G.R. No.
172116 October 30, 2006 xxxx
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
ROGER VILLANUEVA, appellant.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00975,
dated December 20, 2005, affirming in toto the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
of Malabon City, Branch 72, in Crim. Case No. 27159-MN finding appellant Roger
Villanueva y Huelva guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165 (2002), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of P500,000.00 and costs.
The Information dated July 11, 2002 against the appellant alleges:
That on or about the 9th day of July, 2002 in the Municipality of Navotas,
Metro Manila Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, being a private person and without
authority of law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell and deliver in consideration of the amount of P100.00 to poseur buyer
One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance with net weight 0.21 gram, which substance when subjected to
chemistry examination gave positive result for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride otherwise known "shabu", a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.4
PO1 Ariosto Rana of the Dangerous Drugs Enforcement Group (DDEG), Northern
Police District, testified that at 8:00 p.m. of July 9, 2002, a confidential informant
informed them that appellant was selling shabu at Block 8, lot 2, Phase 2, Area 1,
Dagat-dagatan, Navotas.5 He immediately composed a team of police operatives to
entrap the appellant,6 with him posing as the poseur-buyer. After marking the
P100.00 bill and recording in the blotter its serial number, the team proceeded to the
place and arrived thereat around 9:30 p.m. He and the informant approached the
appellant while the rest strategically positioned themselves. The informant
introduced him to the appellant, who asked them if they wanted to
buy shabu. Appellant got one plastic sachet from his pocket containing a white
crystalline substance. After appellant received the marked money, Rana executed the
prearranged signal and the team arrested the appellant. The confiscated substance
was submitted to the Northern Police District-Crime Laboratory for
examination,7 which yielded the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RVH BB"
containing 0.21 gram of white crystalline substance. xxx.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave
POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
regulated drug. x x x8
Denying the accusations against him, appellant testified that on the night of the
alleged commission of the crime, he was at home watching television. Thereafter,
two policemen knocked at the door looking for a certain person named Roger. When
he identified himself as Roger, he was immediately handcuffed and brought to the
headquarters without explanation. It was only later that he found out that he was
being charged for selling shabu.9
After hearing, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
accused Roger Villanueva y Huelva guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
drug pushing, penalized under Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165 and he is hereby
sentenced, in view of the small quantity of shabu involved, to Life
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, and to pay the costs.
The decks of shabu subjects of this case are forfeited in favor of the
government to be disposed of under the rules governing the same. OIC-
Branch Clerk of Court Enriqueta A. Marquez is hereby enjoined to
immediately turn over the deck of shabu to the proper authority for final
disposition.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.10
Considering the penalty imposed, the case was directly appealed to this Court for
automatic review. However, pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo11 modifying
the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as direct appeals from the
Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, this case was referred to the Court of
Appeals, which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court, thus:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is hereby
DISMISSED and the challenged decision AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de
oficio.
SO ORDERED.12
Hence, this petition.
The core issue for resolution is whether error attended the trial courts findings, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violation of Section 5, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165.
Appellant maintains that there was no entrapment and that he was arrested in his
house on the night of the alleged commission of the crime. While he admits that the
resolution of the case would boil down to the determination of who between the
parties is more credible, he insists that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty alone could not sustain a conviction; and that the self-
serving and uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Rana could not prevail over his
constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence.13
In essence, what appellant puts at issue is the trial courts appreciation of factual
details of the buy-bust operation or the entrapment. Suffice it to say that settled is the
policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the factual
findings of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a
better position to assess the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make
an honest determination of the witnesses deportment during the trial. 14 In the instant
case, we find no basis to disregard the trial courts factual findings.
Indeed, in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable
doubt not only the commission of the crime but likewise to establish, with the same
quantum of proof, the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor. This
burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in the prosecution
throughout the trial. However, when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging
the burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince the court of the
truth of the allegations in the information or has established a prima facie case
against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it
incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not to
overthrow, that prima facie case.15
To sustain a conviction under a single prosecution witness, such testimony needs
only to establish sufficiently: 1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and
consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. Indeed,
what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. 16 In this case, PO1
Rana, being the poseur-buyer, was the most competent person to testify on the fact of
sale and he did so to the satisfaction of both the trial court and the appellate court.
Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals that:
Contrary to appellants assertions, the prosecution has established with
moral certainty the presence of all the elements necessary for the
prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu. In the case at bar, there is no doubt
that appellant was caught in the very act of selling "shabu", a prohibited
drug. PO1 Ariosto Rana, the prosecution witness who acted as poseur-
buyer, narrated in a clear and straightforward manner the facts of sale. x x x
xxxx
What is more, the identities of the seller and the buyer together with
the corpus delict[i] of selling shabuhave also been duly established. Poseur-
buyer PO1 Ariosto Rana positively identified accused-appellant Roger
Villanueva as the person who sold to him one plastic sachet containing the
white crystalline substance. x x x
xxxx
Then too, the regulated drug of shabu contained in a plastic sachet which
the appellant handed over to the buyer, was also duly proven before the trial
court. x x x
xxxx
Against these strong positive and substantial evidence, appellant could only
say that no buy-bust operation was conducted and, instead, insists that he
was just a victim of frame-up; that the policemen carried out an illegal
search on the premises of his house, planted evidence, and then charged him
as a supplier of drugs.
The contentions are without merit.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping
and capturing felons in the execution of their criminal plan. The operation is
sanctioned by law and has consistently proved to be an effective method of
apprehending drug peddlers. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence
that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper
motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies with
respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit. Verily, here, from the
evidence adduced, We find no reason to depart from the general rule. We
are one with the court a quos conclusion that the prosecution was able to
establish that a buy-bust operation actually took place starting from the time
the team composed of nine (9) members proceeded to the target area at 9:00
p.m. for the initial negotiation until the perfection of the sale at 9:30 p.m.
the same night.17
Moreover, when the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no
motive to falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption
that they have performed their duties regularly; 18 and as held in People v.
Pacis,19 bare denials by the accused cannot overcome this presumption.
All told, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly held that the appellant
committed the crime charged. What remains to be determined is the correctness of
the penalty imposed on the felony committed.
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 reads:
Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution
and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
In finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the trial
court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00). While it correctly imposed the said
penalties, we find the reason given therefor, that is, in view of the small quantity of
shabu involved, inaccurate.
Unlike under the repealed R.A. No. 6425 (1972) or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
where the imposable penalty depends on the quantity of the regulated drug involved,
the foregoing provision now imposes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) for the sale, trade, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation of shabu, a dangerous drug, regardless of the
quantity involved.20
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00975, dated December 20, 2005, affirming in toto the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 72, in Crim. Case No.
27159-MN finding appellant Roger Villanueva y Huelva guilty of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and costs, is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JUNIE MALILLIN y LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Lynette J. Tan for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
TINGA,J.:
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its
lonesome overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Evidence of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of guiltlessness.
And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the innocence of the accused but
by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability.
In this Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Junie Malillin y
Lopez (petitioner) assails the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated 27 January
2006 as well as its Resolution3 dated 30 May 2006 denying his motion for
reconsideration. The challenged decision has affirmed the Decision4 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon City, Branch 525 which found petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
locally known as shabu, a prohibited drug.
The antecedent facts follow.
On the strength of a warrant6 of search and seizure issued by the RTC of Sorsogon
City, Branch 52, a team of five police officers raided the residence of petitioner in
Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City on 4 February 2003. The team was headed by
P/Insp. Catalino Bolanos (Bolanos), with PO3 Roberto Esternon (Esternon), SPO1
Pedro Docot, SPO1 Danilo Lasala and SPO2 Romeo Gallinera (Gallinera) as
members. The searchconducted in the presence of barangay kagawad Delfin Licup
as well as petitioner himself, his wife Sheila and his mother, Normaallegedly
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 of Section 11,7 Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, in a criminal information whose inculpatory portion reads: That on or
about the 4th day of February 2003, at about 8:45 in the morning in Barangay Tugos,
Sorsogon City, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) plastic sachets of
methamphetamine hydrochloride [or] shabu with an aggregate weight of 0.0743
gram, and four empty sachets containing shabu residue, without having been
previously authorized by law to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
Petitioner entered a negative plea.9 At the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented
Bolanos, Arroyo and Esternon as witnesses.
Taking the witness stand, Bolanos, the leader of the raiding team, testified on the
circumstances surrounding the search as follows: that he and his men were allowed
entry into the house by petitioner after the latter was shown the search warrant; that
upon entering the premises, he ordered Esternon and barangay kagawad Licup,
whose assistance had previously been requested in executing the warrant, to conduct
the search; that the rest of the police team positioned themselves outside the house to
make sure that nobody flees; that he was observing the conduct of the search from
about a meter away; that the search conducted inside the bedroom of petitioner
yielded five empty plastic sachets with suspected shabu residue contained in a denim
bag and kept in one of the cabinets, and two plastic sachets containing shabu which
fell off from one of the pillows searched by Esternona discovery that was made in
the presence of petitioner.10 On cross examination, Bolanos admitted that during the
search, he was explaining its progress to petitioners mother, Norma, but that at the
same time his eyes were fixed on the search being conducted by Esternon.11
Esternon testified that the denim bag containing the empty plastic sachets was found
behind the door of the bedroom and not inside the cabinet; that he then found the
two filled sachets under a pillow on the bed and forthwith called on Gallinera to have
the items recorded and marked.12 On cross, he admitted that it was he alone who
conducted the search because Bolanos was standing behind him in the living room
portion of the house and that petitioner handed to him the things to be searched,
which included the pillow in which the two sachets of shabu were kept;13 that he
brought the seized items to the Balogo Police Station for a true inventory, then to
the trial court14 and thereafter to the laboratory.
Supt. Lorlie Arroyo (Arroyo), the forensic chemist who administered the
examination on the seized items, was presented as an expert witness to identify the
items submitted to the laboratory. She revealed that the two filled sachets were
positive of shabu and that of the five empty sachets, four were positive of containing
residue of the same substance.16 She further admitted that all seven sachets were
delivered to the laboratory by Esternon in the afternoon of the same day that the
warrant was executed except that it was not she but rather a certain Mrs. Ofelia
Garcia who received the items from Esternon at the laboratory.17
The evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the search and seizure
conducted by the police operatives. Petitioner testified that Esternon began the
search of the bedroom with Licup and petitioner himself inside. However, it was
momentarily interrupted when one of the police officers declared to Bolanos that
petitioners wife, Sheila, was tucking something inside her underwear. Forthwith, a
lady officer arrived to conduct the search of Sheilas body inside the same bedroom.
At that point, everyone except Esternon was asked to step out of the room. So, it was
in his presence that Sheila was searched by the lady officer. Petitioner was then
asked by a police officer to buy cigarettes at a nearby store and when he returned
from the errand, he was told that nothing was found on Sheilas body.18 Sheila was
ordered to transfer to the other bedroom together with her children.19
Petitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he was summoned by Esternon
to the bedroom and once inside, the officer closed the door and asked him to lift the
mattress on the bed. And as he was doing as told, Esternon stopped him and ordered
him to lift the portion of the headboard. In that instant, Esternon showed him sachet
of shabu which according to him came from a pillow on the bed.20 Petitioners
account in its entirety was corroborated in its material respects by Norma, barangay
kagawad Licup and Sheila in their testimonies. Norma and Sheila positively declared
that petitioner was not in the house for the entire duration of the search because at
one point he was sent by Esternon to the store to buy cigarettes while Sheila was
being searched by the lady officer.21 Licup for his part testified on the circumstances
surrounding the discovery of the plastic sachets. He recounted that after the five
empty sachets were found, he went out of the bedroom and into the living room and
after about three minutes, Esternon, who was left inside the bedroom, exclaimed that
he had just found two filled sachets.22
On 20 June 2004 the trial court rendered its Decision declaring petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Petitioner was condemned to prison
for twelve years (12) and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of
P300,000.00.23 The trial court reasoned that the fact that shabu was found in the
house of petitioner was prima facie evidence of petitioners animus possidendi
sufficient to convict him of the charge inasmuch as things which a person possesses
or over which he exercises acts of ownership are presumptively owned by him. It
also noted petitioners failure to ascribe ill motives to the police officers to fabricate
charges against him.24
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.25 In his Appeal Brief26 filed with the
Court of Appeals, petitioner called the attention of the court to certain irregularities
in the manner by which the search of his house was conducted. For its part, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) advanced that on the contrary, the prosecution
evidence sufficed for petitioners conviction and that the defense never advanced any
proof to show that the members of the raiding team was improperly motivated to hurl
false charges against him and hence the presumption that they had regularly
performed their duties should prevail.27
On 27 January 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming
the judgment of the trial court but modifying the prison sentence to an indeterminate
term of twelve (12) years as minimum to seventeen (17) years as maximum.28
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the appellate
court.29 Hence, the instant petition which raises substantially the same issues.
In its Comment,30 the OSG bids to establish that the raiding team had regularly
performed its duties in the conduct of the search.31 It points to petitioners
incredulous claim that he was framed up by Esternon on the ground that the
discovery of the two filled sachets was made in his and Licups presence. It likewise
notes that petitioners bare denial cannot defeat the positive assertions of the
prosecution and that the same does not suffice to overcome the prima facie existence
of animus possidendi.
This argument, however, hardly holds up to what is revealed by the records.
Prefatorily, although the trial courts findings of fact are entitled to great weight and
will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and
substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under
appeal.32 In the case at bar, several circumstances obtain which, if properly
appreciated, would warrant a conclusion different from that arrived at by the trial
court and the Court of Appeals.
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.33 Essential therefore in these cases is that the
identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.34 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.35
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.36 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 condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same.37
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost
always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable
and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a
witness has failed to observe its uniqueness.38 The same standard likewise obtains in
case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination39 and even
substitution and exchange.40 In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to
fungibility, alteration or tamperingwithout regard to whether the same is advertent
or otherwise notdictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of
custody rule.
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is
greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible
in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.41
Graham vs. State42 positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a
substance later analyzed as heroinwas handled by two police officers prior to
examination who however did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts
of the exhibit at the time it was in their possessionwas excluded from the
prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized could have
been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless
the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the
exhibit at least between the time it came into the possession of police officers until it
was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to
the laboratorys findings is inadmissible.43
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable
as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and
nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the
possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could
have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other casesby
accident or otherwisein which similar evidence was seized or in which similar
evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a
standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily
identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody
of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the
original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or
tampered with.
A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises significant doubts as to the
identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from petitioner. Of the people who
came into direct contact with the seized objects, only Esternon and Arroyo testified
for the specific purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence. Gallinera, to
whom Esternon supposedly handed over the confiscated sachets for recording and
marking, as well as Garcia, the person to whom Esternon directly handed over the
seized items for chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not presented in
court to establish the circumstances under which they handled the subject items. Any
reasonable mind might then ask the question: Are the sachets of shabu allegedly
seized from petitioner the very same objects laboratory tested and offered in court as
evidence?
The prosecutions evidence is incomplete to provide an affirmative answer.
Considering that it was Gallinera who recorded and marked the seized items, his
testimony in court is crucial to affirm whether the exhibits were the same items
handed over to him by Esternon at the place of seizure and acknowledge the initials
marked thereon as his own. The same is true of Garcia who could have, but
