EVIDENCE: RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY (OBJECT / REAL

EVIDENCE)
G.R. No. 172953
April 30, 2008
JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
TINGA, J.: [Second Division, no dissent]
Doctrine: Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs
necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited
substance be established with moral certainty, together with the
fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug
itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of
its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential therefore
in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact of
unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable
mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More
than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally
possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court
as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.
Facts:
This is a Petition for Reviewunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
where Junie Malillin y Lopez (petitioner) assailed the Decisionof the
Court of Appeals as well as its Resolution denying his motion for
reconsideration. The challenged decision has affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon City which
found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known
as shabu, a prohibited drug.
On the strength of a warrant of search and seizure, a team of five
police officers raided the residence of petitioner. The search
allegedly yielded two (2) plastic sachets of shabu and five (5) empty
plastic sachets containing residual morsels of the said substance.

Accordingly, petitioner was charged with violation illegal possession

of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.
Accused was convicted. He appealed from the said decision and
averred that there was irregularity on the conduct of the search.
During the trial, the following persons were presented as witnesses:
(1) two members of the raiding team, i.e., Esternon and Bulanon;
and (2) the forensic chemist who examined the seized items. The
member of the raiding team who conducted the recording and
marking of the seized items were not presented. Furthermore the
item seized was immediately sent to the laboratory without
presenting the same to the judge who issued the warrant.
Furthermore, the forensic chemist admitted that all seven sachets
were delivered to the laboratory by Esternon in the afternoon of the
same day that the warrant was executed. The items seized were not
presented to the judge who issued the warrant.
Issue:
Whether the testimony of the raiding team and the forensic chemist
is sufficient to establish the identity of the seized items by virtue of
a search warrant.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Prosecutions for illegal
possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act
of possession of a prohibited substance be established with moral
certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by
law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of
the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of
the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Section 21 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 mandates
that the officer acquiring initial custody of drugs under a search
warrant must conduct the photographing and the physical
inventory of the item at the place where the warrant has been
served. The chain of custody rule requires that there be testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the object seized
was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched it 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.
Esternon deviated he brought the seized items immediately to the
police station for the alleged purpose of making a "true inventory"
thereof, but there appears to be no reason why a true inventory
could not be made in petitioner's house.
Likewise, Esternon's failure to deliver the seized items to the court
demonstrates a departure from the directive in the search warrant
that the items seized be immediately delivered to the trial court with
a true and verified inventory of the same, as required by Rule 126,
Section 12 of the Rules of Court. People v. Go characterized this
requirement as mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of
or tampering with said items by interested parties. Thus, as a
reasonable safeguard, People vs. Del Castillo declared that the
approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary
before police officers can retain the property seized and without it,
they would have no authority to retain possession thereof and more
so to deliver the same to another agency. Mere tolerance by the trial
court of a contrary practice does not make the practice right
because it is violative of the mandatory requirements of the law and
it thereby defeats the very purpose for the enactment.
Accordingly, the assailed decision was reversed and set aside. The
petitioner was acquitted of the crime charged.

G.R. No. 179029

August 12, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
FELIMON PAGADUAN y TAMAYO, Appellant.
BRION, J.: [Third Division, no dissent]
Doctrine:
We recognize that the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 1 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be
possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied
conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the
procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. For this reason,
the last sentence of the implementing rules provides that "noncompliance 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[.]" Thus, noncompliance with the strict directive of Section 21
of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case;
police procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence may still
have some lapses, as in the present case. These lapses, however,
must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable
grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
seized must be shown to have been preserved.
Facts
This is a review the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed
in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27,
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, finding appellant Felimon Pagaduan y
Tamayo (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of

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:
(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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the
same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

shabu, under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or

the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Captain de Vera, SPO1 Balido and PO3 Almarez conducted a buybust operation which resulted to the apprehension of the herein
accused. Thereafter, the buy-bust team brought the appellant to the
Diadi Police Station for investigation. At the police station, Captain
de Vera prepared a request for laboratory examination. The
appellant was transferred to the Diadi Municipal Jail where he was
detained. Two days later, or on December 29, 2003, PO3 Almarez
transmitted the letter-request, for laboratory examination, and the
seized plastic sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they were
received by PO2 Fernando Dulnuan. Police Senior Inspector (PSI)
Alfredo Quintero, the Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, conducted an examination on the specimen submitted,
and found it to be positive for the presence of shabu.
The accused was charged with violation of RA 9165 and was
convicted. Accused appealed the decision of the RTC and claimed
that: (1) his guilt was not prove beyond reasonable doubt due to
failure of the police did not conduct a prior surveillance on him
before conducting the buy-bust operation; and (2) a period of two
days had elapsed from the time the shabu was confiscated to the
time it was forwarded to the crime laboratory for examination.
Issue:
Whether the chain of custody was sufficiently established when the
two day period which lapsed between the day of apprehension and
the day of turnover to the laboratory was not explained.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The chain of custody
rule requires that there be testimony about every link in the
chain, from the moment the object seized was picked up to the
time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched it 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.
The strict compliance to the chain of custody rule may not always
be possible under field conditions. For this reason, the

