Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

organized, composed of PO1 Randy Pajo, PO1 Eric Simon and two (2) poseur-buyers who were
provided with two (2) pieces of P100 marked bills to be used in the purchase.
Around 7 o'clock in the evening of October 1, 2003, the team, armed with the marked money,
proceeded to Purok 4, Barangay 3, Agao District, Butuan City for the buy-bust operation. The two

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 186227

poseur-buyers approached Allen who was sitting at a corner and said to be in the act of selling

Present:

shabu. PO1 Pajo saw the poseur-buyers and appellant talking to each other. Afterwards, the appellant

CARPIO,* J.
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
PERALTA,
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.

- versus -

handed a sachet of shabu to one of the poseur-buyers and the latter gave the marked money to the
appellant. The poseur-buyers went back to the police officers and told them that the transaction has
been completed. Police officers Pajo and Simon rushed to the place and handcuffed the appellant as he
was leaving the place.

Promulgated:
ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA,
Accused-Appellant.

July 20, 2011

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

The police officers, still in the area of operation and in the presence of barangay officials
Richard S. Tandoy and Gresilda B. Tumala, searched the appellant and found a big sachet of
shabu.PO1 Simon also pointed to the barangay officials the marked money, two pieces of P100 bill,
thrown by the appellant on the ground.
After the operation, and in the presence of the same barangay officials, the police officers

PERALTA, J.:
For this Court's consideration is the Decision [1] dated July 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00240-MIN, affirming the Omnibus Judgment [2] dated September 14,
2005, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Butuan City in Criminal Case No. 10250 and Criminal
Case No. 10251, finding appellant Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) 9165.
The facts, as culled from the records, are the following:
The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received
a report from an informer that a certain Allen Mantalaba, who was seventeen (17) years old at the time,
was selling shabu at Purok 4, Barangay 3, Agao District, Butuan City. Thus, a buy-bust team was

made an inventory of the items recovered from the appellant which are: (1) one big sachet of shabu
which they marked as RMP-1-10-01-03; (2) one small sachet of shabu which they marked as RMP 210-01-03; and (3) two (2) pieces of one hundred pesos marked money and a fifty peso (P50)
bill.Thereafter, a letter-request was prepared by Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo for the laboratory
examination of the two (2) sachets containing a crystalline substance, ultra-violet examination on the
person of the appellant as well as the two (2) pieces of one hundred pesos marked money. The request
was brought by PO1 Pajo and personally received by Police Inspector Virginia Sison-Gucor, Forensic
Chemical Officer of the Regional Crime Laboratory Office XII Butuan City, who immediately
conducted the examination. The laboratory examination revealed that the appellant tested positive for
the presence of bright orange ultra-violet fluorescent powder; and the crystalline substance contained
in two sachets, separately marked as RMP-1-10-01-03 and RMP-2-10-01-03, were positively identified
as methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Thereafter, two separate Informations were filed before the RTC of Butuan City against
appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165, stating the following:
Criminal Case No. 10250
That on or about the evening of October 1, 1003 at Purok 4, Barangay 3, Agao,
Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously sell zero point zero four one two (0.0412) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu which is a dangerous
drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW : (Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165).[3]
Criminal Case No. 10251
That on or about the evening of October 1, 2003 at Purok 4, Barangay 3, Agao,
Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously possess zero point six one three one (0.6131) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, which is a dangerous
drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165).
[4]

Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and accused being a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is
accordingly sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8)
years, as maximum of prision mayor and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P300,000.00).
SO ORDERED.[6]

The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. It disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Butuan
City dated September 14, 2005 appealed from finding the accused-appellant Allen
Udtojan Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the crime of Violation of
Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Thus, the present appeal.
Appellant states the lone argument that the lower court gravely erred in convicting him of the
crime charged despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Eventually, the cases were consolidated and tried jointly.

Appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charges against him. Thereafter, trial on the merits

According to appellant, there was no evidence of actual sale between him and the poseurbuyer. He also argues that the chain of custody of the seized shabu was not established. Finally, he
asserts that an accused should be presumed innocent and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

ensued.
In its Omnibus Judgment[5] dated September 14, 2005, the RTC found the appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, the dispositive portion of which, reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds accused Allen Mantalaba y Udtojan
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 10250 for selling shabu, a
dangerous drug, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165. As provided for in Sec. 98 of R.A. 9165, where the offender is a minor,
the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion
perpetua to death. As such, Allen Mantalaba y Udtojan is hereby sentenced
to RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 10251, the Court likewise finds accused Allen Mantalaba y
Udtojan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for illegally possessing shabu, a
dangerous drug, weighing 0.6131 gram as defined and penalized under Section 11,

The petition is unmeritorious.

Appellant insists that the prosecution did not present any evidence that an actual sale took
place. However, based on the testimony of PO1 Randy Pajo, there is no doubt that the buy-bust
operation was successfully conducted, thus:
PROS. RUIZ:
Q: Will you explain to this Honorable Court why did you conduct and how did you
conduct your buy-bust operation at the time?
A: We conducted a buy-bust operation because of the report from our civilian assets
that Allen Mantalaba was engaged in drug trade and selling shabu. And after we
evaluated this Information we informed Inspector Dacillo that we will operate this
accused for possible apprehension.
Q: Before you conducted your buy-bust operation, what procedure did you take?