nevertheless failed, to testify on the circumstances under which she received the
items from Esternon, what she did with them during the time they were in her
possession until before she delivered the same to Arroyo for analysis.
The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its burden of establishing the
identity of the seized items because it failed to offer not only the testimony of
Gallinera and Garcia but also any sufficient explanation for such failure. In effect,
there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits inasmuch as it failed
to rule out the possibility of substitution of the exhibits, which cannot but inure to its
own detriment. This holds true not only with respect to the two filled sachets but also
to the five sachets allegedly containing morsels of shabu.
Also, contrary to what has been consistently claimed by the prosecution that the
search and seizure was conducted in a regular manner and must be presumed to be
so, the records disclose a series of irregularities committed by the police officers
from the commencement of the search of petitioners house until the submission of
the seized items to the laboratory for analysis. The Court takes note of the unrebutted
testimony of petitioner, corroborated by that of his wife, that prior to the discovery of
the two filled sachets petitioner was sent out of his house to buy cigarettes at a
nearby store. Equally telling is the testimony of Bolanos that he posted some of the
members of the raiding team at the door of petitioners house in order to forestall the
likelihood of petitioner fleeing the scene. By no stretch of logic can it be
conclusively explained why petitioner was sent out of his house on an errand when
in the first place the police officers were in fact apprehensive that he would flee to
evade arrest. This fact assumes prime importance because the two filled sachets were
allegedly discovered by Esternon immediately after petitioner returned to his house
from the errand, such that he was not able to witness the conduct of the search during
the brief but crucial interlude that he was away.
It is also strange that, as claimed by Esternon, it was petitioner himself who handed
to him the items to be searched including the pillow from which the two filled
sachets allegedly fell. Indeed, it is contrary to ordinary human behavior that
petitioner would hand over the said pillow to Esternon knowing fully well that illegal
drugs are concealed therein. In the same breath, the manner by which the search of
Sheilas body was brought up by a member of the raiding team also raises serious
doubts as to the necessity thereof. The declaration of one of the police officers that
he saw Sheila tuck something in her underwear certainly diverted the attention of the
members of petitioners household away from the search being conducted by
Esternon prior to the discovery of the two filled sachets. Lest it be omitted, the Court
likewise takes note of Esternons suspicious presence in the bedroom while Sheila
was being searched by a lady officer. The confluence of these circumstances by any
objective standard of behavior contradicts the prosecutions claim of regularity in the
exercise of duty.
Moreover, Section 2144 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In
a language too plain to require a different construction, it 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. Esternon deviated from this procedure. It was elicited from him that
at the close of the search of petitioners house, 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 petitioners house when in fact the apprehending team was able to record
and mark the seized items and there and then prepare a seizure receipt therefor. Lest
it be forgotten, the raiding team has had enough opportunity to cause the issuance of
the warrant which means that it has had as much time to prepare for its
implementation. While the final proviso in Section 21 of the rules would appear to
excuse non-compliance therewith, the same cannot benefit the prosecution as it
failed to offer any acceptable justification for Esternons course of action.
Likewise, Esternons 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,45 as required by Rule 126, Section 1246 of the Rules of Court. People v. Go47
characterized this requirement as mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of
or tampering with said items by interested parties.48 Thus, as a reasonable safeguard,
People vs. Del Castillo49 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.50 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.51
Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon from the standard and
normal procedure in the implementation of the warrant and in taking post-seizure
custody of the evidence, the blind reliance by the trial court and the Court of Appeals
on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly
misplaced. The presumption of regularity is merely just thata mere presumption
disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be
regarded as binding truth.52 Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot
preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by
proof beyond reasonable doubt.53 In the present case the lack of conclusive
identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the
irregularity in the manner by which the same were placed under police custody
before offered in court, strongly militates a finding of guilt.
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition that the
burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on
the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The rule is
invariable whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his
innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.54 In dubio pro reo. When moral
certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt
inevitably becomes a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27 January 2006
affirming with modification the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court
of Sorsogon City, Branch 52, and its Resolution dated 30 May 2006 denying
reconsideration thereof, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Junie Malillin y
Lopez is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is accordingly ordered immediately
released from custody unless he is being lawfully held for another offense.
G.R. No. 205227 April 7, 2014
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MARCO P. ALEJANDRO, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 dated November 11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03483 which affirmed the judgment2 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 convicting appellant of illegal sale of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). In its
Resolution3 dated March 14, 2012, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration
filed by appellant.
The Facts
Marco P. Alejandro (appellant), along with Imelda G. Solema and Jenny V. del
Rosario, were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9 l 65 under
the following Information:
That on or about the 12th day of July, 2006, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another,
not being authorized by law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, trade deliver and give away to another, Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug weighing 98.51 grams contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet, in violation of the above-cited law.
Contrary to law.4
When arraigned, all three accused pleaded not guilty. Upon demurrer to evidence
filed by accused Jenny del Rosario, the trial court rendered judgment acquitting her
of the crime charged considering that her mere presence in the car used by appellant
is not indicative of conspiracy in the sale of illegal drugs. 5
At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following:
1. The identity of the accused as the persons charged;
2. The jurisdiction of this Court over the persons of the accused;
3. Police Inspector Ruben Mamaril Apostol Jr. is a member of a PNP Crime
Laboratory Office as of July 12, 2006 and he is an expert in Forensic
Chemistry;
4. That a request for laboratory examination was made for the specimens
allegedly confiscated from the accused;
5. The existence and authenticity of the request for examination of the
seized items and Request for a drug test on the persons of the accused;
6. That pursuant to the requests for the drug test and examination of the
specimens, the corresponding Regional Crime Laboratory Office,
Calabarzon issued two (2) chemistry reports, D-267-06 and CRIM[D]T-
286-06 that subject specimens submitted are positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride; and
7. That only a representative sample of the specimens submitted were
examined by the Forensic Chemist which consist of one (1) transparent
sachet containing white crystalline substance in black and red markings. 6
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following factual milieu based on the testimonies of
SPO1 Jaime A. Cariaso (poseur-buyer), SPO1 Norman Jesus P. Platon and Police
Inspector Ruben M. Apostol, Jr. (Forensic Chemical Officer):
In the morning of July 11, 2006, a Confidential Informant (CI) went to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office 4-A (CALABARZON) at Camp
Vicente Lim in Calamba City, Laguna. The CI informed Regional Director P/Supt.
Raul L. Bargamento that he was able to set up a deal with a certain "Aida" who
directed him to look for a buyer of 100 grams of shabu for the price of P360,000.00.7
Immediately, P/Supt. Bargamento instructed Police Chief Inspector Julius Ceasar V.
Ablang to form a team who will conduct a buy-bust operation. PCI Ablang organized
the team composed of eleven police officers and made the proper coordination with
PDEA. Since the target area is situated in Barangay Bayanan, Muntinlupa City,
Metro Manila, the team likewise obtained the requisite "Authority to Operate
Outside AOR".8 During the briefing, SPO1 Cariaso was designated as poseur-buyer
while SPO1 Platon will be his back-up arresting officer. Four pieces of five hundred
peso (P500) bills were then prepared and marked by SPO1 Cariaso. The said bills
stacked on the boodle money were placed inside SPO1 Cariasos belt bag. On the
same day, SPO1 Cariaso and SPO1 Platon, along with the CI, conducted a
surveillance of the house of "Aida" and vicinity. Prior to these preparations, the CI
had contacted "Aida" through her cellphone and arranged the 2:00 p.m. meeting/sale
transaction the following day.9
The next day, July 12, 2006, at around 12:00 noon, the team accompanied by the CI
boarded two service vehicles and proceeded to the target area. They arrived at
Barangay Bayanan at 1:45 p.m. SPO1 Cariaso and the CI parked the Toyota Revo
infront of the house of "Aida" while SPO1 Platon and the rest of the team, who rode
on another vehicle (Isuzu Crosswind), waited at a distance. As agreed during the
briefing, SPO1 Platon positioned himself in a spot where he could see SPO1 Cariaso.
The other police officers posted themselves where they could see SPO1 Platon as the
latter will wait for a "missed call" from SPO1 Cariaso. 10
SPO1 Cariaso and the CI alighted from the Revo and went to the gate of the house of
"Aida". They called the attention of a woman whom the CI identified as "Aida". The
woman came out of the house and the CI introduced SPO1 Cariaso to her as the
buyer of shabu. After the introduction, the CI left. The woman asked SPO1 Cariaso
where the money is and he opened his belt bag to show her the money. SPO1 Cariaso
in turn asked her where the shabu is and she replied that he should wait for Marco
(appellant). SPO1 Cariaso and the woman then went inside the Revo and waited for
appellant. After about five minutes, a Toyota Vios arrived and parked infront of the
Revo. The woman told SPO1 Cariaso that the driver of the Vios was appellant.11
Appellant alighted from the Vios and went inside the Revo. The woman introduced
appellant to SPO1 Cariaso as the buyer. After appellant ascertained that SPO1
Cariaso had the money with him, he went down and got something from the Vios.
When appellant returned, he was carrying an item wrapped in newspaper. Inside the
Revo, appellant uncovered the item and SPO1 Cariaso saw a transparent plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance which appellant handed to him.
Appellant then demanded for the money. SPO1 Cariaso gave appellant the belt bag
containing the marked bills and boodle money and quickly pressed the call key of his
cellphone, the pre-arranged signal for the team that the sale had been consummated.12
Within fifteen seconds, SPO1 Platon rushed towards the Revo and the rest of the
team followed. The team introduced themselves as PDEA agents. SPO1 Cariaso
arrested appellant and the woman ("Aida") who was later identified as Imelda G.
Solema. Meanwhile, SPO1 Platon arrested the woman passenger in the Vios who
was later identified as Jenny del Rosario.
The seized plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was marked by
SPO1 Cariaso with his initials "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" and signed it at the
bottom. SPO1 Cariaso also recovered the marked P500 bills and boodle money from
appellant. The three accused and the confiscated items were brought to the PDEA
Regional Office in Camp Vicente Lim.13
At the PDEA regional office, appellant and his co-accused were booked and the
confiscated items were inventoried by the investigator in the presence of SPO1
Cariaso, a media representative and a barangay councilor. A request for laboratory
examination of the seized transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance, weighing 98.51 grams, was prepared and signed by P/Supt. Bargamento.
There were also requests made for the physical examination and drug test of the
arrested persons. The request for laboratory examination and the specimen marked
"EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" were brought by SPO1 Cariaso to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4A. Result of the chemical
analysis performed by Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. showed that the said specimen is
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Appellant and his co-accused
likewise were found positive for methamphetamine based on screening and
confirmatory test done on their urine samples.14
The prosecution presented and offered the following evidence: (1) Pre-Operation
Report dated July 12, 2006 submitted by PCI Ablang (Team Leader) and noted by
P/Supt. Bargamento; (2) Authority to Operate Outside AOR dated July 12, 2006
granted by PDEA Police Chief Inspector Emmanuel Salvador L. Enriquez; (3)
Certificate of Coordination dated July 12, 2006 from PDEA; (4) Request for
Laboratory Examination dated July 12, 2006 of specimen marked "EXH A J.A.C.
July 12, 2006" with signature of poseur-buyer; (5) Request for Drug Test of arrested
persons dated July 12, 2006 signed by P/Supt. Bargamento; (6) Request for
Physical/Medical Examination of arrested persons signed by P/Supt. Bargamento;
(7) Chemistry Report No. D-267-06 dated July 13, 2006 submitted by Pol. Insp.
Apostol, Jr. showing positive findings on specimen marked "EXH A J.A.C. July 12,
2006"; (8) Chemistry Report No. CRIMDT-268-06 to 270-06 submitted by Pol. Insp.
Apostol, Jr. showing positive findings on the urine samples taken from appellant and
his co-accused; (9) Certification dated July 12, 2006 issued by Medico-Legal Officer
Dr. Roy A. Camarillo of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory 4A stating that "there
are no external signs of recent application of any form of trauma noted during the
time of examination" on the persons of appellant and his co-accused; (10) Certificate
of Inventory prepared by PCI Ablang and signed/witnessed by a media representative
(Lyka Manalo) and Barangay Councilor (Jerusalem Jordan); (11) One transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with markings "EXH A J.A.C.
July 12, 2006" and signed by poseur-buyer SPO1 Cariaso; (12) Affidavit of Poseur-
Buyer dated July 13, 2006 executed by SPO1 Cariaso; (13) Affidavit of Back-
Up/Arresting Officer dated July 13, 2006 executed by SPO1 Platon; (14) Booking
Sheet and Arrest Reports of appellant and his co-accused containing their
fingerprints, but which only Imelda Solema signed while appellant and Jenny del
Rosario refused to sign; and (15) four pieces P500 bills marked money with serial
numbers CM180235, YA867249, ZS853938 and ZW337843.15
Version of the Defense
Appellants defense is anchored on the claim that no buy-bust took place. He
testified that on July 12, 2006, at around 1:30 p.m., he went to the house of his co-
accused Imelda Solema whom he knows is called "Im". The purpose of his visit to
Im was to rent her apartment because his girlfriend is arriving from Japan. Along the
way, he saw Jenny del Rosario with her baby and let them rode on his car (Vios) as
they were going the same way. Upon reaching Ims house at 1:45 p.m., he parked his
vehicle infront of said house but a barangay tanod told him not to park there as it was
a towing area. And so he parked his Vios inside the garage of Ims house which has a
steel gate and knocked at its door. Meanwhile, Jenny del Rosario was left inside the
Vios.16
Upon entering the house of Im, appellant claimed he was immediately grabbed by a
man who made him lie down. He would later learn at PDEA that the mans name is
"Toto" and his female companion is Maam Carla. These PDEA agents took his belt
bag containing cash (P48,000) and his jewelry. He was also handcuffed and brought
inside his car where Toto, Ablang and a driver also boarded. He saw SPO1 Cariaso
for the first time at the PDEA office. He likewise does not know SPO1 Platon. At the
PDEA office, appellant and his co-accused were photographed after they were made
to change clothes. Appellant further claimed that PCI Ablang demanded money (P1
million) from him in exchange for his release. When he was unable to give such
amount, they just detained him and his co-accused. Their urine samples were taken
and submitted for drug testing.17
As to the shabu allegedly seized from him in a buy-bust operation, appellant
vehemently denied having such drug in his possession at the time. They have already
been detained for two days when they were photographed with the said item. The
taking of photographs was done in the presence of PDEA personnel, barangay
officials from Canlubang and the media.18
On cross-examination, appellant explained that he had talked to his lawyer regarding
the filing of a case against the PDEA officers who tried to extort money from him but
his lawyer suggested they should first do something about this case. He added that he
does not know of any reason why SPO1 Cariaso is accusing him of selling an illegal
drug.19
Imelda G. Solema testified that on July 12, 2006 between 1:00 to 2:00 in the
afternoon, she was inside her house watching TV together with her seven-year-old
son when some persons carrying long firearms arrived asking if she is "Aida". She
shouted to them that she is not "Aida" but "Im." These armed persons searched her
house for shabu and when she shouted she was pushed into a chair. After ten minutes
of searching, nothing was found in her house. When somebody knocked on the door,
one of the armed men opened it and they saw appellant. They pulled appellant inside,
poked a gun at him, made him lie down and handcuffed him. She and appellant were
brought outside the house and boarded into the Revo. They waited for the other car
for the armed men to board appellant there. Thereafter, they were brought to the
PDEA office in Canlubang where they were detained.20
On cross-examination, Imelda Solema admitted that appellant was her friend even
prior to their arrest because he was the "kumpare" of her sister. Appellant went to her
house at the time as they had an agreement that he will rent one of the units of her
apartment.21
The defense presented another witness, Rowena S. Gutierrez, a siomai/sago vendor
who allegedly saw what transpired at the house of Imelda Solema from a distance of
6-8 meters. She testified that on July 12, 2006 at past 2:00 p.m., a red car
immediately parked infront of the house of Imelda Solema, whom they call "Im." A
man and a woman (whom she later learned were police officers) alighted from said
car and entered the house of Im. Not too long after, a silver car also arrived which
was supposed to park in the area but there were barangay tanods and so it parked
instead in the garage of the mother of Im. She later learned that the driver of the
silver car was appellant. Appellant went out of his car and proceeded to Ims house.
When appellant was already inside Ims house, two vehicles (Revo and Crosswind)
suddenly arrived and there were armed men who alighted from said vehicles and
entered Ims house. Thereafter, she heard Im crying as she was being held by a
woman and a man. The armed men forced Im and appellant into the Revo. The
persons left were a female and a child who eventually drove the silver car.22
On cross-examination, the witness admitted that the relatives of her friend Im asked
her to testify because the others who also saw the incident were afraid to do so.23
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC found that the police officers complied with all the requirements in
conducting a buy-bust operation, and that their testimonies were spontaneous,
straightforward and consistent on all material points. On the other hand, the RTC
observed that the testimonies of defense witnesses do not jibe or are inconsistent
with each other. It held that appellants denial of the crime charged is a negative self-
serving evidence and cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution who, being police officers, are
presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with law, and who have no
reason to fabricate the charges against the accused.
Convinced that appellant and his co-accused Imelda Solema had conspired in selling
shabu, the RTC noted that it was the latter who called up the former about the offer
of the poseur-buyer SPO1 Cariaso to buy shabu. Appellant thus brought the pack of
shabu to be sold to SPO1 Cariaso, unaware of the entrapment plan of the police
officers. As to their warrantless arrest, the RTC held that such arrest was legal since
the accused were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, a dangerous drug, to a
poseur-buyer who turned out to be a police officer, in a legitimate buy-bust
operation.
Accordingly, the RTC rendered judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the accused MARCO
ALEJANDRO y PINEDA and IMELDA SOLEMA y GUTIERREZ GUILTY of
violating Sec. 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 beyond
reasonable doubt, they are sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to suffer all the
accessory penalties provided by law and to pay a fine of ONE MILLION PESOS
(Php 1,000,000.00) each with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The Acting Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the subject "shabu"
contained in a transparent plastic sachet which was marked as Exhibit "J" to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
Accused MARCO ALEJANDRO y PINEDA is ordered committed to the National
Bilibid Prisons and accused IMELDA SOLEMA y GUTIERREZ is ordered
committed to the Philippine Correctional for Women until further orders.
The preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused shall be credited in their
favor.
SO ORDERED.24
Ruling of the CA
By Decision dated November 11, 2011, the CA affirmed appellants conviction. The
CA rejected appellants argument that there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that
a sale transaction of illegal drugs took place as there appeared to be no prior meeting
or conversation between him and appellant, and hence they could not have agreed on
a price certain for a specified weight of drugs to be sold. It stressed that from the
prosecutions narration of facts, the basis of the meeting between the poseur-buyer
and "Aida" was the arrangement made by the CI for the sale of shabu; hence there
was already an agreement for the sale of 100 grams of shabu for the amount
of P360,000.00.