implementing rules provides 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."
Thus, noncompliance thereof is not necessarily fatal to the
prosecutions case; police procedures in the handling of confiscated
evidence may still have some lapses, as in the present case. These
lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in terms of their
justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved.
In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer any
explanation to justify the failure of the police to conduct the
required physical inventory, photographing of the seized drugs and
the details of the turn over during the two day period.
The records show that the seized specimen was forwarded by PO3
Almarez to the PNP Crime Laboratory on December 29, 2003, where
it was received by PO2 Dulnuan, and later examined by PSI
Quintero. However, the person from whom PO3 Almarez received
the seized illegal drug for transfer to the crime laboratory was not
identified. As earlier discussed, the identity of the duty desk officer
who received the shabu, as well as the person who had temporary
custody of the seized items for two days, had not been established.
Hence, the assailed decision was reversed and set aside. The
petitioner was acquitted of the crime charged.

Narciso Salas vs. Annabelle Matusalem

G.R. No. 180284, September 11, 2013
Facts:
Annabelle Matusalem (respondent) filed
Support/Damages against Narciso Salas
petitioner is the father of her son Christian
answer, Petitioner denied paternity of the child

a complaint for
and claimed that
Paulo Salas. In his
Christian Paulo.

RTC Ruling: At the trial, respondent and her witness Grace

Murillo testified. Murillo corroborated respondents testimony as to
the payment by petitioner of apartment rental, his weekly visits to
respondent and financial support to her, his presence during and
after delivery of respondents baby, respondents attempted suicide
through sleeping pills overdose and hospitalization for which she
paid the bill, her complaint before the police authorities and
meeting with petitioners wife at the headquarters. Respondent also
presented the following evidence: (1) certificate of live birth of
Christian Paulo which she allegedly filled up with entries
supposedly dictated by the Petitioner; and (2) baptismal certificate.
On April 5, 1999, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of
respondent.
CA Ruling: CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence,
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari on the ground that
CA erred in holding that the filiation of Christian Paulo was duly
established pursuant to article 175 in relation to article 172 of the
Family Code and existing jurisprudence and therefore entitled to
support from the petitioner
Issue:
Whether or not illegitimate filiation may be proved by mere
testimonial evidence that the alleged father provided financial
support and unsigned birth certificate and love letters.
Held:
No. Under Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines,
illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the

same evidence as legitimate children. Article 172 of the Family Code

of the Philippines provides:
The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the
following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation
shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father
is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing
that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the
certificate. Thus, if the father did not sign in the birth certificate,
the placing of his name by the mother, doctor, registrar, or other
person is incompetent evidence of paternity. Neither can such birth
certificate be taken as a recognition in a public instrument and it
has no probative value to establish filiation to the alleged father.
Furthermore, while baptismal certificates may be considered public
documents, they can only serve as evidence of the administration of
the sacraments on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily
competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to
the childs paternity.
The rest of respondents documentary evidence consists of
handwritten notes and letters, hospital bill and photographs taken
of petitioner and respondent inside their rented apartment unit are
not sufficient to establish Christian Paulos filiation to petitioner as
they were not signed by petitioner and contained no statement of
admission by petitioner that he is the father of said child. Thus,
even if these notes were authentic, they do not qualify under Article
172 (2) vis--vis Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as
competent evidence of illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation

in a private
concerned.

handwritten instrument signed by the

parent

People of the Philippines vs. Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil

G.R. No. 209588, Feb. 18, 2015
Ponente: J. Perez
Facts:
In 2002, on the basis of unconfirmed reports that Eric Rosauro was
selling and distributing drugs, a test-buy operation was conducted
in the Municipality of Villanueva, Misamis Oriental using a
confidential agent. The confidential agent bought shabu from
Rosauro at Purok 2, Barangay Katipunan, Villanueva, Misamis
Oriental. The substance bought from Rosauro was examined by the
PNP crime laboratory and yielded a positive result for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu). On
July 3, 2004, the police authorities received information that again
drugs were being distributed at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion,
Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. Thus, at 5:30 oclock in the
afternoon, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task
Unit (PAID-SOTU) elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and PO3
Juancho Dizon positioned themselves in the house of their
confidential agent.
There, the PAID-SOTU elements saw Rosauro negotiate with the
confidential agent. In exchange for the one (1) sachet of shabu given
by Rosauro to the confidential agent, the latter gave him a marked
100-peso bill with serial number YZ7 12579. After the transaction,
Larot and Dizon came out of their hiding place and arrested
Rosauro. Thereafter, the confidential agent handed the sachet to
Larot, who taped it, marked it with the marking "Exhibit A", and
placed it inside his pocket. He also took pictures of Rosauro and the
drugs. In the police station, he prepared a Certificate of Inventory
and a Request for Laboratory Examination. Both the drugs and
Rosauro were then turned over to the Crime laboratory.
On the basis of the request made by Larot, Police Chief Inspector
Ma. Leocy Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime
Laboratory conducted a laboratory examination on the contents of