A: We prepared the operational plan for buy-bust against the suspect. We prepared a
request for powder dusting for our marked moneys to be used for the operation.
Q: Did you use marked moneys in this case?
xxxx
Q: Then armed with these marked moneys, what steps did you take next?
A: After briefing of our team, we proceeded immediately to the area.
Q: You mentioned of poseur-buyer, what would the poseur-buyer do?
A: We made an arrangement with the poseur-buyer that during the buying of shabu
there should be a pre-arranged signal of the poseur-buyer to the police officer.
Q: What happened when your poseur-buyer who, armed with this marked
moneys, approached the guy who was selling shabu at that time?
A: The poseur-buyer during that time gave the marked moneys to the suspect.
Q: Where were you when this poseur-buyer gave the moneys to the suspect?
A: We positioned ourselves about 10 meters away from the area of the poseur-buyer
and the suspect.
Q: You mentioned of the pre-arranged signal, what would this be?
A: This is a case-to-case basis, your Honor, in the pre-arrangement signal
because in the pre-arranged signal we used a cap and a towel. (sic) In the case,
of this suspect, there was no towel there was no cap at the time of giving the
shabu and the marked moneys to the suspect and considering also that that was
about 7:00 o'clock in the evening. The poseur-buyer immediately proceeded to
us and informed us that the shabu was already given by the suspect.
Q: What did you do next after that?
A: After examining the sachet of shabu that it was really the plastic containing white
[crystalline] substance, we immediately approached the suspect.
Q: Who was with a (sic) suspect when you conducted the buy-bust operation[?] Was
he alone or did he had (sic) any companion at that time?
A: He was alone.
Q: When you rushed up to the suspect what did you do?
A: We informed the suspect that we are the police officers and he has this
constitutional rights and we immediately handcuffed him.
Q: Where were the marked moneys?
A: The marked moneys were thrown on the ground. After we handcuffed the suspect,
we did not immediately searched in. We called the attention of the barangay officials
to witness the search of the suspect.
Q: How many sachets of shabu have you taken from the suspect during the buy-bust
operation?
A: We took from the possession of the suspect one big sachet of shabu.
xxxx
Q: What was the result of the searched (sic) for him?
A: We confiscated one big sachet of suspected shabu and the retrieval of 2 pieces of
100 peso bills as marked moneys.[8]

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. [9] From
the above testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well established that the elements have been
satisfactorily met. The seller and the poseur-buyer were properly identified. The subject dangerous
drug, as well as the marked money used, were also satisfactorily presented.The testimony was also
clear as to the manner in which the buy-bust operation was conducted.
To corroborate the testimony of PO2 Pajo, the prosecution presented the testimony of Police Inspector
Virginia Sison-Gucor, a forensic chemical officer, who confirmed that the plastic containing white
crystalline substance was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and that the petitioner was in
possession of the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, thus:
PROS. RUIZ:
Q: What was the result of your examination or what were your findings on the
sachets of suspected shabu?
A: After the preliminary and confirmatory tests were conducted on the stated
specimen, the result was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.
xxxx
Q: What were your findings when you examined the living person of the
accused, as well as the marked money mentioned in this report?
A: According to my report, the findings for the living person of Allen Udtojan
Mantalaba is positive to the test for the presence of bright orange ultra-violet
flourescent powder. x x x[10]

The above only confirms that the buy-bust operation really occurred. Once again, this Court
stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for
apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. [11] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of
trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities. [12] InPeople v. Roa,
[13]

this Court had the opportunity to expound on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation,

ruling that:

In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement
before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that
Section 86[14] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of
Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with
the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make
PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After
all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule
113[15] of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in
apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. [16] A buybust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
Neither is the lack of prior surveillance fatal. The case of People v. Lacbanes[17] is
quite instructive:
In People v. Ganguso,[18] it has been held that prior
surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment
operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were
accompanied to the scene by their informant. In the instant case,
the arresting officers were led to the scene by the poseur-buyer.
Granting that there was no surveillance conducted before the buybust operation, this Court held in People v. Tranca,[19] that there is
no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations.
Flexibility is a trait of good police work. The police officers may
decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for
prior surveillance.[20]
The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect
because trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. This

As a defense, appellant denied that he owns the shabu and the marked money confiscated from
him. However, based on his cross-examination, such denial was not convincing enough to merit
reasonable doubt, thus:
PROS. RUIZ:
Q: So it is true now that when these police officers passed you by they
recovered from your possession one sachet of shabu?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And it is true that after you were arrested and when you were searched they
also found another sachet of shabu also in your pocket?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you mentioned in your counter-affidavit marked as Exhibit H for the
prosecution that no money was taken from you because you have none at that time,
is it not?
A: None sir, only the P250.00 which Jonald Ybanoso left to me.
Q: This P250.00 which Jonald left to you was also confiscated from your
possession?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were not P200 of the P250.00 was thrown to the ground during the time you
were arrested by the police?
A: No, sir.
Q: It was taken from your possession?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when the policemen brought you to the crime laboratory and had your hands
tested for ultra-violet fluorescent powder, your hands tested positively for the
presence of the said powder?
A: Yes, sir.[23]

is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have
been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[21]

Incidentally, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with
disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for

In connection therewith, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was also correct in finding that the appellant

violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be

is equally guilty of violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, or the illegal possession of dangerous drug. As

proved with strong and convincing evidence.[24]

an incident to the lawful arrest of the appellant after the consummation of the buy-bust operation, the
arresting officers had the authority to search the person of the appellant. In the said search, the

Another contention raised by the appellant is the failure of the prosecution to show the chain of

appellant was caught in possession of 0.6131 grams of shabu. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs,

custody of the recovered dangerous drug. According to him, while it was Inspector Ferdinand B.

the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a

Dacillo who signed the request for laboratory examination, only police officers Pajo and Simon were

prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and

present in the buy-bust operation.

consciously possessed the said drug.[22]

Section 21 of RA 9165 reads:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is
justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. [25] Its noncompliance will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.[26] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused.[27] In this particular case, it is undisputed that police officers Pajo and Simon were
members of the buy-bust operation team. The fact that it was Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo who
signed the letter-request for laboratory examination does not in any way affect the integrity of the
items confiscated. All the requirements for the proper chain of custody had been observed. As testified
to by PO2 Pajo regarding the procedure undertaken after the consummation of the buy-bust operation:
Prosecutor
Q: What did you do next after that?
A: After examining the sachet of shabu that it was really the plastic containing
white [crystalline] in substance, we immediately approached the suspect.
xxxx
Q: When you rushed up to the suspect, what did you do?