The CA was likewise convinced that the corpus delicti of the crime has been
established. It held that the failure to strictly comply with the requirements of
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Firmly established in our jurisprudence is the rule that in the prosecution for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements 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. Implicit in all these is
the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. 25
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust
operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.26
The above elements were satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Poseur-buyer
SPO1 Cariaso identified appellant as the seller of shabu. While the police officers
were initially unaware of the identity of appellant, as their CI had only informed
them about appellants co-accused, "Aida" (Imelda Solema) with whom the CI had
set up a drug deal for 100 grams of shabu for the price of P360,000.00, appellants
presence at the buy-bust scene, and his act of delivering the shabu directly to SPO1
Cariaso clearly identified him as the seller who himself demanded and received the
payment from SPO1 Cariaso after giving the shabu to the latter.
Appellants arrival at the house of Imelda Solema at the appointed time of the sale
transaction arranged the previous day by the CI, and with Imelda Solema informing
SPO1 Cariaso that they should wait for appellant after SPO1 Cariaso asked for the
shabu, were clear indications that they acted in coordination and conspiracy to effect
the sale of shabu to a buyer brought by the CI and who turned out to be a police
officer detailed with the PDEA. SPO1 Cariaso placed his initials and date of buy-
bust on the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance sold to him by
appellant. After Forensic Chemical Officer Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. conducted a
chemical analysis of the said specimen, the result yielded positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. The same specimen
was presented in court as evidence after it was properly identified by SPO1 Cariaso
and Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. to be the same substance handed by appellant to SPO1
Cariaso and examined by Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr.
SPO1 Platon corroborated the testimony of SPO1 Cariaso that they conducted a buy-
bust operation as he positioned himself across the street 15 meters from the house of
Imelda Solema. From his vantage, SPO1 Platon saw the following transpired: SPOI
Cariaso accompanied by the CI in front of the house of Imelda Solema; SPO1
Cariaso conversing with Imelda Solema; the subsequent arrival of appellant on board
the Vios; appellant going inside the Revo where SPO1 Cariaso and Imelda Solema
waited for him; appellant getting something from the Vios and returning to the Revo
carrying the said item. Upon hearing the call from SPO1 Cariasos cellphone, SPO1
Platon immediately proceeded to the scene and arrested Jenny del Rosario who was
still inside the Vios. At that moment, SPO1 Cariaso had already arrested appellant
and Imelda Solema, confiscated the transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance and recovered the marked money from appellant.
Clearly, all the elements of the crime were established by both the oral and object
evidence presented in court. It is settled that in cases involving violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police
officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their duties in a regular
manner, unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on
their part or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. 27 Since no proof
of such ill-motive on the part of the PDEA buy-bust team was adduced by appellant,
the RTC and CA did not err in giving full faith and credence to the prosecutions
account of the buy-bust operation. This Court has repeatedly stressed that a buy-bust
operation (which is a form of entrapment) is a valid means of arresting violators of
R.A. No. 9165.28
Appellant assails the CA in not correctly interpreting the requirements set forth in
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations.
He harps on the failure to immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the
incident and photograph the same, and the inventory of the confiscated items which
was not shown to have been done in the presence of the accused. As to the absence
of testimony by the investigator and the receiving employee of the PNP Regional
Crime Laboratory, appellant argues this is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He
thus contends that the chain of custody was broken in this case.
We sustain the CAs ruling on the chain of custody issue.
Under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,
which implements R.A. No. 9165, "chain of custody" is defined 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.
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 laid down the procedure for the custody and
disposition of confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs.
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;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which
shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued
within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not
allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory
examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic
laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on
the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next
twenty-four (24) hours;
xxxx
On the other hand, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of R.A. No. 9165 reads:
(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.)
In this case, while SPO1 Cariaso testified that he immediately marked the transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance sold to him by appellant, there
was no statement as to whether such marking was made at the place of arrest. From
the records it is clear that such marking was done upon reaching the PDEA office
before its turnover to the investigator on duty. What is important is that the seized
specimen never left the custody of SPO1 Cariaso as he was present throughout the
physical inventory being conducted by the said investigator.
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the prosecution to
show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and
photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to the guidelines, is not fatal. It does
not automatically render accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of the accused. 29
Records reveal that only the marked money was photographed at the PDEA office.
The Certificate of Inventory, though not signed by the accused, was duly signed by
team leader PCI Ablang, a representative from the media and a barangay councilor.
We thus find substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 and IRR.
Time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial compliance
with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render
the seized drug items inadmissible. 30 In the instant case, although the police officers
did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, their noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized
from appellant as the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken
under the circumstances of the case.
In the case of People v. Kamad, 31 the Court enumerated 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, 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.32
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the transparent plastic
sachet containing shabu during the buy-bust operation. Records show that from the
time appellant handed to SPO1 Cariaso the said item, only SPO1 Cariaso was in
possession of the same until it was brought to the PDEA office. SPO1 Cariaso
himself marked the said sachet of shabu with his initials and date of buy-bust: "EXH
A J.A.C. July 12, 2006." While the marking was not immediately made at the crime
scene, it does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved. 33
The second link is the turnover of the shabu at the PDEA office. SPO1 Cariaso
testified that he turned over the seized plastic sachet containing shabu with his
markings "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" to the investigator who proceeded with the
inventory thereof, along with the marked money also confiscated from appellant. He
was present next to the investigator while the latter was conducting the inventory.
The third link constitutes the delivery of the request for laboratory examination and
the specimen to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory. It was likewise SPO1 Cariaso
who brought the said request and the specimen to the PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory on the same day. He personally turned over the specimen marked "EXH
A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" to the receiving clerk as evidenced by the stamp receipt on
the said request bearing the time and date received as "10:25 PM July 12, 2006."34
The fourth link seeks to establish that the specimen submitted for laboratory
examination is the one presented in court. Forensic Chemical Officer Pol. Insp.
Apostol, Jr. testified that the transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance which was marked "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006", was given to him by the
receiving clerk. Within twenty-four hours, he conducted the chemical analysis by
taking a representative sample from the specimen, even explaining in detail the
process of testing the specimen for shabu. He identified the specimen with markings
"EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" presented as evidence in court (Exhibit "J") as the
same specimen he examined and which he found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.1wphi1
The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the
receiving clerk of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory is not a crucial point against
the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for
the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case
and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. 35 Further, there
is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and
every one who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as
the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been
broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not
indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs
should take the witness stand."36
With the unbroken chain of custody duly established by the prosecution evidence,
the CA did not err in giving the same full credence in contrast to the denial by
appellant who failed to substantiate his allegation of frame-up and extortion. Frame-
up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by the Court because it is easy to
contrive and difficult to disprove. It is a common and standard line of defense in
prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 37 To substantiate such
defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the
members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not
properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the
operation deserve full faith and credit.38 No such evidence was presented by
appellant in this case. The CA even quoted in part the decision of the RTC which
highlighted the irreconcilable inconsistencies in the testimonies of defense witnesses
on what transpired during the buy-bust operation.
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to
death and fine, ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon
any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved. Hence, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly
imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated November
11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR-H.C. No. 03483 is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 195528 July 24, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOSE CLARA y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal filed by herein accused Joel Clara y Buhain (Joel) from the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of conviction
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165.2
The factual rendition of the prosecution follows:
Prosecution witness P03 Leonardo R. Ramos (P03 Ramos) narrated that he acted as a
poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation conducted by their office, the District Anti-
Illegal Drug Special Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of Quezon City on 12 September
2005.3 He recalled that on or about 4:00 oclock in afternoon of the said date, a male
informant came to their office with the information that a person named "Ningning"
was selling drugs at 22-C Salvador Drive, Balonbato, Quezon City.4 Police team
leader SPO2 Dante D. Nagera (SPO2 Nagera) endorsed the matter to their Chief of
Office Col. Gerardo B. Ratuita (Col. Ratuita) for the conduct of a buy-bust
operation.5 A buy-bust group was created consisting of SPO2 Nagera, PO1 Peggy
Lynne V. Vargas (PO1 Vargas), PO1 Teresita B. Reyes (PO1 Reyes), PO1 Alexander
A. Jimenez (PO1 Jimenez) and PO3 Ramos who was designated as the poseur-
buyer.6 During the briefing, it was agreed upon that P200.00-worth of shabu would
be bought from "Ningning" by PO3 Ramos. Before leaving for their target, PO1
Reyes prepared a Pre-Operation Report and forwarded it to the Tactical Operation
Communication of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for coordination.7
At 8:00 oclock in the evening, the team proceeded to the area on board three
vehicles: Nissan Sentra, Toyota Corolla and owner-type jeep.8 Upon their arrival at
9:35 oclock in the evening, PO3 Ramos and the informant knocked on the door of
the house while the rest of the team positioned themselves ten meters away.9 The
informant identified "Gigi" as the accused Joel, Ningnings uncle.10 Initiating a
conversation, the informant introduced to Joel PO3 Ramos as a buyer of P200.00-
peso worth of illegal drug. When PO3 Ramos asked for Ningning, Joel answered that
she was upstairs. Joel asked for payment and PO3 Ramos handed the P200 marked
money.11 Joel went upstairs and called Ningning. Ningning opened the door and
handed Joel a small plastic sachet of shabu which in turn was handed to PO3
Ramos.12
Thereafter, PO3 Ramos touched his head as a pre-arranged signal to prompt the
back-up police officers of the consummation of the illegal sale. Immediately, the rest
of the team rushed to the place to arrest Joel.13 Joel tried to close the door to prevent
the police officers from entering the house but PO3 Ramos was able to grab him.
SPO2 Nagera quickly went upstairs to arrest Ningning but the latter was able to
escape apprehension.14 PO3 Ramos immediately frisked Joel inside the house but
failed to recover anything from him; the marked money was given to Ningning when
Joel went upstairs to get the plastic sachet.15
Joel was brought to the police station and was informed by PO1 Jimenez of his
constitutional rights as a consequence of his arrest.16 Afterwards, the small plastic
sachet recovered was marked by PO1 Jimenez inside the station and an inventory
receipt was prepared.17 PO3 Ramos clarified that the plastic sachet was in the
possession of PO1 Jimenez from the place of arrest until arrival at the police station.
PO3 Ramos added that PO1 Jimenez was present at the time of arrest which
explained his possession of the plastic sachet containing shabu.18
Inside the courtroom, PO3 Ramos identified Joel as the one involved in the illegal
transaction.19 He also identified the small plastic sachet of shabu as the subject of
the illegal transaction through the marking "LRR" he placed on it.20 He testified that
he brought the plastic sachet containing the specimen to the crime laboratory for
examination21 where it was tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as
certified by the examining Forensic Chemist Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo (Forensic
Chemist Jabonillo) of Central Police District Crime Laboratory in his Chemistry
Report.22
SPO2 Nagera was also called to the witness stand to present his version of the
events. However, some inconsistencies surfaced during his examination at the
witness stand.
When asked about the gender of the informant who came to their office, he answered
that the informant was a female, contradicting the statement of PO3 Ramos.23 He
also differed from the statement of PO3 Ramos when he testified that only two
modes of transportation, instead of three, were used by the buy-bust team in
proceeding to the target area, one Nissan Maxima and one owner-type jeep.24 He
also had difficulty in identifying the accused inside the court room when he was
asked upon by the prosecutor to do so.25
Further contradiction was made when SPO2 Nagera narrated that PO3 Ramos was
the one holding the plastic sachet before it was turned over to PO1 Jimenez for
investigation.26 He also admitted in his cross examination that he never saw
Ningning during the entire buy-bust operation.27 Finally, when asked about on who
placed the initial "LRR" on the plastic sachet, he positively identified that it was the
investigator who put the same.28
PO1 Jimenez was also presented in court as a prosecution witness to give details of
the buy-bust operation. His version, however, also differed from the versions
presented by PO3 Ramos and SPO2 Nagera. He testified that the plastic sachet
confiscated was already marked by the apprehending officers when it was turned
over to him for investigation, a contradiction of the statements of both PO3 Ramos
and SPO2 Nagera that it was him who marked the plastic sachet with the initial
"LRR."29 He positively identified that he saw the item being marked by the
apprehending officers in their office.30
The defense interposed denial.
Accused Joel denied any involvement in the buy-bust operation. He recalled that he
was inside his house sleeping between 9:00 to 10:00 oclock in the evening of 12
September 2005 when five uniformed police officers entered his house.31 They got
hold of his arm and frisked him but failed to recover anything.32 The police officers
did not inform him of the reason for his arrest; neither did they recite his
constitutional rights. Afterwards, he was made to ride an owner type vehicle and was
taken to the police station where he was only asked for his name.33 He denied
having sold drugs and having seen the marked money and plastic sachet containing
shabu.34
On cross examination, Joel was also inconsistent in portions of his testimony. He
testified that all of his siblings were in the province and his only companions in the
house at the time of the arrest were his nephew and niece.35 However, when asked
why the door was still open at around 10:00 oclock in the evening, he replied that he
was waiting for his sister.36 He also contradicted his earlier statement that he was
sleeping with his nephew and niece downstairs when in his cross examination he said
that his niece was staying on the second floor of the house at the time of the arrival
of the police officers.37
Joel was eventually charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs punishable under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 before the Prosecutors Office of Quezon City.
The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
Criminal Case No. 05-136719
That on or about the 12th day of September, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully and unlawfully sell,
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, ZERO
POINT ZERO SEVEN (0.07) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug.38
When arraigned, Joel pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.39
During pre-trial, it was agreed upon by both parties that Forensic Chemist Jabonillo
had no personal knowledge as to how the plastic sachet containing specimen positive
for illegal drug came to of police officers possession. The forensic chemist merely
examined the specimen and found it to be positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride. As a consequence of these stipulations, his testimony was dispensed
with by the court.40
Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court on 21 March 2007 found the accused guilty of the offense charged.
The dispositive portion of the decision41 reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused JOEL CLARA Y
BUHAIN GUILTY beyond reasonable of the crime in violation of Sec. 5 of R.A.
9165 as charged (for drug pushing) and he is sentenced to suffer the prescribed jail
term of Life Imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The shabu weighing 0.07 gram involved in this case is ordered transmitted to the
PDEA thru DDB for disposal in accordance with R.A. 9165.42
The trial court ruled that Joel directly dealt with the poseur buyer and participated in
all the stages of the illegal sale. It found conspiracy between Joel and Ningning. It
pointed out that Ningning was able to escape the police dragnet while Joel was being
arrested because of her familiarity as a drug operator with police operations.
The police operation and its coordination with the operatives of the PDEA would be
recognized by the appellate court as legally performed.43 On the contrary the
prosecutions scenario that the police officers entered Joels residence and hauled
him out with no reason at all was found to be improbable.44
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
 not even present evidence on its own behalf, in which case, the presumption prevails
In affirming the ruling of the trial court, the appellate court ruled that all the elements and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.49
of an illegal sale of dangerous drugs were present.45 First, Joel, as the seller of
illegal drug, was positively identified by the poseur buyer and the police officers; In this case, the prosecution failed to overcome such presumption when it presented
Second, the confiscated white crystalline substance which was found by the PNP inconsistent versions of an illegal sale.
crime laboratory as positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride which is a
dangerous drug was presented during trial; and Lastly, the illegal sale was for a PO3 Ramos identified Joel as the seller who sold to him a small plastic sachet
consideration of P200.00 given by PO3 Ramos as poseur buyer. The appellate court containing shabu in exchange of two hundred pesos. We quote the relevant portions:
further held that the non-presentation of the marked money was not fatal since the
prosecution witnesses were able to establish that the P200.00 bill used to purchase FISCAL (to witness)
the illegal drug was in the possession of Ningning who was able to evade arrest.46
Q: What happened there?
Our Ruling
A: When we reached the house sir, we knocked at the door and alias Gigi open (sic)
After a careful review of the evidence, we resolve to reverse the ruling of conviction it.
and render a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.
xxxx
In his Brief, the accused-appellant contested his conviction due to the inconsistencies
in the prosecutions presentation of a supposed buy-bust operation, coupled with its Q: What was the conversation with you during that time?
failure to establish with certainty the chain of custody of evidence. He also argued
against the presumption of regularity of performance of duties. Finally, to A: The informant first introduced me to Gigi that I will be the one to buy shabu.
substantiate his innocence, he pointed out that he was not even the target person in
the PDEA Coordination Report and denied any conspiracy and involvement with Q: What was the answer of Gigi at that time?
such target person named "Ningning."47
A: He asked how much.
Inspite of the imperfect narration of events by the accused Joel, we are constrained to
render a judgment of acquittal due to the lapses of the prosecution that led to its Q: What was your answer?
failure to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
committed the crime. A: I said dos.