the sachet, on accused-appellant, and the marked money. The

examination of the seized item yielded positive result for
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu); while the accusedappellant and the marked money tested positive for the presence of
ultra-violet fluorescent powder.
RTC Ruling: Accused was convicted by the RTC finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Sec. 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R. A. No. 9165) or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a
fine of P500,000.00.
CA Ruling: After review of the records, the CA affirmed the RTC
Judgment. The appellate court ruled that what transpired in the
case at bar was an entrapment and not an instigation; that all the
elements of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs were duly
proven; that the non-presentation of the confidential agent in court
is not fatal; that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the lone
witness of the prosecution do not affect the result of the case; and
that the apprehending team was able to preserve the integrity of the
subject drug and that the prosecution was able to present the
required unbroken chain in the custody of the subject drug.
Issue:
W/N Prosecution was not able to establish Eric Rosauros guilt
beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence adduced by the
Prosecution is inadmissible.
Held:
The accused-appellants guilt was established beyond reasonable
doubt.
1. There is no showing that the trial court overlooked or
misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its
discretion. Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the
appellate court sustaining those of the trial court are binding on
this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are
tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.

The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of accused-appellant to

be the result of a legitimate entrapment procedure, and we find
nothing in the records as to warrant a contrary finding. In this case,
appellant was exposed through "decoy soliciation". The solicitation
of drugs by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes
evidence of a course of conduct and the informant was used to
effect a drug transaction and no showing that the informant
induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him. As a rule, the
informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of
the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit.
arrested through his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the
informants identity is protected in deference to his invaluable
services to law enforcement. Only when the testimony of the
informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the
conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security be
disregarded. In this case, the testimonies of the members of the
Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-SOTU) who
witnessed the buy-bust operation can take place of the testimony of
the Informant.
2. Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for
a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of
dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (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 payment therefor. Briefly, 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.
Verily, all the elements for a conviction of illegal sale of dangerous
or prohibited drugs were proven by the prosecution: the identity of
accused appellant as the seller, and that of the confidential
informant as poseur-buyer were established, as well as the
exchange of the sachet of shabu and the marked money. It was also
ascertained that the seized item was positive for shabu, a
dangerous drug, and that the same item was properly identified in
open court by SPO4 Larot. Moreover, the P100.00 bill with serial

number YZ712579, or the subject marked money, as well as the

living body of the accused-appellant revealed a positive result for
ultraviolet fluorescent powder.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited
drugs, important is the presentation of evidence of the seized drug
as the corpus delicti. The identity of the prohibited drug must be
proved with moral certainty. It must also be established with the
same degree of certitude that the substance bought or seized during
the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit.
In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21 2, Article II of R. A. No. 9165
(the chain of custody rule) provides for safeguards for the protection
of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized.
However, this Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain
of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." The most important factor
is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence
of the accused. Hence, the prosecutions failure to submit in
evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs
as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
The chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with
the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the seized
drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. The
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. A. No. 9165 on the
handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs states:
x x x 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.
2

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, 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:
(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.

In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, the confidential
informant gave the seized item to SP04 Larot who placed tape on
the sachet and marked it "Exhibit A." Upon reaching the police
station, SP04 Larot executed the Certificate of Inventory, as well as
the request for laboratory examination. The request, the specimen,
as well as the marked money and accused-appellant were then
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. They were
received. by SP02 Ricardo Maisog, the Receiving Clerk of the PNP
Crime Laboratory Office, who then forwarded them to Police
Inspector Ma. Leocy Jabonillo Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical
Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory. Moreover, the seized item was
duly identified by SP04 Larot in open court as the same item seized
from accused-appellant.