A: We informed the suspect that we are the police officers and he has this
[constitutional] rights and immediately handcuffed him.
Q: Where were the marked moneys?
A: The marked moneys were thrown on the ground. After we handcuffed the
suspect, we did not immediately searched in. We called the attention of
the barangay officials to witness the search of the suspect.
xxxx
Q: Now, before you searched the suspect you requested the presence of
the barangay officials. Now, when these barangay officials were present, what did
you do on the suspect?
A: We immediately searched the suspect.
Q: What was the result of the searched for him? (sic)
A: We confiscated one big sachet of suspected shabu and the retrieval of 2 pieces
of P100.00 peso bills as marked moneys.
Q: You said the suspect threw the marked moneys when you searched him, where
were the marked moneys?
A: On the ground.
Q: Who picked these marked moneys?
A: I was the one who picked the marked moneys.
Q: And then after you had picked the marked moneys and after you had the 2 pieces
of sachets of shabu; one during the buy-bust and the other one during the search,
what did you do [with] these 2 pieces of sachets of shabu and the marked moneys?
A: I recorded those items recovered, sir, during the search to the Certificate of
Inventory.[28]
As ruled by this Court, what is crucial in the chain of custody is the marking of the confiscated item
which, in the present case, was complied with, thus:
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking [29] of the seized drugs or other
related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after
seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the seized
contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens
will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate
the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of
criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of
evidence.[30]

Anent the age of the appellant when he was arrested, this Court finds it appropriate to discuss the effect

However, this Court has already ruled in People v. Sarcia[33] that while Section 38 of RA 9344

of his minority in his suspension of sentence. The appellant was seventeen (17) years old when the

provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is

buy-bust operation took place or when the said offense was committed, but was no longer a minor at

already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section

the time of the promulgation of the RTC's Decision.

40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of
21. The provision states:

It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, while the RTC promulgated its decision on
this case on September 14, 2005, when said appellant was no longer a minor. The RTC did not suspend
the sentence in accordance with Article 192 of P.D. 603, The Child and Youth Welfare Code[31] and
Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law,[32] the laws that
were applicable at the time of the promulgation of judgment, because the imposable penalty for
violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 is life imprisonment to death.
It may be argued that the appellant should have been entitled to a suspension of his sentence

SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds
that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict
with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has
willfully failed to comply with the condition of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for
execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while
under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child
in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the
suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.

under Sections 38 and 68 of RA 9344 which provide for its retroactive application, thus:
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen
(18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the
offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which
may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing
the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law
under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That
suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen
years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.

Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the age of twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the

Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the
child, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the
Supreme Court [Rule] on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.

suspended the sentence of the appellant because he was already entitled to the provisions of Section 38

xxxx
Sec. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence. Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the
effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the
time of the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are
serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act.
xxx

provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his suspension of sentence, because such is already
moot and academic. It is highly noted that this would not have happened if the CA, when this case was
under its jurisdiction, suspended the sentence of the appellant. The records show that the appellant
filed his notice of appeal at the age of 19 (2005), hence, when RA 9344 became effective in 2006,
appellant was 20 years old, and the case having been elevated to the CA, the latter should have
of the same law, which now allows the suspension of sentence of minors regardless of the penalty
imposed as opposed to the provisions of Article 192 of P.D. 603.[34]
Nevertheless, the appellant shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Section 51 of RA
No. 9344, which provides for the confinement of convicted children as follows:[35]
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other
Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon
order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a
regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that

may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in

coordination with the DSWD.

In finding the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, the
RTC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua as mandated in Section 98 [36] of the same law. A
violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death; however, in
Section 98, it is provided that, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this
means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties
provided for in the Revised Penal Code. The said principle was enunciated by this Court in People v.
Simon,[37] thus:
We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was held that, in imposing the
penalty for offenses under special laws, the rules on mitigating or aggravating
circumstances under the Revised Penal Code cannot and should not be applied. A
review of such doctrines as applied in said cases, however, reveals that the reason
therefor was because the special laws involved provided their own specific penalties
for the offenses punished thereunder, and which penalties were not taken from or
with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code. Since the penalties then provided
by the special laws concerned did not provide for the minimum, medium or
maximum periods, it would consequently be impossible to consider the aforestated
modifying circumstances whose main function is to determine the period of the
penalty in accordance with the rules in Article 64 of the Code.
This is also the rationale for the holding in previous cases that the provisions of the
Code on the graduation of penalties by degrees could not be given supplementary
application to special laws, since the penalties in the latter were not components of
or contemplated in the scale of penalties provided by Article 71 of the former. The
suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article
10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there is a legal or physical impossibility
of, or a prohibition in the special law against, such supplementary application.
The situation, however, is different where although the offense is defined in and
ostensibly punished under a special law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from
the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature and, necessarily, with its
duration, correlation and legal effects under the system of penalties native to said
Code. When, as in this case, the law involved speaks of prision correccional, in its
technical sense under the Code, it would consequently be both illogical and absurd
to posit otherwise.

xxxx
Prefatorily, what ordinarily are involved in the graduation and consequently
determine the degree of the penalty, in accordance with the rules in Article 61 of the
Code as applied to the scale of penalties in Article 71, are the stage of execution of
the crime and the nature of the participation of the accused. However, under
paragraph 5 of Article 64, when there are two or more ordinary mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be reduced by one
degree. Also, the presence of privileged mitigating circumstances, as provided
in Articles 67 and 68, can reduce the penalty by one or two degrees, or even
more. These provisions of Articles 64(5), 67 and 68 should not apply in toto in the
determination of the proper penalty under the aforestated second paragraph of
section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, to avoid anomalous results which could not
have been contemplated by the legislature.
Thus, paragraph 5 of Article 61 provides that when the law prescribes a penalty in
some manner not specially provided for in the four preceding paragraphs thereof,
the courts shall proceed by analogy therewith. Hence, when the penalty prescribed
for the crime consists of one or two penalties to be imposed in their full extent, the
penalty next lower in degree shall likewise consist of as many penalties which
follow the former in the scale in Article 71. If this rule were to be applied, and since
the complex penalty in this case consists of three discrete penalties in their full
extent, that is, prision correccional, prision mayor and reclusion temporal, then one
degree lower would be arresto menor, destierro and arresto mayor. There could,
however, be no further reduction by still one or two degrees, which must each
likewise consist of three penalties, since only the penalties of fine and public
censure remain in the scale.
The Court rules, therefore, that while modifying circumstances may be appreciated
to determine the periods of the corresponding penalties, or even reduce the penalty
by degrees, in no case should such graduation of penalties reduce the imposable
penalty beyond or lower than prision correccional. It is for this reason that the three
component penalties in the second paragraph of Section 20 shall each be considered
as an independent principal penalty, and that the lowest penalty should in any event
be prision correccional in order not to depreciate the seriousness of drug
offenses. Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat. Such
interpretation is to be adopted so that the law may continue to have efficacy rather
than fail. A perfect judicial solution cannot be forged from an imperfect law, which
impasse should now be the concern of and is accordingly addressed to Congress.[38]
Consequently, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority[39] can now be appreciated in fixing
the penalty that should be imposed. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penalty ofreclusion
perpetua without considering the minority of the appellant. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the
proper penalty should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the

privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION

Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next
lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium
period of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

circumstance.[40] The ISLAW is applicable in the present case because the penalty which has been