In order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like Q: After informing him that you intend to buy dos of illegal drug, what happened?
shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the A: I first asked where is Ningning.
thing sold and the payment therefor.
Q: What was the answer of Gigi?
It is basic in criminal prosecutions that an accused is presumed innocent of the
charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution A: He said that she was upstairs.
has the burden to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the
quantum of evidence required. Q: What happened after that?

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding A: He asked for my money, sir.
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.48 It must Q: Did you give the P200.00.
rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the
prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically A: Yes sir, I gave the money.
Q: After giving that money to Gigi, what happened after that? A: It was on top of the plastic sachet.51 (Emphasis supplied)

A: He called Ningning from up stair (sic). However, he would later present a new version on who marked the plastic sachet:

Q: Did Ningning go to the place where you were talking with Gigi at that time?
A: No sir, she just open (sic) the door and handed the sachet of shabu.
xxxx
Q: Now, going [back] to the police station, other than searching, what other matters
were taken during the arrest?
A: The evidence that I was able to get from Ningning and it was the investigator who
marked it.

Q: When he received that from Ningning at that time, what did you do? Q: Other than putting the initial on the transparent plastic sachet immediately after
the arrest Mr. Witness, what was the SOP in a buy-bust operation, after taking or
A: After Gigi got it he gave it to me, sir. receiving the item from the accused during the arrest?

Q: Can you describe that item you received from Gigi that came from Ningning at A: We made the inventory receipt, sir.52 (Emphasis supplied)
that time?
xxxx
A: Yes sir.
Q: x x x. You said that it was the investigator who made the marking in the
Q: Can you describe? transparent plastic sachet, where were you when the marking was placed on it?

A: Yes sir, just a small plastic sachet.50 A: I was in front of the investigator.

PO3 Ramos initially testified that he placed his marking on the small plastic sachet Q: What was the marking placed?
he was able to buy from Joel:
A: LRR.53 (Emphasis supplied)
Q: If that small plastic sachet is shown to you can you indentify the specimen?
xxxx
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You said that the investigator placed the marking in the transparent plastic sachet
Q: Why? and likewise he was the one who made the inventory receipt. In what particular place
that he prepared this particular document?
A: Because I placed my marking.
A: At the area, sir.
Q: What marking did you place?
Q: What do you mean by area?
A: LRR.
A: In front of the house of the accused, sir.
Q: Showing to you this transparent plastic sachet containing illegal drug, what can
you say about that, what is the relation of that transparent plastic sachet to the plastic Q: What is the name of that investigator again?
sachet you have just mentioned?
A: Alexander Jimenez, sir.54 (Emphasis supplied)
A: That is the sachet I was able to buy, sir.
The testimony of PO3 Ramos, which apparently was given as proof of all the
Q: Where is the marking? elements that constitute an illegal sale of drug is however, inconsistent on material
points from the recollection of events of PO3 Ramos, SPO2 Nagera and PO1
Jimenez regarding the marking, handling and turnover of the plastic sachet
containing the dangerous drug of shabu.
SPO2 Nagera narrated that it was PO1 Jimenez who marked the plastic sachet after it
was handed by PO3 Ramos:
Q: What did the investigator do to shabu, Mr. Witness?
A: They placed their initial and prepared request for examination address to the
Crime Laboratory sir.55 (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
Q: Where was PO3 Ramos when that plastic sachet, when the police investigator put
the initial, Mr. Witness?
A: We were there sir.56 (Emphasis supplied)
However, PO1 Jimenez later testified that it was PO3 Ramos who marked the plastic
sachet in their office.
Q: Being the investigator you saw the item confiscated?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was it already marked when it was received by you?
A: It was already marked by the apprehending officers.
Q: Did you see it marked by the apprehending officer?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where?
A: In our office.57 (Emphasis supplied)
Contradictory statements were further made as to who between PO3 Ramos and PO1
Jimenez held the shabu from the time of the arrest until arrival at the police station.
PO3 Ramos pointed to PO1 Jimenez in his direct examination:
Q: You said immediately after arresting and searching the accused in this case you
said that you brought the accused to the police station, who was in possession of the
transparent plastic sachet from where you received that transparent plastic sachet in
exchange to P200.00 going to the police station Mr. Witness?
A: The investigator, sir.
Q: You mean to say that investigator was present when the accused was arrested in
this case?
A: Yes sir, he was with us.58 (Emphasis supplied)
However, SPO2 Nagera pointed to PO3 Ramos as the one in possession:
Q: What about the shabu, who was holding it in going to the police station, Mr.
Witness?
A: Ramos, sir.
Q: What happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: It was turn (sic) over to the police investigator, sir.59 (Emphasis supplied)
The clear inconsistency in the presentation of facts is fatal. It creates doubts whether
the transaction really occurred or not. Though Joels denial as a defense is weak,
such cannot relieve the prosecution the burden of presenting proof beyond
reasonable doubt that an illegal transaction actually took place.60
Inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses referring to the events that transpired in
the buy-bust operation can overturn the judgment of conviction. As held in Zaragga
v. People,61 material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on
the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created
reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Prosecutions failure to
indubitably show the identity of the shabu led to the acquittal of the accused in that
case.62
Inconsistencies and discrepancies referring to minor details and not upon the basic
aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses credibility. If the cited
inconsistency has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, it does not stand as a
ground to reverse a conviction.63 However, in this case, the material inconsistencies
are furthered by inconsistencies of the police officers on minor details. Referring
back to the narration of circumstances of the buy-bust operation, SPO2 Nagera was
asked about the gender of the informant who went to their office to report about the
illegal activities committed by Ningning.1wphi1 He readily answered that the
informant was a female.64 PO3 Ramos in turn, when asked to describe what
happened in the afternoon before the buy-bust operation, testified that a male
informant came to their office to report about a person selling illegal drugs.65
These conflicting statements of the prosecution effectively broke the chain of
custody of evidence of the sale of dangerous drug.
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
provides for the procedure to be observed in preserving the integrity of chain of
custody:
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 so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for 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 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
copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and the photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at least 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 noncompliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team/officer, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items.
"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 and finally 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.66
To establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must
establish the following links, namely: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.67.
The "objective test" in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding
the conduct of buy-bust operation provides that it is the duty of the prosecution to
present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operationfrom the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of
the illegal subject of sale.68 The manner by which the initial contact was made, the
offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of
the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-
abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.69
In view of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to present a
clear picture on how the police officers seized and marked the illegal drug recovered
by the apprehending officer and how the specimen was turned over by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
As to the first link of marking, the three police officers failed to agree on who among
them marked the plastic sachet, which is highly improbable if they really had a clear
grasp on what really transpired on the day of operation.
PO3 Ramos testified that he placed his marking on the small plastic sachet but
recanted his previous statement at the latter part of the examination and pointed out
that it was the investigator PO1 Jimenez who put the marking in front of him at the
area of arrest.70 SPO2 Nagera in his testimony confirmed that it was PO1 Jimenez
who put marking on the plastic sachet.71 However, PO1 Jimenez in his testimony
clarified that the item confiscated were already marked by the apprehending officers
when it was turned over to him in their office.72
Likewise, they cannot seem to agree on the second link on who among them held the
item confiscated from the time of arrest and confiscation until it was turned over to
the investigator and the place where it was turned over.
PO3 Ramos positively pointed that it was PO1 Jimenez who took possession of the
item from the time of the arrest until arrival at the police station.73 However, when
SPO2 Nagera was asked, he pointed out that it was PO3 Ramos who held the item
from the time of the arrest until they reached the police where it was turned over to
Jimenez for investigation.74
In Malillin v. People,75 it was explained that the chain of custody rule includes
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it was 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.76
The inconsistent statements of the police officers generated doubt on whether the
identity of the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to
marking and inventory then given to the Jimenez for investigation and eventually
submitted by PO3 Ramos for examination by the forensic chemist. SO ORDERED.

The prosecution cannot rely on the saving clause provided under Section 21(a) of the
IRR that non-compliance with the legal requirements shall not render void and
invalid seizures of and custody over said items. This saving clause is applicable only
if prosecution was able to prove the twin conditions of (a) existence of justifiable
grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
items.77 The procedural lapses in this case put to doubt the integrity of the items
presented in court.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, is adamant in its argument
that there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by police officers
conducting buy-bust operation.