People of the Phillippines vs. Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta

G.R. 203984, June 18, 2014
Ponente: Leonardo De-Castro.
Facts:
On November 13, 2003, while PO1 NELSON MARIANO and PO3
EDUARDO RAMIREZ were on duty, a certain EDWIN LOJERA
arrived at their office and asked for police assistance regarding a
shooting incident. Per report of the latter, it appears that while
driving a towing truck and traversing along EDSA, Balintawak,
Quezon City, he had a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a white taxi cab
prompting him to follow said vehicle until they reached along 8th
Avenue Street corner C-3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat, the
passengers of said taxi cab, one of them was accused Calantiao,
alighted and fired their guns. Surprised, Lojera could not do
anything but continued his driving until he reached a police station
nearby where he reported the incident.
The police officers on duty then were PO1 NELSON MARIANO and
PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ. PO1 Mariano testified that they
immediately responded to said complaint by proceeding to 5th
Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where they found the white
taxi. While approaching said vehicle, two armed men alighted
therefrom, fired their guns towards them (police officers) and ran
away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were
subdued. PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag
containing two (2) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops and a
magazine of super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3 Ramirez
recovered from Calantiaos companion [a] .38 revolver.
The suspects and the confiscated items were then turned over to
SPO3 PABLO TEMENA, police investigator at Bagong Barrio Police
Station for investigation. Thereat, PO1 Mariano marked the bricks
of marijuana contained in a black bag with his initials, "NM"
Thereafter, said specimen were forwarded to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for chemical analysis. The result of the examination
conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA revealed that the
same was positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug.

The foregoing testimony of PO1 MARIANO was corroborated by PO3

RAMIREZ who testified that he personally saw those bricks of
marijuana confiscated from the accused. He confirmed that he was
with PO1 Mariano when they apprehended said accused and his
companion and testified that while PO1 Mariano recovered from the
accused a black bag containing marijuana, on his part, he
confiscated from accuseds companion a .38 revolver.
MR. CRISENDO AMANSEC, the driver of the taxi where the
suspects boarded was also presented in open court and testified as
to what he knows about the incident. He confirmed that on that
date, two (2) persons boarded on his taxi and upon reaching C-3
Road, they alighted
and fired three (3) shots and ran away.
RTC Ruling: RTC found Medaro Calantiao guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165,
for illegally possessing 997.9 grams of marijuana fruiting tops.
Sentencing him to suffer suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
a fine of Php 500,000.00. In convicting Calantiao, the RTC held that
the illegal drug seized was admissible in evidence as it was
discovered during a body search after Calantiao was caught in
flagrante delicto of possessing a gun and firing at the police officers.
Moreover, the RTC found all the elements of the offense to have
been duly established by the prosecution.
CA Ruling: On Appeal, finding all elements present and duly
proven, Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn Calantiaos
conviction. It found that there was sufficient reason to justify a
warrantless arrest, as the police officers were acting on a legitimate
complaint and had a reasonable suspicion that the persons
identified at the scene were the perpetrators of the offense.
Likewise, the Court of Appeals held that the search and subsequent
seizure of the marijuana in question was lawful and valid, being
incidental to a lawful arrest. Hence, RTC's decision was affirmed in
toto.
Issue:
W/N the marijuana found in his possession was inadmissible on on
the grounds of either it was discovered via an illegal search, or
because its custodial chain was broken.

Held:
No.
1. The Search and Seizure of the Marijuana is valid by virtue of a
warrantless search and seizure. Searches and seizure incident to a
lawful arrest are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. - A person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which
may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident
to a lawful arrest is "to protect the arresting officer from being
harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying
evidence within reach." It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the
States police power to protect (1) law enforcers from the injury that
may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully arrested;
and (2) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to
ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the integrity of the
evidence under the control and within the reach of the arrestee.
In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a black bag in
Calantiaos possession and within his immediate control. He could
have easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to destroy
the evidence inside it. As the black bag containing the marijuana
was in Calantiaos possession, it was within the permissible area
that the apprehending officers could validly conduct a warrantless
search. Calantiaos argument that the marijuana cannot be used as
evidence against him because its discovery was in violation of the
Plain View Doctrine, is misplaced.
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the
inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search
incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspects person and
premises under his immediate control. This is so because "[o]bjects
in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be

presented as evidence." "The doctrine is usually applied where a

police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object x x
x. [It] serves to supplement the prior justification - whether it be a
warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful
arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present
unconnected with a search directed against the accused - and
permits the warrantless seizure."
The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in Calantiaos
situation because the police officers purposely searched him upon
his arrest.
The police officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag,
which was in Calantiaos possession; they deliberately opened it, as
part of the search incident to Calantiaos lawful arrest.
2. The prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the
seized marijuana from the time the police officers confiscated it, to
the time it was turned over to the investigating officer, up to the
time it was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination. This Court has no reason to overrule the RTC and the
Court of Appeals, which both found the chain of custody of the
seized drugs to have not been broken so as to render the marijuana
seized from Calantiao inadmissible in evidence.
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 provide as
follows:
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:
(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[.]
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations 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:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
This Court has held that the failure to strictly comply with Section
21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, such as immediately
marking seized drugs, will not automatically impair the integrity of
chain of custody because what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized

items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or

innocence of the accused. Section 21 and its IRR do not even
mention "marking." What they require are (1) physical inventory,
and (2) taking of photographs.