Two informations for violation of Republic Act (RA) 6425, as amended by RA 7659 (Dangerous Drugs

originally an indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a

Act), against Su Zhi Shan alias Alvin Ching So were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

divisible penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged mitigating

of Malabon. The first, docketed as Criminal Case No. 22992-MN, reads:

circumstance of minority. Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day ofprision mayor, as

xxxx

minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, would be the proper imposable penalty.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00240-MIN, affirming the Omnibus Judgment dated September 14, 2005 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 1, Butuan City in Criminal Case No. 10250 and Criminal Case No. 10251, finding

That on or about May 31, 2000, in Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
deliberate intent and without license nor authority of law, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer four hundred
ninety five point three (495.3) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, more or
less, and commonly known as shabu, which is a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

appellant Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11,

x x x x[1]

Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty that should
be imposed on appellant's conviction of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, is six (6) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day

The second, docketed as Criminal Case No. 22993-MN, reads:

of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
SU ZHI SHAN @ ALVIN CHING SO,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 169933

Present:

- versus -

PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES/SOLICITOR GENERAL,
Respondent.

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,

CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
March 9, 2007

That on or about March 31, 2000, in Barangay Potrero, Malabon, Metro

Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not being authorized to possess or use any regulated drug, did then
and
there,
willfully,
unlawfully,
and
knowingly
have
in
his
possession methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a regulated
drug with an approximate weight of fifteen thousand seventy six point one
(15,076.1) grams, in violation of the aforecited law [Section 16, Article III of RA No.
6425 as amended by RA No. 7659].
CONTRARY TO LAW.
x x x x[2]

From the account of the prosecution, the following events led to the filing of the cases:

transparent plastic bags containing an undetermined quantity of white crystalline substance, and a
digital weighing scale.[6]

On being informed on March 20, 2000 by a confidential informant that one Su Zhi Shan alias
Alvin Ching So (the accused) was pushing drugs in Manila, the Philippine National Police (PNP)

The red plastic bag of white crystalline substance which was obtained during the buy-bust

Narcotics Group conducted a 10-day surveillance in the vicinity of the residence of the accused at

operation on March 31, 2000 and those seized during the raid on the residence of the accused tested

19 Yellowbell, Araneta Village, Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila.

positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[7]

In the course of the surveillance, a test-buy operation was conducted by SPO1

The PNP Narcotics Group thus brought the accused to the Office of the National Prosecution

Ed Badua (SPO1 Badua) and the informant during which 1.27 grams of a substance were

Service of the Department of Justice for inquest proceedings. Finding probable cause to hale the

obtained. When subjected to laboratory examination, the substance was found positive for

accused into court, the above-quoted informations were filed against him.

methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The accused, denying that his name is Alvin Ching So or Su Zhi Shan, claimed that he was a
victim of hulidap.[8] He gave the following details of the circumstances attendant to his arrest:
Another test-buy, which was later to become a buy-bust operation, was thereafter arranged by
SPO1 Badua and the informer to take place on March 31, 2000.[3]

After he withdrew P500,000 from Equitable Bank at Blumentritt, Sta. Cruz, Manila on March
31, 2000, he was intercepted by unidentified men somewhere along Blumentritt Street. He was

As scheduled, PO1 Christopher Guste (PO1 Guste), acting as poseur-buyer, and the informant

immediately blindfolded, forced into another car, and divested of his clutch bag containing

went to the pre-arranged meeting place at 31 McArthur Highway corner Victoneta Avenue in Malabon,

the P500,000 he had just withdrawn. He was then brought to Camp Crame after which he was forced

Metro Manila on March 31, 2000. As the accused arrived, the confidential informant spoke to him in

by his captors to repair to his apartment and, over his protest, his room was searched.[9]

Chinese and pointed to PO1 Guste as the buyer. When the accused asked PO1 Guste for the purchase
money, the latter brought out a folded long brown envelope containing marked money and two bundles
of boodle money. The accused soon went inside his car and returned after a few seconds, carrying a red

The accused questioned the search warrant as a general warrant which is not based on the
applicants personal knowledge.[10]

plastic bag which he handed to PO1 Guste and which the latter found to contain a white crystalline
substance. PO1 Guste then placed the plastic bag in his car through an open window and handed the
envelope of marked money to the accused as he (PO1 Guste) scratched his head, a pre-arranged signal

Branch 72 of the RTC of Malabon, by Decision of April 3, 2001, found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of both drug pushing/selling and of possession. Thus the trial court disposed:

that the sale was consummated. Policemen at once arrested the accused and brought him
to Camp Crame.[4]
While the accused was in custody, the PNP Narcotics Group applied for, and was granted, a
search warrant on his residence. [5] During the search, the PNP Narcotics Group seized a box of 16

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding

the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of drug
pushing/selling 495.3
grams
of
methamphetamine
hydrochloride
and
of illegally possessing 15,076.1 grams of said substance, which are penalized under
Sections 15 and 16, Art. III, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659. In view of the
attendance of one aggravating circumstance in the commission of these offenses [use

of a motor vehicle], which was not offset by any mitigating circumstance, the
accused is hereby condemned to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay a fine of
P10,000,000.00 in each of the two cases.
The Revo Van owned by So as shown in Exhibit Q which is now in the
possession of the Special Project Office (SPO), Narcotics Group, Camp Crame,
Quezon City is ordered forfeited in favor of the government for being an instrument
for the crime to be disposed of under the rules governing the same (Section 20,
Article IV, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659).