We agree but with qualification.

In numerous cases, we were inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the

performance of duty of public officers.78 However, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. It
does not mean that we straight away and without a blink of the eye rule on the People v. Posada
regularity of their performance of duties. We at all times harmonize the interest of the
accused alongside the interest of the State. DECISION

Inconsistencies committed by the police officers amounting to procedural lapses in
observing the chain of custody of evidence requirement effectively negated this
presumption. Their inaccurate recall of events amounted to irregularities that affected
the presumption and tilted the evidence in favor of the accused. The absence of
improper motive tends to sustain inexistence but does not absolutely rule out false
charges.
REYES, J.:
As we decide this appeal involving a couple who allegedly violated Republic Act
No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002, we should bear in mind the words emanating from the pen of former Justice
Isagani A. Cruz:

In case of conflict between the presumption of regularity of police officers and the We need only add that the active
presumption of innocence of the accused, we rule that the latter must prevail as the support of everyone is needed to bolster the
law imposes upon the prosecution the highest degree of proof of evidence to sustain campaign of the government against the evil of
conviction.79 drug addiction. The merchants of all
prohibited drugs, from the rich and powerful
Due to foregoing flagrant inconsistencies in the testimonies of police officers which syndicates to the individual street "pushers,"
directly constitute the recollection of events of buy-bust together and failure of must be hounded relentlessly and punished to the
observance of chain of custody of evidence which effectively broke the links to full extent of the law, subject only to the
sustain conviction, we rule for the acquittal of the accused. inhibitions of the Bill of Rights.[1]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 4 August 2010 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02714 affirming the judgment of conviction
dated 21 March 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103 of Quezon City is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant JOSE CLARA y BUHAIN
is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered immediately released from detention unless his
continued confinement is warranted for some other cause or ground.
The Case
Accused-appellants Roger Posada (Roger) and Emily Posada (Emily) were convicted
by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes, in Criminal Case
No. 3490 for selling twelve (12) pieces of transparent sealed plastic sachet,
containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight of 0.4578
grams, in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.[2]
Roger was also convicted by the same RTC in Criminal Case No. 3489 for
possession of one piece of torn plastic sachet, containing residue of a crystalline
substance (allegedly shabu), a piece of small aluminum foil, a pair of small scissors,
and fifteen (15) pieces of used lighter all of which are intended to be used for
smoking or introducing dangerous drugs into the body of a person, in violation of
Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.[3]
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, the accused-appellants filed an appeal before the
Court of Appeals (CA) which, via a Decision[4] dated June 17, 2010, affirmed the
RTC Decision as to the accused-appellants' conviction in Criminal Case No. 3490
but acquitted Roger in Criminal Case No. 3489 on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Now, the accused-appellants ask this Court for a complete exoneration from the
offense charged in Criminal Case No. 3490 on the ground that the prosecution failed
to establish the chain of custody and integrity of the seized illegal items and to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Antecedent Facts
According to the evidence of the prosecution, P/CI Gil Francis Tria (P/CI Tria), the
Chief of Police of Virac Municipal Police Station and representative of the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), ordered surveillance on the activities of the
accused-appellants and a certain Johnjohn Urbano (Urbano). [5] As a result of the said
surveillance, PO1 Roldan Area (PO1 Area) was able to buy one sachet of shabu from
Emily for P250.00 on August 2, 2005.[6]
Consequently, after the August 2, 2005 test-buy yielded positive result, P/CI Tria
applied for a search warrant, which the Honorable Jaime E. Contreras granted.
[7]
Thus, at noontime of August 3, 2005, P/CI Tria and his team proceeded
to Barangay Concepcion and coordinated with Punong Barangay Antonio Asuncion,
Jr. (Asuncion) in the operation against the accused-appellants.[8]
When the team of P/CI Tria reached the place of operation, they found Emily
standing in front of her house. PO1 Area, who was the poseur-buyer, called her and
when she came near him, he told her that he would buy shabu. PO1 Area then
handed to Emily P250.00, consisting of two pieces of P100.00 bill and one piece
of P50.00 bill. After receiving the money from PO1 Area, Emily immediately went
to her house and got a coin purse. When she returned at the scene of the operation,
Emily gave PO1 Area one sachet of shabu, which she got from the coin purse.
Subsequently, Roger appeared and handed to Emily 12 plastic sachets
of shabu which Emily placed inside the coin purse. At this point, PO1 Area identified
himself as a police officer while giving the signal to his team that the buy-bust turned
positive. He arrested Emily while Roger ran away and went inside their house. PO1
Area informed Emily of her constitutional rights, but the latter failed to utter any
word.[9]
While PO1 Area was holding the arm of Emily, who still had in her hands the coin
purse where she got the sachet of shabu and the buy-bust money, P/CI Tria took
pictures of the incident using his cellphone while the official photographer was also
taking pictures. After the search, a coin purse containing sachets of shabu and a
bundle of money was found in Emily's possession. [10] PO1 Area then prepared a
Receipt for Property Seized (RPS). [11] Asuncion, Kagawad Eva Sarmiento
(Sarmiento) and a certain Robert Vargas (Vargas) witnessed the preparation of the
said receipt.[12]
Meanwhile, when Roger left Emily at the scene of the buy-bust operation, he went
inside his house and closed the door. Armed with the search warrant, SPO1 Salvador
Aldave, Jr. (SPO1 Aldave) forced the door open. SPO1 Aldave was the first person to
enter the house, followed by the barangay officials and his fellow officers, SPO1
Roger Masagca (SPO1 Masagca) and PO1 Ronnie Valeza (PO1 Valeza). The search
warrant was shown to Roger. In his presence and in the presence of Kagawad Jena
Arcilla (Arcilla), the raiding team recovered one piece of aluminum foil, one plastic
sachet containing residue of white crystalline substance, and one small pair of green
scissors beside the bed inside a room, and 15 pieces of used lighters from an
improvised altar on top of a wooden table. A search of Roger's pocket yielded two
pieces of P50.00 bill and one piece of P100.00 bill. SPO1 Aldave as the seizing
officer prepared and signed an RPS. Asuncion, Arcilla and Barangay Tanod Juan
Gonzales (Gonzales) witnessed the preparation and signing of the said RPS. Roger,
however, refused to sign the same. The couple was then brought to the police station.
[13]
At the Virac Police Station, a body search on Emily resulted in the seizure
of bills of different denominations, totaling P2,720.00. Some of these bills were
identified as those bills photocopied and submitted to the Provincial Prosecution
Office.[14]
On August 4, 2005, immediately after the operation and the execution of the search
warrant, P/CI Tria requested for a laboratory examination of a piece of small size
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing white crystalline substance marked
with initial R; 12 pieces of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets,
containing white crystalline substance with sub-markings R-1 to R-12; and one small
size crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet. The request of P/CI Tria
for laboratory examination dated August 4, 2005 was received by a certain PO2
Abanio [Abao] and Police Inspector Sta. Cruz, J. (P/Insp. Sta. Cruz). The sachet with
the initial R was the sachet of shabu sold to PO1 Area during the buy bust operation
while the sachets of shabu marked as R-1 to R-12 were the sachets of shabu which
Roger handed to Emily and which were found in the possession of Emily after PO1
Area identified himself as a police officer.[15]

Subsequently, witness Police Senior Inspector Josephine Macura Clemen (PSI
Clemen), the forensic expert, received personally from the receiving clerk (PO2
Abanio) the above-mentioned marked pieces of evidence. She then immediately
conducted laboratory examination, yielding a result that the 12 pieces of plastic
sachets (with markings R-1 to R-12), the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
with marking R, the one aluminum foil strip, and a small size plastic sachet
contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.[16]
The accused-appellants were subsequently charged in two separate Informations,
[17]
both dated August 4, 2005, with violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165, which were respectively docketed as Criminal Case No. 3490 and
Criminal Case No. 3489. The Informations state as follows:
Criminal Case No. 3490
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor accuses Roger Posada y
Urbano and Emily Posada y Sarmiento of Violation of R.A. 9165
defined and penalized under Section 5 of said Law, committed as
follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of August 2005 at noontime along
Imelda Blvd. in barangay Concepcion, municipality (sic) of Virac,
[P]rovince of Catanduanes, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused without the
authority of law, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another 12 pieces of
transparent sealed plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride[,] locally known as shabu[,] with a total weight of
0.9 gram [-] a prohibited drug[,] and several marked money bills.
[18]
[Emphasis supplied]
Criminal Case No. 3489
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor accuses Roger Posada y
Urbano of Violation of R.A. 9165 defined and penalized under
Section 12 of said law, committed as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of August 2005 in the afternoon in
Barangay Concepcion, municipality (sic) of Virac, province (sic)
of Catanduanes, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the said accused without the authority of law did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess and in
control of one (1) piece of teared plastic sachet containing residue
of a crystalline substance[,] locally known as shabu, (1) piece
small aluminum foil, (1) piece small scissors (sic) and 15 pieces of
used lighter[,] which paraphernalia are (sic) fit or intended for
smoking or introducing any dangerous drug into the body of a
person.[19]
However, the Information for Criminal Case No. 3490 was later amended, [20] to
reflect a change in the weight of the seized drugs from 0.9 gram to 0.4578 gram.
Meanwhile, on the part of the accused-appellants, they simply denied the accusations
against them. Roger claimed that on April 3, 2005 (which was even a misleading
date since the event happened on August 3, 2005), at around 12 noon, he was putting
his three year-old child to sleep inside their house, while his wife Emily was washing
their clothes at his parents' house. He then peeped through the window jalousies
when he heard his wife calling out his name. He saw a policeman, later identified as
PO1 Area, pulling Emily towards the road. Roger claimed that PO1 Valeza later
poked a gun at him, preventing him to move from the window. Thereafter, the door
of Roger's house was forced open, allowing SPO1 Aldave, SPO1 Masagca, PO1
Valeza and Barangay Tanod Vic Vargas (Vargas) to enter his house. Inside the house,
PO1 Valeza allegedly took down the jackets hanging on the wall and searched them;
SPO1 Aldave took pictures while Vargas and SPO1 Masagca went inside the room
and searched the cabinets where toys were kept. Roger further claims that nothing
was found in his house. After the search, Roger was brought to the patrol car where
his wife Emily was taken.[21]
Meanwhile, Emily testified that on that fateful day of August 3, 2005, she was
washing clothes at her mother-in-law's house when a man, whom she could not
identify, approached her and asked her if she was Emily Posada. She alleged that the
man immediately held her hands, shouting Police! Police! after which police officers
Tria and Aldave arrived. Her picture was taken. Subsequently, she was brought to the
patrol car where her husband Roger later joined her. Both Roger and Emily were
then transported to the police station. Roger was placed behind bars while Emily was
placed at the detention cell of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP).
[22]
The couple claimed that the police officers did not inform them why they were
brought to the police station and subsequently detained. Emily denied that a buy-bust
operation was conducted against her, but she was aware of the search conducted in
their house because her husband informed her at the police station. Meanwhile,
Roger also denied that the police officers presented to him a search warrant.
Likewise, both alleged that the money taken from Emily's wallet were the proceeds
of the sale of their chickens, which Roger gave to Emily. The said money amounted
to more or less P3,000.00.[23]
Issues
 quantitative examination within the mandatory 24-hour period from
Considering that the accused-appellants did not file a supplemental brief and that confiscation; and
appellee People of the Philippines adopted its brief before the CA, we now rule on
the matter based on the issues [24] which the accused-appellants raised in their brief (2) There is an alleged discrepancy as to the number of plastic sachets
before the CA, to wit: recovered from the accused-appellants and those submitted to forensic
chemist PSI Clemen.
I
On the first factual issue, we find that the records of the case and the testimonies of
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE witnesses belie the accused-appellants' contention.
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF Based on the records, the buy-bust operation, the arrest of the accused-appellants and
CUSTODY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ALLEGED SEIZED the confiscation of the illegal items happened at around 12 noon of August 3, 2005.
[26]
ILLEGAL ITEMS. PO1 Area received from Emily one sachet of shabu and after PO1 Area
introduced himself and arrested Emily, 12 more sachets of shabu were found in the
II possession of Emily. The said 12 sachets of shabu were inside a coin purse, with a
bundle of money.[27] PO1 Area prepared on the same day an RPS[28] in the presence
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING of Asuncion, Kagawad Sarmiento and Vargas.[29] On August 4, 2005, P/CI Tria
THE ACCUSED-APPELANTS DESPITE THE requested for a laboratory examination of a piece of small size heat-sealed
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT transparent plastic sachet, containing white crystalline substance marked with initial
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[25] R; 12 pieces of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, containing white
crystalline substance with sub-markings R-1 to R-12; and one small size crumpled
aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet. The request of P/CI Tria for laboratory
Our Ruling examination dated August 4, 2005 was received by PO2 Abanio and P/Insp. Sta.
Cruz on the same date.[30]
While we give due credence to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses absent any showing that the elements of the crime have been overlooked, The accused-appellants wanted us to believe that a day had lapsed before P/CI Tria
misapprehended, or misapplied, we will take pains in taking a second hard look on submitted the illegal drugs to PNP Crime Laboratory Service, contrary to the
the issues the accused-appellants raised, considering they are husband and wife mandate of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. They even cited the testimony of P/CI Tria
whose imprisonment will greatly affect the children they will leave behind once they where the latter allegedly admitted submitting the subject seized items on August 4,
are declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 2005. However, a close look at the testimony of P/CI Tria [31] will reveal that nothing
in it would show that he submitted the alleged illegal drugs beyond the 24-hour
Now, we are going to discuss the case following the issues the accused-appellants reglementary period. In fact, even the Laboratory Examination Request dated August
raised. 4, 2005 does not indicate violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. [32] Clearly, from
the foregoing, the accused-appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove their
The prosecution has contention. The age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges must prove his
established the chain of allegation applies[33] in this case. The accused-appellants' failure to show evidence
custody and integrity of the that the police officers did not comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 gives us no
seized illegal items. other recourse but to respect the findings of trial court and of the CA.

