131, Section 3,
paragraph (l) of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence "[t]hat a person acting in a public office was
regularly appointed or elected to it." This is all the more critical with regard to the elected public official
and the National Prosecution Service representative. Former Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta and
incumbent CA Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., in their recent seminal treatise on the 2019
Revised Rules on Evidence, stated thus:
In Section 3(l), even in the absence of a written appointment to a public office, a strong
presumption that a public officer, including a person acting in an official capacity, had been
duly elected or appointed and is equipped with the requisite qualification. The reason of
the presumption is that it would cause great inconvenience if, in the first instance, strict
proof were required of appointment or election to office in all cases where it might be only
collaterally in issue and it imposes no hardship, in most cases, to indulge the presumption
that one assuming to be a public officer is not an intruder and violator of the law.52
However, the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence has a new provision that deals specifically with
presumptions in criminal cases. Rule 131, Section 6 states that "[i]f a presumed fact that establishes guilt,
is an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable
doubt."
Applying the same to the present appeal due to its favorability to herein Accused-Appellants, the
Court is thus reminded of its ruling in Mabunga v. People,53 whereby it elucidated the following
paragraphs on presumptions in criminal cases:
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another factor group of
facts found or otherwise established in the action. It is an "inference as to the existence of a fact not
actually known, arising from its usual connection with another which is known, or a conjecture based on
past experience as to what course of human affairs ordinarily take."
A presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the party who would be disadvantaged
by a finding of the presumed fact.1aшphi1 The presumption controls decision on the presumed fact
unless there is counterproof that the presumed fact is not so.
In criminal cases, however, presumptions should be taken with caution especially in light of
serious concerns that they might water down the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
As special considerations must be given to the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent,
there should be limits to the use of presumptions against an accused.54 (Emphasis supplied)
To see how this applies to the present appeal may take some effort, but it is nonetheless required due
to the prime considerations given to the rights of the accused in any criminal case. The presumed fact of
the status of Dela Cruz as a duly elected barangay kagawad is actually an element of the offenses
charged, since compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by RA. No. 10640, is
necessarily deemed included as an element in any relevant prosecution under R.A. No. 9165, as
amended. As such, it was thus incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the identities and
credentials of the mandatory insulating witnesses, along with their presence at the inventory of
the confiscated items. The presumed fact of Dela Cruz's status as a duly elected barangay kagawad
could only thus have been affirmed at trial below by proving the basic fact that he was indeed acting as
a barangay kagawad in the circumstances that the law requires. Moreover, proving this basic fact should
have been a simple affair: that of simply presenting documents that would have confirmed the identity of
Dela Cruz, and the credentials of Dela Cruz as a duly elected barangay kagawad. It is thus telling that an
exhaustive scrutiny of the record could not even reveal in which barangay in Quezon City Dela Cruz
serves as a kagawad. Thus, the failure to prove the bask fact of Dela Cruz's supposed participation in
witnessing the inventory of the confiscated items amounts to a failure to prove the ultimate fact of the
identity of the corpus delicti here.
Verily, the lack of proof here as to the identity and credentials of the supposed barangay
kagawad, coupled with the glaring discrepancy between the signature of the media representative on the
inventory form and that on the media representative's presented identification card, and along with the
admission of the police officers that no other proof of the said mandatory insulating witnesses' presence
during the inventory is present in the record aside from their supposed signatures on the inventory form,
all paint a murky picture of reasonable doubt in the first link of the chain of custody. Combining this with
the unexplained fact that the said insulating witnesses took at least a quarter of an hour to arrive at the
police station for the witnessing of the inventory – which meant that they were not readily available to
perform their functions as prescribed in Nisperos – the first link in the chain of custody was never forged
to begin with. Even if the Court here finds that the second, third, and fourth chains here were
accomplished in accordance with the strictures of statutory provision and extant jurisprudence, the said
compliance would be all for naught due to the reasonable doubt surrounding the corpus delicti from the
outset. Verily and to reiterate, without the first link, there is no chain of custody to speak of.
To rule otherwise, i.e., to sustain the presumption that Dela Cruz was indeed a barangay
kagawad when he signed the inventory form, would be unduly burdensome upon the rights of accused-
appellants. With the facts indicating that the buy-bust operation lacked sufficient planning and proper
post-operation procedures, it would thus be unfair to affirm their convictions when it is clear that, through
no fault of their own, the strictures that accompany every operational aspect of the buy-bust operation that
led to their arrest were lackadaisically and unmethodically left by the wayside by the police officers here.
Due to the lack of conformity with the relevant rules on evidence that relate to criminal prosecutions as
noted above, i.e., the failure to prove the basic fact of at least one mandatory insulating witness having
acted as an elected public official by witnessing the inventory and signing the inventory form in his official
capacity, the prosecution thus failed to prove the key element of compliance with Section 21, paragraph 1
of R.A. No. 9165 (as amended by R.A. No. 10640, which is again deemed included as an element of any
relevant offense under the said statute.
This is likely the first time that the Court has tackled the identities and credentials of the two
mandatory insulating witnesses as critical evidentiary issues in drug convictions, but it will not be the
last. As can be gathered and inferred from the discussions above, there indeed exists a serious
danger for law enforcement officers and personnel to feign compliance with Section 21, paragraph
1 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, by simply pulling any Tom, Dick, or Harry off
from the street and coercing said person to sign the inventory form without further need to
adduce proof of identity or credentials. Worse yet, law enforcement officers and personnel may
even supply the names and signatures themselves and pass off the doctored inventory form as
legitimate enough to be attached to the indictment along with other supporting documents. This
disturbing gap in the operationalization of both statutory provision and extant jurisprudence is at least
settled for now in accordance with the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, and this Decision's reasoning
should provide the needed guidance for the bench, the bar, and the public-at-large.
Thus, to reiterate, the convictions of accused-appellants here. must be reversed and vacated due to
the reasonable doubt created by the uncertainty as to the actual time of the conduct of the inventory, the
unexplained and significant tardiness of the supposed insulating witnesses, and the magnified uncertainty
of their actual participation vis-à-vis the preparation of the inventory form. The belated (and erroneously
presumed) presence, identities, and credentials of the mandatory insulating witnesses here are more than
enough to put the identification of the corpus delicti here in serious incertitude, and the prosecution and
the police officers here cannot fall back and hide behind the inapplicable presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties under Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No.
10640. Due to these circumstances, it is as if there were no mandatory insulating witnesses at
all. As the Court discussed in People v. Mendoza,55 the importance of the presence of the mandatory
witnesses goes into the very credibility of the seized or confiscated items, viz.:
The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen to comply with the
requirements of Section 21(1), supra, were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned.
Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of
Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the sachets
of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had
tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were
evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the
trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence
of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of
custody.56 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
In Luna v. People,57 the Court again emphasized adherence to the strictures of law and
jurisprudence, viz.:
This must be so because the possibility of abuse is great, given the very nature of anti-
narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as
informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in
pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably
shrouds all drug deals.58
And crucially, in People v. Somira,59 the Court noted that the allowable non-compliance with the
strictures of law and jurisprudence needs both sufficient justification and the preserved integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated items, viz.:
While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not

automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only
when "(i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." Thus, any divergence from
the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. Absent any of the said conditions, the
non-compliance is an irregularity, a red flag, that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of
the corpus delicti.60
With no justifications whatsoever offered by the police officers and the prosecution as to why the
inventory form was prima facie accomplished at around the same time the buy-bust operation was only
about to commence, or as to why the supposed insulating witnesses were late for their witnessing of the
inventory, or even why the identities and credentials of the persons who appeared and presented
themselves as the mandatory insulating witnesses were not subject to a simple screening process (i.e.,
the simple production of any valid identification documents), the first link in the chain of custody was, as
already explained, never forged to begin with. Thus, there can be no identity or evidentiary value of
the confiscated items to speak of, since these are already doubtful ab initio.
Truly, one can already surmise and sense the danger to unsuspecting individuals arrested on drug
charges, hauled into police precincts or stations, and made to wait for a significant amount of time for the
arrival of the mandatory insulating witnesses. A mandatory insulating witness that arrived late would not
be able to confirm at all if the confiscated items being inventoried before him were the same confiscated
items that were brought into the precinct or station along with the detained suspect. Greater still is the
danger of law enforcement officers and personnel simply putting on paper that the said mandatory
insulating witnesses indeed arrived and witnessed the inventory, but without any attached documents
confirming their identities, credentials, or even their actual physical presence. The latter danger is
somewhat made plain and clear here, since it must be reiterated that the signature of the media
representative on the inventory form is substantially different from the signature on the said media
representative's identification card, and that the inventory form does not even indicate from which
barangay the kagawad hails from.
On a parting note, the Court must note that the total weight of the seized drugs here is only 0.3
gram. As emphasized in People v. Holgado,61 "[l]aw enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement
to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is
especially true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the
accused."62 It is thus lamentable to note that along with the strictures of both law and jurisprudence, even
the basic concepts of evidentiary rules were rendered less-than-faithful compliance and adherence here.
Despite the understandable deluge of drug cases that occupy the judiciary's dockets and valuable time,
this Court must yet again repeat its fundamental admonition to law enforcement agencies, prosecution
offices, and especially trial and appellate courts that they assiduously apply all standing precedents and
regulations relative to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
While it remains the duty of this Court to be the arbiter of final scrutiny when it comes to such
compliance (or lack thereof), everything begins at the scene of the crime and the place of apprehension,
search, or seizure. The frontliners of the Philippine criminal justice system would do well to remember
their important roles in the administration of our anti-drug laws, in order that they may see the value of
their functions and duties in keeping our streets and communities safe from the menace of illegal
substances, and that they may do their work in strict and faithful accordance with their mandates and their
institutional principles. The integrity of their actions defines the integrity of the evidence, and where the
former is in doubt, the latter undoubtedly suffers.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated December 22, 2020 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11650, as well as the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 77 vis-à-vis Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14780-CR, are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure on the part of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, remaining accused-appellants Gerald Flores y Alagdon and Harrold Francisco y Gabat
a.k.a. "Punonoy" are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The charge against Louie Truelen y
Grezola is hereby DISMISSED due to the total extinguishment of his criminal liability on account of his
death whilst in custody, and the case vis-à-vis him is declared CLOSED and TERMINATED.
As for Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14784-CR, due to the supervening demise of accused-appellant
Louie Truelen y Grezola, the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77 relative
to the said case is hereby SET ASIDE and DISMISSED. The said case is also
declared CLOSED and TERMINATED.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED: (a) to cause the IMMEDIATE
RELEASE of remaining accused-appellants Gerald Flores y Alagdon and Harrold Francisco y Gabat
a.k.a. "Punonoy", unless they are being held for other lawful cause; and (b) to inform this Court of the
date of their release, or the reasons for their continued confinement, as the case may be, within five (5)
days from receipt of this Decision.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur.