In both cases, costs against the accused.

The records of the case were transmitted to this Court on August 1, 2001 for automatic
review.[12] In view, however, of the ruling in People v. Mateo,[13] this Court transferred the case to the
Court of Appeals on October 19, 2004.

Appellant is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No.

22993-MN, for violation of Section 16, RA No. 6425, as
amended. However, the 15,076.1 grams of shabu shall remain in the custody
of the PNP Crime Laboratory, for proper disposition in accordance with
law; and

c.

The van ordered by the trial court to be forfeited in favor of the State shall
be returned to him through the regular legal processes.
SO ORDERED.[18] (Italics, emphasis and underscoring in the original)

The 17 plastic bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride subjects of these

cases custody of which was retained by the PNP Crime Laboratory, are also forfeited
in favor of the government to be disposed of under rules governing the same.

SO ORDERED.[11] (Italics in the original; Emphasis and underscoring

supplied)

b.

His Motion for Reconsideration[19] having been denied,[20] the accused, through counsel, filed
the instant Petition[21] for review, assigning 24 errors[22] which are synthesized in capsule form as
follows:
1.

Convicting the wrong person

2.

Not finding irregularities in the procurement and service of the search warrant

3.

Considering documents which were not offered in evidence, thus ignoring Sec.

[14]

34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court

By Decision[15] of June 29, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the accused
for drug pushing/selling but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua on the ground that the trial court

4.

Failing to comply with standard procedures of drug analysis

5.

Holding that possessing or selling of any substance, such as tawas, as shabu is

erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle. [16] Noting the presence of
irregularities in the procurement of the search warrant and the ensuing search and seizure of evidence

punishable

which was presented in the case for illegal possession of shabu, the Court of Appeals acquitted the
accused therefor.[17]

6.

Failure to apply the ruling in People v. Ventura[23] that it is incredible to buy

without the shabu in sight[24]

The Court of Appeals thus disposed as follows:

7.

Failing to apply the rule on entertained denial or alibi

8.

Imposing two outlandish death penalties and imposing P20 million fine

WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment as follows:

a.

The Decision pertaining to Crim. Case No. 22992-MN, for violation of

Section 15, RA No. 6425, as amended, is AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua;

9.

the residence of the appellant and Ryan Ong for the purpose of securing the
search warrant.

Crediting the clear hearsay evidence regarding the alleged test-buy and the
bizarre story regarding the alleged buy-bust

10.

FOURTH The alleged money was not in sight. It was allegedly wrapped.

Holding that the elements of selling and possessing shabu are present although

FIFTH Alvin Ching So (not Su Jing Yue or So Alvin Cheng) allegedly

delivered the shabu without first seeing the money. Guste allegedly delivered
the wrapped boodle without seeing the shabu first.

not proved (specifically the element that the accused lacked the authority to
sell shabu)[25]
11.

Finding that there was no withdrawal of P500,000, and

SIXTH On cross-examination, Guste admitted that his only participation

was allegedly as poseur-buyer.

12.

Ignoring non-compliance with safeguards against illegal buy-bust or with

SEVENTH The testimony of Guste, alleged poseur-buyer was not

corroborated; hence, incredible.

Supreme Court decisions on buy-bust.

accused in the case for illegal possession of shabu. Just as it declares it unnecessary to dwell on the

EIGHT The alleged buy-bust is contrary to human experience and ordinary

course of things. The boodle is readily detectible, especially only two (2) pieces of
genuine money were allegedly placed on top andbottom of the bundles of
boodle. The bundles were wrapped with brown envelope folded twice. The boodle
was not shown to the alleged seller. How could there be buying and busting under
the circumstances? The buyer himself does not believe selling could be made for a
boodle appearing as fake; hence the clumsy use of two (2) pieces of genuine money.
x x x[27] (Emphasis in the original)

alleged impropriety in the imposition of the death penalty, the appellate court having imposed

Petitioners submissions do not persuade. PO1 Gustes testimony was not hearsay. He was the

instead reclusion perpetua, and given that RA 9346 has prohibited the imposition of death penalty to

poseur-buyer who participated in the buy-bust operation. His testimony was corroborated by Chief

At the outset, this Court declares it unnecessary to entertain the issues on alleged irregularities
in the procurement and service of the search warrant, the Court of Appeals having acquitted the

thus accordingly modify the present provision of RA 7659.

[26]

Inspector Eleazar Matta who declared that: He (Matta) was present when the confidential informer
relayed information regarding Alvin Ching Sos drug pushing activities; [28] he participated in planning

In support of his plea for acquittal, the accused (hereafter petitioner) submits that the following
grounds dent the credibility of PO1 Gustes account on the buy-bust operation:
FIRST Badua and confidential informant allegedly conducted a testbuy. They never mentioned or arranged a buy-bust operation with Guste or
anybody. Instead, Badua and Balolong applied for a search warrant based on the
alleged test-buy. They did not participate in the alleged buy-bust. They never
coordinated with Guste they never arranged any buy-bust with Guste.
SECOND There was no negotiation to sell. Badua and the confidential
informant never negotiated with the accused to sell along MacArthur
Highway cor. Victoneta Avenue where the alleged buy-bust was conducted. Badua,
Balolong and the alleged confidential informant were not presented during the trial.
THIRD There was no surveillance of the venue of the alleged buy[-]bust
operation. Matta testified that what was placed under surveillance was allegedly

and conducting the surveillance operation in the vicinity of the residence of the accused; [29] after the
test-buy was conducted, SPO1 Badua reported to him;[30] and he was the team leader dispatched to
conduct

and

he

was

present

at Victoneta Avenue, Malabon.

during

the

buy-bust

operation

on

March

31,

2000

[31]

PO1 Gustes account is likewise complemented by overwhelming documentary and object

evidence, including his request for laboratory examination of the seized substance, [32] the laboratory
examination reports,[33] the buy-bust money used,[34] the pre-operational coordination sheet of the PNP
Narcotics Group,[35] the Booking Sheet/Arrest Report,[36] and the substance obtained during the buy-bust
operation[37] and a photograph thereof.[38]