The accused-appellants alleged that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of
custody and integrity of the seized illegal items because:
(1) The apprehending officers allegedly failed to submit the seized illegal
items to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for a qualitative and
Furthermore, the CA is correct in giving credence to the testimonies of the police
officers as regards the timely submission of the subject illegal drugs since they are
presumed to have regularly performed their duties, unless there is evidence
suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers. [34] In this case, the accused-
appellants failed to contradict the presumption. What goes against the accused-
appellants is the fact that they have not offered any evidence of ill-motive against the
police officers. Emily even admitted that she did not know PO1 Area, the poseur-
buyer.[35] Considering that there was no existing relationship between the police SUBJECT : Laboratory Examination request for
officers and the accused-appellants, the former could not be accused of improper DATE : 04 August 2005
motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellants. In People v. Dumangay, -----------------------------------------------------------
[36]
we upheld the findings of the lower court on the presumption of regularity in the -----------
performance of official duties because there was no proof of ill-motive. Therein, the
accused-appellants self-serving and uncorroborated defenses did not prevail over the 1. Request conduct laboratory examination on
trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses. The same may be said in the the accompanying specimen to determine
present case. whether the white crystalline granules inside
Thirteen (13) pcs small size transparent heat
Finding the accused-appellants' arguments without a leg to stand on, seald (sic) plastic sachets are Methamphetamine
the apprehending police officers are presumed to have timely submitted the seized Hydrochloride or SHABU and also whether the
illegal items to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for a qualitative and quantitative one (1) pc small size crumpled aluminum foil
examination within the mandatory 24-hour period from confiscation. and small size transparent plastic sachet contains
residue or granules of Methamphetamine
On the second factual issue, we find the accused-appellants' claim not supported by Hydrochloride or Shabu.
evidence.
EXHIBIT QUANTITY/ DESCRIPTION
The accused-appellants alleged that the integrity of the seized illegal items was A One (1) pc small size heat sealed transparent plastic
compromised and their evidentiary value diminished because of the alleged sachet sachet (sic) containing white crystalline substance
discrepancy between the number of plastic sachets recovered from the accused- with marking initial R the initial of PO1 ROLDAN
appellants and those submitted to forensic chemist PSI Clemen. They insisted that AREA who acted as posuer (sic) buyer during the drug
based on the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 3489 and 3490 and the testimonies buy bust operation.
of witnesses Asuncion[37] and SPO1 Aldave,[38] only fourteen (14) plastic sachets
were recovered from the accused-appellants, while PSI Clemen allegedly testified B Twelve (12) pcs small size heat sealed transparent plastic
that a total of 15 sachets were submitted for examination.[39] sachet containing white crystalline substance with
markings R1-R12 found/confiscated from the suspect
However, a review of the defense-quoted testimony of PSI Clemen would show that during drug buy bust operation.
she received one piece of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with
marking R,[40] 12 pieces small size heat-sealed marked as R-1 to R-12 [41] and one C One (1) small size crumpled aluminum foil and small
small size crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet [42] totaling to 15 size plastic sachet confiscated/found in the possession of
items. PSI Clemen's testimony tallies with the Laboratory Examination Request suspect during the execution of search warrant number
(Exhibit J) of P/CI Tria. We reproduce Exhibit J below, to wit: 37 issued by Hon[.] Judge Jaime E[.] Contreras of RTC
Branch 43.
Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION SUSPECT/S Roger Posada y Urbano
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE Emily Posada y Sarmiento
Virac Municipal Police Station John-John Bryan Urbano y Zafe
Virac, Catanduanes
COMPLAINANT Officer-in-Charge
MEMORANDUM: Virac MPS

FOR : The Chief FACTS OF THE CASE: Evidence submitted for

PNP Crime Laboratory Service laboratory examination was bought and others
Camp Gen Simeon A Ola were confiscated by the PNP team of Virac
Legaspi City during Buy Bust (sic) operation and the
 effect/execution of search warrant number 37 on
August 3, 2005 in [B]arangay Concepcion Virac,
Catanduanes.
2. Request acknowledge reciept (sic) and furnish
this office Laboratory examination result as soon
as possible for subsequent submission/filing
same in court as supporting documents to this
case.
GIL
FRANCIS
G[.] TRIA
Pol Chief
Inspector
Officer-in-
Charge[43]
Based on the cited exhibit, we find that in Exhibit A we have the first item, marked
with R. Under Exhibit B, we have the next 12 items marked as R-1 to R-12. Under
Exhibit C, we have the remaining two items submitted to the crime laboratory,
namely one small size crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet
confiscated and found in the possession of Roger. All these items total to 15 items
consistent with the testimony of PSI Clemen. Thus, evidence shows no discrepancy
as to the number of plastic sachets recovered from the accused-appellants and those
submitted to forensic chemist PSI Clemen.
Finally, we say that the prosecution has established the chain of custody and
integrity of the seized illegal items.
After PO1 Area arrested Emily and confiscated the 13 sachets of shabu (one bought
by PO1 Area from Emily and 12 found in Emily's coin purse after she received the
same from her husband Roger),[44] P/CI Tria took pictures of the incident using his
cellphone while the official photographer was also taking pictures. [45] Then PO1 Area
prepared an RPS,[46] which Asuncion, Sarmiento and Vargas witnessed.
[47]
Meanwhile, SPO1 Aldave, seizing officer went inside the house of the accused-
appellants, prepared and signed an RPS after the raiding team found a piece of
aluminum foil, one plastic sachet containing residue of white crystalline substance,
one small pair of green scissors beside the bed inside a room, 15 pieces of used
lighters, and two pieces of P50.00 bill and one piece of P100.00 bill. Asuncion,
Arcilla and Gonzales witnessed the preparation and signing of the said RPS.
[48]
Thereafter, on August 4, 2005, P/CI Tria requested for a laboratory examination
of a piece of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing white
crystalline substance marked with initial R; 12 pieces of small size heat sealed
transparent plastic sachets, containing white crystalline substance with sub-markings
R-1 to R-12; and one small size crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic
sachet. The request of P/CI Tria for laboratory examination dated August 4, 2005
was received by a certain PO2 Abanio and P/Insp. Sta. Cruz. [49] Subsequently,
witness PSI Clemen, the forensic expert, received personally from PO2 Abanio the
above-mentioned marked pieces of evidence. She then immediately conducted a
laboratory examination, yielding a result that the 12 pieces of plastic sachets (with
markings R-1 to R-12), the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with marking R
and the one aluminum foil strip contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. [50] In
open court, the above-mentioned pieces of evidence were identified and marked.[51]
From the foregoing, the prosecution, without an iota of doubt, has established the
chain of custody and integrity of the seized illegal items. The Supreme Court
in People v. Sanchez,[52] clearly discussed how chain of custody should be proven, to
wit:
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.[53]
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to present, not only the corpus delicti,
but the testimonies of the people involved in each link in the chain of custody.
The prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused-
appellants sold 12 sachets
of shabu, but it has proven
the accused-appellants' guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of
possession of the same
number of shabu in violation
of Section 11, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165.

Before we proceed in discussing the guilt of the couple, we must first take
into account a discrepancy in the Information for Criminal Case No. 3490. In the
said information, the accused-appellants were charged for selling 12 pieces of
transparent sealed plastic sachet of shabu. However, based on the evidence which the
prosecution adduced, Emily sold to PO1 Area one sachet of shabu, which was
worth P250.00. Then, after she handed the one sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer,
Emily received additional 12 sachets of shabu from her husband Roger and when
PO1 Area informed the couple of the buy-bust, Emily had in her possession the 12
sachets of shabu.[54] Subsequently, the confiscated sachets of shabu were marked. The
one sold to PO1 Area was marked with R, while the 12 sachets of shabu Roger
handed to Emily before their arrest were marked as R-1 to R-12.[55]
The unfortunate fact of this case is that rather than separately charging Emily for the
sale of the one sachet of shabu and charging both Emily and Roger for possession of
the 12 sachets of shabu, the public prosecutor lumped the charges together to sale of
12 sachets of shabu. This is wrong. The Information is defective for charging the
accused-appellants of selling 12 sachets of shabu when, in fact, they should have
been charged of selling one sachet of shabu and possessing 12 sachets
of shabu. From the evidence adduced, Emily and Roger never sold the 12 sachets
of shabu. They possessed them. Thus, they should have not been convicted for
selling the 12 sachets of shabu. However, this was exactly what was done both by
the trial court and the CA. Without basis in fact, they convicted the couple for selling
the 12 sachets of shabu.
Indeed, it must be pointed out that the prosecution filed a defective Information. An
Information is fatally defective when it is clear that it does not really charge an
offense[56] or when an essential element of the crime has not been sufficiently alleged.
[57]
In the instant case, while the prosecution was able to allege the identity of the
buyer and the seller, it failed to particularly allege or identify in the Information the
subject matter of the sale or the corpus delicti. We must remember that one of the
essential elements to convict a person of sale of prohibited drugs is to identify with
certainty the corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution took the liberty to lump together
two sets of corpora delicti when it should have separated the two in two different
informations. To allow the prosecution to do this is to deprive the accused-appellants
of their right to be informed, not only of the nature of the offense being charged, but
of the essential element of the offense charged; and in this case, the very corpus
delicti of the crime.
Furthermore, when ambiguity exists in the complaint or information, the court has no
other recourse but to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the accused. [58] Here, since
there exists ambiguity as to the identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the
offense charged, it follows that such ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the
accused-appellants. Thus, from the foregoing discussion, we have no other choice
but to acquit the accused-appellants of sale of 12 sachets of shabu.
Truly, both the trial court and the CA were wrong in convicting the couple for selling
12 sachets of shabu because the prosecution failed to show that the husband and wife
had indeed sold the 12 sachets of shabu. Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 provides:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos ([P]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
([P]10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver,
give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions.
More, jurisprudence holds that the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs can
only be successful when the following elements are established, namely:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale;
and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore..[59]
To our minds, while there was indeed a transaction between Emily and PO1 Area,
the prosecution failed to show that the subject matter of the sale to PO1 Area was the
12 sachets of shabu. Based on the testimony of PO1 Area, the 12 sachets
of shabu were the sachets of shabu which Roger handed to his wife Emily and were
not sold, but which PO1 Area found in her possession after the latter identified
himself as a police officer.
In People v. Paloma,[60] we acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to
prove the crime of illegal sale of drugs, and we have set the standard in proving the
same, to wit:
Under the "objective" test set by the Court in People v.
Doria, the prosecution must clearly and adequately show the
details of the purported sale, namely, the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration, and, finally, the accused's delivery of
the illegal drug to the buyer, whether the latter be the informant
alone or the police officer. This proof is essential to ensure that
law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit the
offense.[61]

In the instant case, PO1 Area's testimony showed no evidence that the transaction as
to the sale of the 12 sachets of shabu ever happened. Rather, PO1 Area adequately
testified on the fact that accused-appellant Roger handed the 12 sachets of shabu to
Emily who kept them in a coin purse. And after PO1 Area identified himself as a
police operative, he found the 12 sachets of shabu in Emily's possession.[62] From the
foregoing, while the prosecution was able to prove the sale of one sachet of shabu, it
is patently clear that it never established with moral certainty all the elements of
illegal sale of the 12 sachets of shabu. And failure to show that indeed there was sale
means failure to prove the guilt of the accused for illegal sale of drugs, because what
matters in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is to show proof that the
sale actually happened, coupled with the presentation in court of corpus delicti.
[63]
Here, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the sale of the 12 sachets
of shabu and also to prove that the 12 sachets of shabupresented in court were truly
the subject matter of the sale between the accused-appellants and PO1 Area.
Notwithstanding the above-discussion, we convict both Roger and Emily of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs despite the fact that they were charged for the sale of
illegal drugs, because possession is necessarily included in sale of illegal drugs.
Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof.
When there is variance between the offense charged in the
complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as
charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved,
the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is
included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is
included in the offense proved.
Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same, the
accused-appellants should be convicted of possession. We have consistently ruled
that possession of prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof.
[64]
Then Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban logically and clearly explained the
rationale behind this ruling, to wit:
The prevailing doctrine is that possession of marijuana is
absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further
apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited
drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are
probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.
Possession is a necessary element in a prosecution for illegal sale
of prohibited drugs. It is indispensable that the prohibited drug
subject of the sale be identified and presented in court. That
the corpus delicti of illegal sale could not be established without a
showing that the accused possessed, sold and delivered a
prohibited drug clearly indicates that possession is an element of
the former. The same rule is applicable in cases of delivery of
prohibited drugs and giving them away to another.[65] (Citations
omitted)
For prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the
following essential elements must be proven, namely: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possess the said drug.[66]
All these elements are obtaining and duly established in this case and we will discuss
them thoroughly below, since we are not ready to altogether exonerate the couple.
On Emily's Liability
To our minds, the testimony of PO1 Area is sufficient to establish concurrence of all
the elements necessary to convict Emily of violating Section 11, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165. PO1 Area vividly narrated the details of the buy-bust operation. He
recounted how on August 3, 2005 at around 12 noon, he acted as the poseur-buyer
of shabu. He approached Emily, who was then standing in front of their house, and
told her that he would like to buy shabu, and then gave her the P250.00. Emily then
returned to her house and got a coin purse. Upon returning, Emily handed to PO1
Area a piece of sachet containing shabu. After receiving the sachet of shabu, PO1
Area saw Roger hand the 12 sachets of shabu to Emily who kept them in a coin
purse. After paying for and receiving the sachet of shabu from Emily, PO1 Area
arrested the latter and found in her possession the 12 sachets of shabu.[67] From the
foregoing, it is patently clear that the prosecution established with moral certainty all
the elements of illegal possession of shabu, that is: PO1 Area found in Emily's
physical and actual possession the 12 sachets of shabu; such possession of the 12
sachets of shabu was not authorized; and since Emily put the 12 sachets of shabu in
the purse after receiving them from her husband, she possessed the same freely and
consciously.
Furthermore, PO1 Area's testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of the
following: (a) Barangay Kagawad Sarmiento who witnessed how PO1 Area caught
Emily doing the illegal act; (b) Barangay Captain Asuncion, Jr. who testified that he
was with the raiding team when the latter conducted the buy-bust operation and that
he witnessed how money changed hands; (c) P/CI Tria who witnessed the buy-bust
operation and was one of the arresting officers; (d) SPO1 Aldave who executed the
search warrant; and (e) Barangay Kagawad Arcilla who also accompanied the
raiding team in the search of the accused-appellants' house. All these witnesses
completed all the angles of the buy-bust operation and the search on Emily's person
up to the finding that she possessed the 12 sachets of shabu. Indeed, considering all
of the above-findings of facts, we cannot have other conclusion but to find Emily
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for possession of prohibited drugs.
Indeed, every accused deserves a second look before conviction. This is the essence
of the constitutional presumption of innocence. In the present case, we did not only
take a second look at the facts and laws of this case because the accused-appellants
are both parents. We take a third, a fourth up to a seventh look to ensure that no child
will be left unattended because his parents were imprisoned based on false
accusations. Thus, after reviewing this case, the bare truth is Emily was found in
possession of 12 sachets of shabuon August 3, 2005.
On Roger's Liability
As to Roger, can we also convict him of possession of the same 12 sachets
of shabu considering that same had been found in the possession of his wife Emily?
We resolve in the affirmative.
In United States v. Juan,[68] we have clarified the meaning of the words having
possession of. We said that the said phrase included constructive possession, that is,
the relation between the owner of the drug and the drug itself when the owner is not
in actual physical possession, but when it is still under his control and management
and subject to his disposition. [69] In other words, in that case, we recognized the fact
that a person remains to be in possession of the prohibited drugs although he may not
have or may have lost physical possession of the same.
To elucidate, we must go back to the circumstances surrounding the Juan case. A
Chinaman named Lee See arrived at the Bay of Calbayog, Samar through the
steamer Ton-Yek.Upon disembarking, he went to the house of therein appellant Chan
Guy Juan, who was living in the town of Calbayog. Lee See and Chan Guy Juan had
a lengthy conversation. Chan Guy Juan then hired a certain Isidro Cabinico
(Cabinico) to go alongside of the steamer with his baroto, to carry and deliver to him
a sack which appellant Chan Guy Juan alleged was sugar. Cabinico went to Lee See
to get the said sack. However, on his way to the house of Chan Guy Juan, Cabinico
was arrested by the local authorities. Found in his possessions were a small amount
of sugar and 28 cans of opium. The opium was confiscated and separate criminal
charges were instituted against the two Chinamen and Cabinico. After a thorough
investigation, the provincial fiscal dismissed the case against Cabinico because he
had no knowledge of the content of the sack, while the two Chinamen were
eventually convicted. Chan Guy Juan appealed his conviction arguing that he did not
have actual physical possession or control of the 28 cans of opium. But we held that
both Chinese had constructive possession of the opium and that they were both guilty
as principals.[70]
Our ruling in Juan applies to the present case. Admittedly, the 12 sachets
of shabu were found in the possession of Emily. But PO1 Area saw Roger hand the
same 12 sachets of shabu to Emily. While Roger had lost physical possession of the
said 12 sachets of shabu, he had constructive possession of the same because they
remain to be under his control and management. In the Juan case, Lee See gave the
physical possession of the opium to Cabinico while Chan Guy Juan had not yet
received the same opium from Lee See, but both were held guilty of illegal
possession of opium. Thus, we can liken the instant case to that of Juan because
while Roger had lost physical possession of the 12 sachets of shabu to Emily, he
maintained constructive possession of the same.
Convicting both Emily and Roger of possession of illegal drugs deprives their
children of parents. But if we have to take care of our children and the family where
each of us belongs, we are obligated to put in jail all those, including fathers and
mothers, who peddle illegal drugs.
Finally, we cannot let this case pass us by without emphasizing the need for the
public prosecutor to properly evaluate all the pieces of evidence and file the proper
information to serve the ends of justice. The public prosecutor must exert all efforts
so as not to deny the People a remedy against those who sell prohibited drugs to the
detriment of the community and its children. Many drug cases are dismissed because
of the prosecutor's sloppy work and failure to file airtight cases. If only the
prosecution properly files theInformation and prosecutes the same with precision,
guilty drug pushers would be punished to the extent allowed under the law, as in this
case.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 17, 2010
is MODIFIED. Accused-appellants ROGER POSADA and EMILY
POSADA ARE FOUND GUILTY OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF TWELVE
(12) SACHETS OF METHAMPETAMINE HYDROCHOLORIDE
OR SHABU, WITH A NET WEIGHT OF 0.4578 GRAMS AND ARE HEREBY
SENTENCED TO THE INDETERMINATE PENALTY OF TWELVE (12)
YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY, AS MINIMUM, TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS
AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS, AS MAXIMUM AND A FINE OF P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
 That on or about the 16th day of August, 2007, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without the necessary license or prescription and without being authorized
by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give
away Php200.00 worth of [Methamphetamine] Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing zero
point zero two (0.02) gram, a dangerous drug.2