Fulltext H. Chain of Custody

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fulltext H. Chain of Custody

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fulltext H. Chain of Custody

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

H.

1. People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 9, 2008

G.R. No. 177222 October 29, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 states that:

The IRR of the same provision adds a proviso, to wit:

What were the markings placed on the physical evidence?

Q What does this BP means [sic]?

A My initial Ma’am, Braulio Perigrino [sic]. 28

Resuello likewise testified in this wise:

A We put a marking BP, Ma’am.

Q That BP stands for what[,] Mr. witness?

A Braulio Perigrino[,] Ma’am. 29

G.R. No. 212196 January 12, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Version of the Prosecution

1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by PO3 Dela Cruz;

3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;

6. The findings and conclusion thereof.8

Version of the Defense

Hence, this appeal.

The Court’s Ruling

Q: What documents did you ask Kgd. Abel Pamintuan to sign?

A: The inventory of the property seized, sir.

Q: And did he sign that?

Q: Where was he when he signed that?

A: In our office, sir.

Q: Who prepared the inventory of the property seized?

A: Our investigator, sir.

A: Yes, sir (sic).

Q: Where did you conduct the inventory?

A: In our office, ma’am

Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items?

Q: So, in your office, what happened there?

A: Before sending them to Olivas, we placed our markings, sir.37

A: Me and my back-up, ma’am.

3. People v. Anita Miranba, G.R. No. 205639, January 18, 2016

G.R. No. 205639

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

On March 9, 2010, the RTC rendered its Decision5 as follows:

We find no merit in this appeal.

G.R. No. 208093

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

In Criminal Case No. 5021 (19952)

In Criminal Case No. 5022 (19953)

Version of the Prosecution

Culled from the records4 were the following operative facts:

Version of the Defense

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The dispositive part of the Judgment of the RTC reads:

Cost against the accused.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA disposed as fol1ows:

The appeal is meritorious.

The pertinent provisions of Section 21 state:

Furthermore, in People v. Gonzales,15 the Court explained that:

RSP II Ivan C. Mendoza, Jr.:

A: [In] his left-front pocket.

A: [They were] wrapped in a [golden-colored] cigarette paper.

Q: Why will you be able to remember it?