That the prosecution failed to present SPO1 Badua and the confidential informer does not
weaken its case as the discretion to choose witnesses to be presented for the State and to dispense with

detected as fake persuade. This Court has affirmed convictions in cases of buy-bust operations where
the accused actually saw that the money was boodle.[45]

the testimonies of witnesses who would only give corroboration rests on the prosecution.[39]
Respecting petitioners disclaimer that he is the Su Zhi Shan alias Alvin Ching So accused in
If petitioner believed that there were witnesses who could have exculpated him, he could have
called for them, even by compulsory process,[40] but he did not.

the case, he contends that there is no scintilla of evidence offered to prove that said accused is the same
Su Jing Yue alias So Alvin Cheng that he is.[46] This contention falls in the face of this Courts repeated
rulings that the erroneous designation in the Information of the name of the accused does not vitiate it if

That no evidence was presented on the conduct of the surveillance and of the venue for the
test-bust operation and that the surveillance was for the purpose of procuring the search warrant do not

it is clearly proven that the person accused and brought to court is the person who committed the crime.
[47]

help petitioners case. For even if no prior surveillance were made, the validity of an entrapment
As People v. Navaja[48] holds, whether there lived another person with the same name as the

operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their
informant,[41] as in the case at bar,[42] is not affected.

accused in the area where the buy-bust operation was conducted is immaterial, the identity of the
therein accused as the person who sold the marijuana to the poseur-buyers having been established,

Invoking People v. Ventura[43] and inviting attention to the fact that the purchase money

[49]

as in the present case.

presented as evidence of the second buy-bust operation was not visible as it was wrapped in an
envelope, petitioner argues:

It bears noting that the information charging petitioner was prepared after he was arrested and
while he was in custody. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the person who was arrested and

In [People v. Ventura], the Supreme Court ruled that it is incredible to

buy without the shabu in sight. Logically, it is incredible to sell without the money
in sight. To sell without the seeing and counting the money is contrary to human
nature, habit and ordinary course of things.[44] (Italics and emphasis in the original)

brought to court is the same person charged in the information. Even PO1 Guste identified petitioner in
open court[50] as the person who sold the shabu to him as the poseur-buyer.
On petitioners taking issue with the manner by which laboratory analysis of the confiscated

Petitioners argument does not persuade too. It will be recalled that a test-buy operation had
earlier been conducted, facilitated by the same confidential informant who was undoubtedly known to
petitioner. Given the trust accorded to the informant, the hurried nature of consummating similar
transactions and the place of the transaction a busy street open to bystanders and passersby, there
was nothing unusual about petitioners not checking first the contents of the brown envelope.
Neither does the contention of petitioner that it would have been improbable for the buy-bust
sale to have taken place because under the circumstances the boodle money could have been easily

plastic bags of shabu were examined, thus:

The Chemist allegedly examined only 3% of the confiscated
substance. With respect to the 3% specimen, she did not know how and why the 3%
represented the entire substance in 16 [sic] packages. She did not get the specimen or
sampling in accordance with universally accepted sampling procedure; that
is mixing, coning and quartering of 10 packages in accordance with the UN
Guideline. Therefore, she could not know that the 3% specimen was the correct
representative specimen.[51] (Emphasis in original),

he proffers that a quantitative examination of the confiscated substance should have been done because
As for the contention of the accused that the prosecution failed to prove that he lacked the
x x x [the] substance sold as shabu being merely regulated, should be
proved beyond reasonable doubt as real shabu. Hence, the essential requisite of
proper qualitative and quantitative examination to determine the shabu content of
a substance suspected as shabu. The reason is: The punishable crime is selling or
possessing shabu. Besides, the penalty is based on the shabu content. For
example, we have a 200 grams [sic] of tawas. 99.999% is tawas, .001% is
shabu. The 200 grams of tawas cannot be the basis of [the penalty] because it is
only positive of .001% of shabu.[52] (Emphasis in the original)

Albeit this issue is immaterial in so far as the charge for illegal possession is concerned,
petitioner having been acquitted by the appellate court, this Court notes, en passant, that petitioners
position does not likewise persuade.

authority to sell shabu, this Court, in addressing a similar contention in People v. Manalo, [58] held:
The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative
allegation, or a negative averment is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution
has the burden to prove the charge. However, this rule admits of exceptions. Where
the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are more
immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon
him. Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to adduce positive
evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by
established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the
production of documents or other evidence within the defendants knowledge or
control. For example, where a charge is made that a defendant carried on a certain
business without a license (as in the case at bar, where the accused is charged with
the sale of a regulated drug without authority), the fact that he has a license is a
matter which is peculiarly within his knowledge and he must establish that fact or
suffer conviction. xx x[59] (Italics in the original)

Laboratory tests confirmed that the substance confiscated during the operations is shabu.
[53]

The records of the case reveal that the forensic chemical officer, Police Inspector Miladenia O.

Tapan, who conducted the laboratory examination took representative samples, by using the quartering
method, from the plastic bag of substance subject of the test-buy transaction, as well as from that
subject of the buy-bust operation.[54]
Case law has it that the forensic chemist is not mandated to examine the
entire mass of shabu confiscated by the policemen xxx. It is enough that a sample of
the said substance be subjected to qualitative examination. x x x [A] sample taken
from one package is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of
the package unless proven otherwise by the accused himself.[55] (Citations
omitted;Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

As in Manalo, the circumstances surrounding the two occasions of sale subject of the first case
indicate that petitioner had no authority to sell shabu. Petitioner sold the shabu not in a hospital or
pharmacy but at a street corner.[60] He could have very easily presented a copy of his license or any other
document proving his authority to sell but he did not.[61]
The bare allegation then of petitioner that his constitutional rights were violated during
the March 31, 2000 buy-bust operation[62] cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties enjoyed by the officers tasked to enforce the law.[63]
The trial court thus correctly rejected the defense of hulidap. Indeed, courts generally view

In the case at bar, the accused failed to present evidence refuting the presumption that the
samples taken from the contents of the plastic bags are representative of the entire contents thereof. As
this Court observed in People v. Johnson,[56] x x x if accused appellant were not satisfied with the
results, it would have been a simple matter for [him] to ask for an independent examination of the
substance by another chemist. This [he] did not do.[57]

with disfavor this defense, which is commonly raised in drug cases, it being easy to concoct and
difficult to prove.[64]