The second information charges the same accused with violation of Section 11 of the
same law allegedly committed as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 07-1581

That on or about the 16th day of August, 2007, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess and/or use dangerous drugs and
without any license or proper prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
G.R. No. 199219 April 3, 2013 and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) plastic sachets of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) each weighing zero point zero two (0.02)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, gram or a total of zero point zero four (0.04) gram, which is a dangerous drug, in
vs. violation of the aforesaid law.3
GERRY OCTAVIO Y FLORENDO and REYNALDO CARIO Y MARTIR,
Accused-Appellants. The third information charges Reynaldo Cario y Martir (Cario) of violating
Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
VELASCO, JR.,*
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 07-1582
DECISION
That on or about the 16th day of August, 2007, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
PEREZ, J.: Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess and/or use dangerous drugs and
For review of this Court is the appeal filed by Gerry Octavio (Octavio) and Reynaldo without any license or proper prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
Cario (Cario) assailing the 29 March 2011 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) plastic sachets of
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03900. The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial [Methamphetamine] Hydrochloride (Shabu) each weighing zero point zero two
Court (RTC), Branch 65, Makati City finding both accused guilty of violating Article (0.02) gram or a total of zero point zero four (0.04) gram, which is a dangerous drug,
II of Republic in violation of the aforesaid law.4

Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. Version of the Prosecution:

The Antecedents
On 21 August 2007, three (3) separate Informations were filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Makati City for violations of R.A No. 9165. The first information
charges Gerry Octavio y Florendo with violation of Section 5 thereof in the
following manner:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 07-1580
At around 7:00 oclock in evening of 16 August 2007, an informant went to the
Office of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) to report the alleged
rampant illegal drug trafficking activities of Gerry Octavio alias "Buboy" at Pateros
Street, Barangay Olympia, Makati City.5
On the basis of this report, an anti-narcotics team was formed to conduct a buy-bust
operation with MADAC operatives Danilo Baysa (Baysa) and Danilo Sumudlayon
(Sumudlayon) as the designated poseur-buyer and immediate back-up, respectively.
Two (2) pieces of One Hundred Peso bills were pre-marked to be utilized as buy-bust
money. Proper coordination was made with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) before the team, together with the asset, proceeded to the target
area.6
Upon arrival at the designated area, the team spotted Octavio conversing with
another male person along an alley. MADAC operative Baysa and the asset
approached the duo while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves.
The asset, who was familiar with the subject, introduced MADAC operative Baysa
as a "scorer" or user of shabu. The other male person, however, tried to convince
MADAC operative Baysa to buy shabu from him instead, at the same time showing
two (2) pieces of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected
shabu. The subject then introduced his companion to MADAC operative Baysa as
alias "Nano" before asking him how much he wanted to purchase. MADAC
operative Baysa intimated that he needed P200.00 worth of shabu, while
simultaneously handing over the marked money to the subject who, in turn, gave him
one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu.
The transaction having been consummated, MADAC operative Baysa executed the
pre-arranged signal to the rest of the team for assistance. Taking their cue, [PO1
Michelle V. Gimena] (PO1 Gimena) and MADAC operative Sumudlayon rushed to
the scene. Meanwhile, MADAC operative Baysa introduced himself before effecting
the arrest of the subject, who was later identified as the herein accused Gerry Octavio
y Florendo. A routine body search upon his person yielded the marked money, two
(2) pieces of small plastic sachets containing suspected shabu and another two (2)
P100 bills. MADAC operative Sumudlayon, on the other hand, was able to arrest
alias "Nano," who was later identified as the herein accused Reynaldo Cario y
Martir. Two (2) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing the same
illegal substance were recovered from his possession.
Thereafter, both of the accused, as well as the confiscated items were brought to the
SAID-SOTF office for further investigation and later to the PNP Crime Laboratory
for drug test and examination, respectively.7
Version of the Defense
Both accused vehemently denied the charges against them. Accused Cario
maintained that at around 6:00 cclock in the evening of 17August 2007, he was
resting inside his house when four (4) men suddenly entered. They asked him if he
was Cesar Martir, referring to his cousin who resided next door. When he did not
respond, they handcuffed and boarded him inside their vehicle. One of those on
board was MADAC operative Ed Monteza who previously invited him to the
barangay hall in connection with an investigation regarding persons suspected to be
drug peddlers within the neighborhood. Upon seeing him, MADAC Ed Monteza
allegedly told his companions that they arrested the wrong person ("Hindi iyan ang
target natin.") Thus, the men returned to the house of Cesar Martir but the latter was
already nowhere in sight. They later proceeded to the SAID-SOTF and MADAC
office, passing through Pateros Street, Brgy. Olympia, Makati City, where his co-
accused Gerry Octavio was also arrested.
For his part, accused Octavio narrated that at around 6:30 oclock in the evening of
16 August 2007, he was walking along Pateros Street on his way to the house of
Sylvia Lopez. Since he worked as a car painter, he was supposed to estimate the cost
of materials needed to repaint her vehicle. Along the way, he caught sight of an
incoming Mitsubishi L-300 van. When it stopped in front of him, two (2) armed men
alighted therefrom and wanted to know where he was going. They likewise accused
him of using illegal drugs ("Siguro i-iscore ka, ano?"). Although he denied the
accusation, they handcuffed and boarded him just the same inside their vehicle. Once
inside, he saw MADAC operative Eduardo Monteza who arrested him sometime in
2003. He likewise saw his co-accused Reynaldo Cario already on board the van.
Upon arrival at the SAID-SOTF office, the men asked if they knew the whereabouts
of Cesar Martir. They allegedly threatened to file charges against the accused if they
refused to provide any information about him. Since the accused were unable to give
any information, an investigator accordingly produced plastic sachets of shabu which
were allegedly recovered from them.8
Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. After
pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Ruling of the RTC
On 23 March 2009, the trial court rendered a decision finding both accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. In Criminal Case No. 07-1580,
accused Octavio was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of P500,000.00. In Criminal
Case No. 07-1581, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen years (14) and eight (8) months
as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. Cario, for his part, was sentenced in
Criminal Case No. 07-1582 to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen years (14) and eight (8) months as
maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.9
The RTC found that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of the two accused for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, R.A. No.
9165. It ruled that the evidence presented during the trial adequately established that
a valid buy-bust operation was conducted by the operatives of the MADAC, as well
as the SAID-SOTF, Makati City on 16 August 2007 upon proper coordination with
the PDEA.10 On the other hand, accused Octavio and Cario failed to present
substantial evidence to establish their defense of frame-up. The RTC ruled that
frame-up, as advanced by the herein accused, is generally looked upon with caution
by the court because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Like alibi, frame-
up as a defense had invariably been viewed with disfavor as it is common and
standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.11
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, upon a finding that all of the elements of
illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drug have been sufficiently
established by the prosecution. It found credible the statements of prosecution
witnesses Baysa, Sumudlayon and Barangay Captain Victor Del Prado (Barangay
Captain Del Prado) about what transpired during and after the buy-bust operation.
Further, it ruled that the prosecution has proven as unbroken the chain of custody of
evidence. The CA likewise upheld the findings of the trial court that the buy-bust
operation conducted enjoyed the presumption of regularity, absent any showing of
ill-motive on the part of the police operatives who conducted the same.
The CA found accused-appellants defenses of denial and frame-up unconvincing
and lacked strong corroboration.12
ISSUE
Accused-appellants raised in their brief a lone error on the part of the appellate court,
to wit:
The court-a-quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.13
Our Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Accused-appellants submit that the trial court failed to consider the procedural flaws
committed by the arresting officers in the seizure and custody of drugs as embodied
in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.14 Accused-appellants allege
that no photograph was taken of the items seized from them. Further, Barangay
Captain Del Prado, an elected public official, was not present during the alleged buy-
bust operation. He was only asked to sign the inventory of the seized items shortly
after his arrival at the scene of the buy-bust operation. Thus, he has no personal
knowledge as to whether the drugs allegedly seized from the accused-appellants
were indeed recovered from them. Accused-appellants maintain that such failure
created a cloud of doubt as to whether the alleged shabu seized from them were the
same ones forwarded by the apprehending officers to the investigating officer, to the
crime laboratory for examination and later presented in court.15
Relevant to accused-appellants case is the procedure to be followed in the custody
and handling of the seized dangerous drugs as outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II, R.A. No. 9165, which reads:
(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.
This provision is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items.
Clearly, there is nothing in the aforesaid law or its implementing rules which require
the presence of the elected public official during the buy-bust operation. It is enough
that he is present during the physical inventory immediately conducted after the
seizure and confiscation of the drugs and he signs the copies of the inventory and is
given a copy thereof.
During the cross-examination by the defense counsel, Barangay Captain Del Prado
testified as follows:
Q: Mr. Witness, you mentioned it was evening time when Eduardo Monteza called
you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was the date again?
A: August 16 think.
Q: Am I correct to say that Eduardo Monteza called you up regarding the arrest of
the suspect in this case?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you proceeded to the place, it was designated by Ed Monteza, the place you
would be?
A: They told me the site of apprehension because I know the place of operation, sir.
THE COURT:
Q: Where was the area of operation?
A: Pateros Street Barangay Olympia near Osmea Street.
Q: You said that some items were shown to you, will you please enlighten us what
are these items?
A: I remember four (4) items in the inventory receipt that I signed, the first item
consists of five (5) transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu, one with
marking BUBOY, the subject which was bought from Buboy, then 2 plastic sachets
with marking BUBOY 1 and 2, those recovered from the possession of the said
@Buboy, then 2 items with marking NANO-1 and NANO-2 recovered from Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will
accused Reynaldo.
A: I did not notice, sir, because they were then sitting.16
xxxx
In the aforesaid testimony, Barangay Captain Del Prado, not only positively
identified both accused but also identified the items contained in the inventory
receipt. Such testimony clearly established compliance with the requirement of
Section 21with regard to the presence and participation of the elected public official.
Furthermore, this Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed
to take a photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized
inadmissible in evidence.17 What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.18 In other words, to be
admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or
testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized
from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer;
forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the
time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains
unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in
not be affected.19

Q: When you proceeded to the place, did you happen to see the accused? The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a
showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.
A: Yes, sir. Appellants bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled
with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits
Q: What were they wearing at that time, if you can still remember? by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their
duties20 Appellants in this case failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill
A: I remember that Gerry was wearing sando and short. motive on the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of the apprehending
officers deserve full faith and credit21 In fact, accused-appellants did not even
Q: Whats the color of the sando? questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. They anchored their appeal
solely on the alleged broken chain of the custody of the seized drugs.
A: I remember its white, sir.
Finally, we note and agree with the observation of the CA that the issue regarding the
Q: The short, whats the color? break in the chain of custody of evidence was raised belatedly and only for the first
time on appeal.22 In People v. Mateo,23 this Court brushed aside the accused's
A: Its maong shorts, sir. belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person was
inadmissible because the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A.
Q: What about the other accused? No. 9165. Whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally
complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because accused did not question
A: I remember hes wearing white t-shirt, sir. during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Objection to evidence
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject
Q: And his lower garment? the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such
objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.