Manila

Exhibits 5 and 6 the photocopies of withdrawal slips [65] presented by the accused to prove that
he withdrew money before the supposed hulidap incident do not help petitioners case. As the trial
court noted,

SECOND DIVISION
The hulidap aspect of the defense put up by So will not hold water in view
of Exhibit W, a pass book of Equitable PCI Bank in the name of Alvin C. So bearing
the same account number as those listed in Exhibits 5 and 6. This passbook does not
reflect any withdrawal having been made on March 31, 2000 in the total amount of
P606,000.00. As a matter of fact, no withdrawals in said total amount could have
been made at all on said date because the outstanding balance of the deposit as of
March 29, 2000 was only P25, 256.14 and this is the last entry in the said pass
book, thus showing that on March 31, 2000, no withdrawal at all was made
from said account.[66] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

G.R. No. 186529

Appellee,
Present:

CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
Petitioner nevertheless contends that the trial court, in appreciating the bank passbook as
evidence, violated Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence which prohibits courts from

NACHURA,

- versus -

PERALTA,

considering evidence which has not been formally offered. The records of the case show, however, that

ABAD, and

the passbook was formally offered as evidence. [67]

MENDOZA, JJ.
Finally, on the discrediting of petitioners defenses of denial and/or alibi, these defenses gain
strength only if the prosecution fails to meet the quantum of proof required to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence.

[68]

In the case at bar, however, the prosecution has proven the

guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

Promulgated:
JACK RACHO y RAQUERO,
August 3, 2010

Appellant.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

him as the person he transacted with earlier. Having alighted from the bus, appellant stood
near the highway and waited for a tricycle that would bring him to his final destination. As
appellant was about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to the
police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. Appellant immediately denied the accusation,

On appeal is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision [1] dated May 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00425 affirming the Regional Trial Court

[2]

(RTC) Joint Decision

[3]

dated July 8,

but as he pulled out his hands from his pants pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom
which, when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the suspected drug. [5]

2004 finding appellant Jack Racho y Raquero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
The team then brought appellant to the police station for investigation. The confiscated
specimen was turned over to Police Inspector Rogelio Sarenas De Vera who marked it with
his initials and with appellants name. The field test and laboratory examinations on the
contents of the confiscated sachet yielded positive results for methamphetamine
The case stemmed from the following facts:

On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with
appellant for the purchase of shabu. The agent later reported the transaction to the police
authorities who immediately formed a team composed of member of the Philippine Drug

hydrochloride.[6]

Appellant was charged in two separate Informations, one for violation of Section 5 of R.A.
9165, for transporting or delivering; and the second, of Section 11 of the same law for
possessing, dangerous drugs, the accusatory portions of which read:

Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the Intelligence group of the Philippine Army and the local
police force to apprehend the appellant. [4] The agent gave the police appellants name,
together with his physical description. He also assured them that appellant would arrive in
Baler, Aurora the following day.

That at about 3:00 oclock (sic) in the afternoon on May 20, 2003 in Baler, Aurora
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and
there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in his possession five point zero one
(5.01) [or 4.54] grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as
Shabu, a regulated drug without any permit or license from the proper authorities to
possess the same.

On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up the agent and informed him
that he was on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora, anytime of the day
wearing a red and white striped T-shirt. The team members then posted themselves along
the national highway in Baler, Aurora. At around 3:00 p.m. of the same day, a Genesis bus
arrived in Baler. When appellant alighted from the bus, the confidential agent pointed to

CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]

That at about 3:00 oclock (sic) in the afternoon on May 20, 2003 in Baler,
Aurora, the said accused did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully
transporting or delivering dangerous drug of 5.01 [or 4.54] grams of shabu without
any permit or license from the proper authorities to transport the same.

In his brief,[12] appellant attacks the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution. He likewise avers that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the
confiscated drug because of the teams failure to mark the specimen immediately after
seizure. In his supplemental brief, appellant assails, for the first time, the legality of his
arrest and the validity of the subsequent warrantless search. He questions the admissibility

CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]

of the confiscated sachet on the ground that it was the fruit of the poisonous tree.

The appeal is meritorious.

During the arraignment, appellant pleaded Not Guilty to both charges.

We have repeatedly held that the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and
At the trial, appellant denied liability and claimed that he went to Baler, Aurora to visit his

their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However,

brother to inform him about their ailing father. He maintained that the charges against him

this is not a hard and fast rule. We have reviewed such factual findings when there is a

were false and that no shabu was taken from him. As to the circumstances of his arrest, he

showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or

explained that the police officers, through their van, blocked the tricycle he was riding in;

circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the case. [13]

forced him to alight; brought him to Sea Breeze Lodge; stripped his clothes and underwear;
then brought him to the police station for investigation. [9]
Appellant focuses his appeal on the validity of his arrest and the search and seizure of the
sachet of shabu and, consequently, the admissibility of the sachet. It is noteworthy that
On July 8, 2004, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment

convicting appellant of Violation of

although the circumstances of his arrest were briefly discussed by the RTC, the validity of

Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life

the arrest and search and the admissibility of the evidence against appellant were not

imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; but acquitted him of the charge of

squarely raised by the latter and thus, were not ruled upon by the trial and appellate

Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.

courts.

[10]

[11]

It is well-settled that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for
Hence, the present appeal.

review. This Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even those not raised
on appeal, if we find them necessary in arriving at a just disposition of the case. Every
circumstance in favor of the accused shall be considered. This is in keeping with the

constitutional mandate that every accused shall be presumed innocent unless his guilt is
proven beyond reasonable doubt.[14]

After a thorough review of the records of the case and for reasons that will be discussed

3.

Search of a moving vehicle;

4.

Consented warrantless search;

5.

Customs search;

6.

Stop and Frisk; and

7.