On the basis of the aforesaid disquisition, we find no reason to modify or set aside
the decision of the CA.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the 29 March 2011 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03900 in is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[G.R. No. 193379 : August 15, 2011]
CESAR D. CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
VELASCO JR., J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, accused-appellant Cesar D.
Castro (Castro) assails the January 6, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR No. 31793, as effectively reiterated in its August 10, 2010
Resolution,[2] which affirmed in toto the July 11, 2008 Decision[3] of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16 in Laoag City, in Criminal Case No. 10784-16. The
RTC found Castro guilty of violating Sec. 11, Art. II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165
or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Castro was charged with possession of shabu in an Information dated July 26, 2003,
the inculpatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 25th day of July 2003 in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody,
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a dangerous causing the dropping of an item. He likewise confirmed that the item dropped was a
drug, contained in one (1) plastic sachet, weighing more or less 0.1 gram including
the plastic sachet, without any license or authority, in violation of the aforecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
When arraigned, Castro pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
At the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense jointly stipulated as to
the identity of the accused, such that whenever the name Cesar Castro is mentioned,
the reference is to the accused thus charged in the information. They likewise
stipulated on the issue of whether or not the accused, when arrested on July 25, 2003,
was in possession of shabu and, if so, whether he was authorized.
Trial on the merits then ensued.
The trial court summarized the states evidence, as follows:
PO1 JONEL MANGAPIT testified that: On July 25, 2003, he was assigned in the
Intelligence and Operation Section of Laoag City Police Station at Barangay I, Laoag
City. At about 4:45, SPO2 Nestor Felipe informed them that he received a phone call
from a concerned citizen that a male person wearing green t-shirt and brown maong
bought shabu near the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Police Superintendent Pagdilao dispatched a
team of police officers composed of PO1 Inspector Aldos, SPO3 Lagundino, SPO2
Bal and himself to verify the veracity of the report. They rode on the black Toyota
Corolla and proceeded to the place. (The Iglesia Ni Kristo is farther west of the
Police station of Laoag City at Brgy. I, along Rizal Street). Upon reaching the Iglesia
Ni Cristo church, they saw a male person with the green description. They know his
person as one of the drug personalities. He was walking towards the east with his
right hand placed on his pocket. They were about ten (10) meters away from the
accused. They approached him. The accused panic upon recognizing them as
policemen and brought something [out] from his pocket and threw it at his back. The
things thrown by the accused were plastic sachets of shabu, lighter and a coin. They
arrested the accused and he was informed of his constitutional rights. He could not
answer when he was asked whether or not he had authority to possess illegal drug.
They brought the accused to the police station and he was indorsed to Investigation
Section. The plastic sachet of shabu was turned over to the Evidence Custodian,
SPO2 Loreto Ancheta. x x x Police Officers Aldos and Bal also saw the accused
threw something in the manner he described. It was SPO2 Bal who picked up the
plastic sachet of shabu. The accused was facing east and their vehicle was facing
west. The accused was walking. He took hold of the accused. The thing that was
thrown was 1 meter away from the back of the accused. From his experience he
knew that the content of the plastic sachet thrown by the accused was shabu. (TSN
April 13, 2004, pp. 2-10) On additional examination, he confirmed that he saw the
accused making a motion of bringing out from his front pants pocket his hands
sachet of shabu and it is the same item that was picked up by SPO2 Bal. He received
the sachet of shabu from Officer Bal and turned over the same to the evidence
custodian five to ten minutes after the operation. SPO3 Lagundino and Senior Insp.
Aldos were present when Officer Bal turned over the shabu to him. He cannot
remember if there was a Post Operation Report. (TSN, January 13, 2006, pp. 13-17)
SPO2 ERNESTO BAL testified that: In the afternoon of July 25, 2003, the complaint
desk officer received a telephone call informing that a male person wearing a green t-
shirt and a brown maong pants had just bought a shabu at Brgy. I near the Iglesia Ni
Cristo. The Chief of Police x x x dispatched them to verify the information. They
rode in an unmarked vehicle x x x. When they were at the Rizal Street, they saw a
male person that matched the description given coming from the house of the
Valeriano family which is southwest of Iglesia Ni Cristo. From a distance of about
ten (10) to twelve (12) meters, they saw the male person place his right hand into his
right side pocket. When they got near the male person, they noticed him removing
his right hand from his pocket and he threw something backward. They were more or
less four (4) meters away from the accused. PO1 Mangapit alighted and took hold of
the accused. He also alighted, went to PO1 Mangapit who told him to pick-up the
thing which the accused threw. He picked-up a plastic sachet which contained white
crystalline substance. He asked the accused if he has license or permit to possess
shabu. Accused Cesar Castro did not answer. They brought the accused together with
the plastic sachet to the police station and they delivered the plastic sachet with
crystalline substance to the evidence custodian. (TSN, December 2, 2004, pp. 2-7)
On cross examination, [he stated that] x x x When he picked up the plastic sachet it
was more or less half-meter from the accused. He heard PO1 Mangapit inform the
accused of his constitutional rights. (ibid, pp. 11-24) The distance between the police
station and the Iglesia Ni Cristo is more or less 200 meters. (TSN, March 17, 2006,
p. 5) x x x He (the witness) did not mark the shabu. It was only the evidence
custodian who marked it. (ibid, p. 16)
SPO2 LORETO ANCHETA, evidence custodian of the Laoag City, PNP testified
that: In the afternoon of July 25, 2003, he received one (1) plastic sachet containing
crystalline substance from Officer Ernesto Bal. Upon receipt of the specimen, he
placed markings on the sachet of the crystalline substance. He prepared a request
addressed to Chief of Hospital of the Laoag City General Hospital for physical and
ocular examination of the specimen. The request was signed by P/Supt. Joel
Pagdilao. He delivered the request and the specimen to Dr. Eliezer John Asuncion
and waited for the result of the physical and ocular examination. Upon receipt of the
result of the examination, he went back to the office and prepared another request for
laboratory examination addressed to the Regional Chief Chemist PNP Crime
Laboratory Service, Camp Brigidier General Oscar Florendo Parian, San Fernando,
La Union. This was signed by P/Insp. Dominic Guerrero. He brought the specimen
and the letter request to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Juan, Laoag City. It was
received by P/Insp. Valeriano Panem Laya II. (TSN, June 25, 2004, pp. 10-16)
P/INSP. VALERIANO PANEM LAYA II, testified that: As a Forensic Officer, x x x
he also holds office at the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Juan, Laoag City. He
remembered having received a specimen for examination with respect to a case
against Cesar Castro from Officer Loreto Ancheta (When he was asked where the
specimen was, he handed to the prosecutor the plastic sachet marked as Exhibit D). x
x x The result of his examination was that the specimen was positive for the presence
of [shabu]. This is contained in his Chemistry Report D-327-03. Exhibit E (TSN,
February 18, 2005, pp. 10-12) On cross examination he testified that: he weighed the
specimen at San Fernando, La Union. The weight was .08 gram and was indicated in
his Report. He did not weigh the representative sample. (ibid, p. 29)[5]
The defense presented in evidence the testimonies of accused Castro and one
Rodolfo Bunnao. The RTC also summarized them, as follows:
CESAR CASTRO x x x testified that: In the afternoon of July 25, 2003, he was at
the house of Crispin Valeriano to ask for the payment of his debt. Because Crispin
Valeriano has no money, he went home taking the southward direction to the national
road west of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. He was about to cross towards the other side of the
road when a car suddenly stopped in front of him and a policeman in the person of
Ernesto Bal alighted x x x. Ernesto Bal called for him and when he went near him
Ernesto Bal immediately searched his two (2) front pockets and x x x his back
pockets but was not able to get anything. He asked Ernest Bal why x x x. Bal told
him that somebody called them telling them that he went to the house of Crispin
Valeriano to buy shabu. After he was searched he was invited by Officer Bal to the
police station to make a statement x x x. He voluntarily went with them x x x.
Officer Mangapit went out from the right side of the car and went behind him. When
he alighted from the car, Officer Mangapit asked him, What is this? (holding
something placed in a plastic) to which he answered, I dont know.
While inside their office, they undressed him and examined thoroughly even the
sleeves of his shirt as well as his pants. He claimed that the plastic is inside and
longer when Exhibit D was shown to him and that the same was 1/3 inch wider and
longer. After he was dressed-up, they placed him at the prison cell, where he resisted.
He did not see were PO Mangapit took the plastic sachet but the latter insisted that
he took it from the seat where he was seated. On cross examination, he testified that
Police Officers Bal and Mangapit were familiar to him x x x. After the police officers
conducted the investigation and charged him of possession of shabu, they brought
him to the Office of Mayor Roger Farias, a close relative of him. The policemen
did not prepare any document stating that they did not hurt him and nothing was lost.
He did not protest when they told him to strip. (TSN, August 24, 2007, pp. 3-14)
RODOLFO BUNNAO testified that: After eating at the kitchenette and went out, he
saw Cesar Castro west of the Iglesia Ni Cristo standing when all of the sudden, a
black car stopped and two (2) men alighted from the car, went near Cesar Castro and
bodily searched him. He knew the accused x x x. About one (1) minute after the
search, they brought him inside the car proceeding west. x x x On cross examination
[he stated that] x x x [o]n July 25, 2003, there was a cockfight in Laoag City x x x.
He took his lunch at the Modern Kitchenette after he borrowed cockfight money
from Marcial Baracao east of the GSIS. Modern Kitchenette is further west from the
most western fence of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Two (2) men alighted from the black car
one is the driver and the other one from the passengers side. He knew for a fact
that there is another man inside the car whom he does not know x x x. (TSN,
February 15, 2008, pp. 3-6)[6]
On the main finding that the corpus delicti has been established by the open court
narrations of the Peoples witnesses and whose testimony bespoke of an
unbroken chain of custody, the RTC, in its Decision of July 11, 2008, found Castro
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and after weighing carefully the evidence
presented by the prosecution and the defense, the Court finds the accused GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Considering that the weight of the
methamphetamine hydrochloride is less than 5 grams, he is hereby sentenced to the
penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to TWENTY (20)
YEARS as maximum and a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P300,000.00) in accordance with Section 11 of R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Castro appealed to the CA. Following the submission of the Appellants Brief,[8]
the Appellees Brief,[9] and Reply Brief of Accused-Appellant,[10] the CA
rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. Castro later moved for, but was denied,
reconsideration.
The CA brushed aside Castros threshold defense line that he did not have, when
arrested, possession and custody of prohibited drug, the court stating in this regard
that illegal drug possession under the law includes both actual and constructive
possessions. Citing the testimony of Police Officer 1 (PO1) Mangapit, as
corroborated by that of Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Bal, the CA also declared that
Castro, by his prior and contemporaneous acts, had actual and constructive
possession of, or, in fine, had the intent to possess, the seized plastic sachet
containing shabu, for the plastic sachet in question was initially in Castros pants
pocket but which he tossed to the ground upon realizing that the ones about to accost
him were police officers.
Anent allegations of non-compliance by the police officers of the requirements under
Sec. 21 of RA 9165[11] on inventory and photographing of the seized shabu, the CA
aptly held that failure to literally comply with said requirements is not fatal to the
prosecution, if there is a clear showing that the identity and integrity of the seized
shabu specimen have been preserved, as in the case at bar. In net effect, the CA held
that the chain of custody, as the term is understood in drug-prosecution cases, has not
been broken.
In the instant appeal, accused-appellant Castro imputes error on the part of the
appellate court respecting its conclusion about the corpus delicti having been
established, it being his contention that: (1) the crucial link in the chain of custody of
the alleged seized shabu had not been established; and (2) accused-appellants
possession of the drug had remained unproved. By questioning the credibility of the
prosecutions witnesses and the weight the courts a quo gave their narration of
events, accused-appellant veritably says that he was a victim of frame-up.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
presentation and admission of the seized prohibited drug as an exhibit be preceded
by evidence to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
clams it to be.[12] This requirement is essential to obviate the possibility of
substitution as well as to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are
removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements and custody of the
seized prohibited item, from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for
examination, and to its presentation in evidence in court.[13] Ideally, the custodial
chain would include testimony about every link in the chain or movements of the
illegal drug, from the moment of seizure until it is finally adduced in evidence. It
cannot be overemphasized, however, that a testimony about a perfect chain is almost
always impossible to obtain.[14]
A circumspect review of the evidence extant on record shows that the chain of
custody rule has been sufficiently observed. The prosecution had proved with moral
certainty, thru the testimony of their key witnessesi.e., SPO2 Bal, one of the
apprehending officers; SPO2 Ancheta, the evidence custodian; and Police Inspector
Laya II, the forensic officerthat what was seized from accused-appellant in the
afternoon of July 25, 2003 near a church building in Laoag City was the very same
item presented in court after it was subjected to qualitative examination and was
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. In fine, the prosecution was able
to establish that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited
drugs have not been compromised from the time of its seizure at the time and place
aforestated to its presentation in evidence as part of the corpus delicti.
In a prosecution involving illegal possession of prohibited/dangerous drugs, the
following elements must be proved: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug. As determined by both the trial and appellate courts, the prosecution was able
to establish, through testimonial, documentary, and object evidence, the said
elements.[15] As a matter of settled jurisprudence on illegal possession of drug
cases, credence is usually accorded the narration of the incident by the apprehending
police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.
Accused-appellant denies having had possession of the prohibited drug in question.
The accounts of arresting officers PO1 Mangapit and SPO2 Bal belie accused-
appellants gratuitous denial, both police officers testifying without any trace of
hesitation that accused-appellant had the sachet containing the shabu in his pocket
until the moment he threw it away. The fact that the plastic sachet containing shabu
was already on the ground when the arrest was effected is not, standing alone, an
exculpating factor. What the Court said in People v. De Leon is instructive:

Herein appellant was caught red-handed in the act of committing the offenses for
which he was charged. He made the sale in the presence of the police operatives, the
poseur-buyer and the informant. When he fled, he carried then threw the envelope
containing the regulated drugs inside the bedroom in full view of PO1 Libuton, the
pursuing arresting officer. There was therefore no need for a warrant to arrest and
search the person of appellant.[16]
In the instant case, the arresting officers, having been furnished a description of
accused-appellant from a tipster, had a reason to suspect that petitioner is in
possession of the prohibited substance. Thereafter, they witnessed in plain view
accused-appellant throwing to the ground a plastic sachet containing a white
substance. The very act of throwing away the sachet, the contents of which were later
determined to be shabu, presupposes that accused-appellant had prior possession of
it. Ergo, all the elements of the crime have been met.
In People v. Isnani,[17] the Court likewise ruled the admissibility of shabu which
was thrown outside the window by the appellant in that case.
Finally, accused-appellants allegation of frame-up or planting of evidence will
not avail him any, given the categorical testimonies of PO1 Mangapit and SPO2 Bal
of the events leading to accused-appellants apprehension and eventual custodial
investigation. In the absence of any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were
motivated by motives less than proper, the trial courts assessment of the
credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court.[18]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The CAs January 6,
2010 Decision and August 10, 2010 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 31793 are,
accordingly, AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.