Exigent and emergency circumstances.[18]

below, we find that appellant can no longer question the validity of his arrest, but the
sachet of shabu seized from him during the warrantless search is inadmissible in evidence
against him.
The records show that appellant never objected to the irregularity of his arrest
before his arraignment. In fact, this is the first time that he raises the issue. Considering
this lapse, coupled with his active participation in the trial of the case, we must abide with
jurisprudence which dictates that appellant, having voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the trial court, is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of

What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is

purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing
searched, and the character of the articles procured. [19]

his arrest, thus curing whatever defect may have attended his arrest. The legality of the
arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Appellants warrantless
arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of his acquittal. [15]

The RTC concluded that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, declaring that he was
caught in the act of actually committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime in the
presence of the apprehending officers as he arrived in Baler, Aurora bringing with him a

As to the admissibility of the seized drug in evidence, it is necessary for us to

ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful. [16]

The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be carried
out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained
therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. [17] Said proscription,
however, admits of exceptions, namely:

1.

Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2.

Search of evidence in plain view;

sachet of shabu.[20] Consequently, the warrantless search was considered valid as it was
deemed an incident to the lawful arrest.

Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest
must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search
substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have
probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. [21] Thus, given the factual
milieu of the case, we have to determine whether the police officers had probable cause to
arrest appellant. Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it
ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently

strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty
of the offense with which he is charged.[22]

The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that reliable information alone is not
sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused
perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense. [24] We find no cogent reason to depart from this

The determination of the existence or absence of probable cause necessitates a

well-established doctrine.

reexamination of the established facts. On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police
transacted through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase of shabu. The agent
reported the transaction to the police authorities who immediately formed a team to
apprehend the appellant. On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up the agent

The instant case is similar to People v. Aruta,[25] People v. Tudtud,[26] and People v.
Nuevas.[27]

with the information that he was on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora
anytime of the day wearing a red and white striped T-shirt. The team members posted
themselves along the national highway in Baler, Aurora, and at around 3:00 p.m. of the

In People v. Aruta, a police officer was tipped off by his informant that a certain Aling Rosa

same day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When appellant alighted from the bus, the

would be arriving from Baguio City the following day with a large volume of marijuana.

confidential agent pointed to him as the person he transacted with, and when the latter

Acting on said tip, the police assembled a team and deployed themselves near the

was about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to the police

Philippine National Bank (PNB) in Olongapo City. While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus

station as he was suspected of carrying shabu. When he pulled out his hands from his pants

stopped in front of the PNB building where two females and a man got off. The informant

pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet

then pointed to the team members the woman, Aling Rosa, who was then carrying a

containing the suspected drug. [23]The team then brought appellant to the police station for

traveling bag. Thereafter, the team approached her and introduced themselves. When

investigation and the confiscated specimen was marked in the presence of appellant. The

asked about the contents of her bag, she handed it to the apprehending officers. Upon

field test and laboratory examinations on the contents of the confiscated sachet yielded

inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves. [28]

positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The facts in People v. Tudtud show that in July and August, 1999, the Toril Police Station,
Clearly, what prompted the police to apprehend appellant, even without a warrant, was

Davao City, received a report from a civilian asset that the neighbors of a certain Noel

the

in

Tudtud (Tudtud) were complaining that the latter was responsible for the proliferation of

Baler, Aurora carrying shabu. This circumstance gives rise to another question: whether

marijuana in the area. Reacting to the report, the Intelligence Section conducted

that information, by itself, is sufficient probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest.

surveillance. For five days, they gathered information and learned that Tudtud was

tip

given

by

the

informant

that

appellant

would

arrive

involved in illegal drugs. On August 1, 1999, the civilian asset informed the police that
Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be back later that day with a new stock of
marijuana. At around 4:00 p.m. that same day, a team of police officers posted themselves

to await Tudtuds arrival. At 8:00 p.m., two men disembarked from a bus and helped each

the informant, appellant would not have been apprehended and no search would have been

other carry a carton. The police officers approached the suspects and asked if they could

made, and consequently, the sachet of shabu would not have been confiscated.

see the contents of the box which yielded marijuana leaves.

[29]

In People v. Nuevas, the police officers received information that a certain male person,
more or less 54 in height, 25 to 30 years old, with a tattoo mark on the upper right hand,
and usually wearing a sando and maong pants, would make a delivery of marijuana leaves.
While conducting stationary surveillance and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking, they

We are not unaware of another set of jurisprudence that deems reliable information
sufficient to justify a search incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. As cited in People v.
Tudtud, these includePeople v.

saw the accused who fit the description, carrying a plastic bag. The police accosted the

Maspil, Jr.,[31] People v. Bagista,[32] People v. Balingan,[33] People v. Lising,[34] People v.

accused and informed him that they were police officers. Upon inspection of the plastic

Montilla,[35] People v. Valdez,[36] and People v. Gonzales.[37] In these cases, the Court

bag carried by the accused, the bag contained marijuana dried leaves and bricks wrapped

sustained the validity of the warrantless searches notwithstanding the absence of overt

in a blue cloth. In his bid to escape charges, the accused disclosed where two other male

acts or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that the accused had committed, was

persons would make a delivery of marijuana leaves. Upon seeing the two male persons,

actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime. But as aptly observed by the Court,

later identified as Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio, the police approached them,

except in Valdez and Gonzales, they were covered by the other exceptions to the rule

introduced themselves as police officers, then inspected the bag they were carrying. Upon

against warrantless searches.[38]

inspection, the contents of the bag turned out to be marijuana leaves. [30]

Neither were the arresting officers impelled by any urgency that would allow them to do
away with the requisite warrant. As testified to by Police Officer 1 Aurelio Iniwan, a

In all of these cases, we refused to validate the warrantless search precisely because there
was no adequate probable cause. We required the showing of some overt act indicative of
the criminal design.

member of the arresting team, their office received the tipped information on May 19,
2003. They likewise learned from the informant not only the appellants physical description
but also his name. Although it was not certain that appellant would arrive on the same day
(May 19), there was an assurance that he would be there the following day (May 20).
Clearly, the police had ample opportunity to apply for a warrant. [39]

As in the above cases, appellant herein was not committing a crime in the presence of the
police officers. Neither did the arresting officers have personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested had committed, was committing, or about to
commit an offense. At the time of the arrest, appellant had just alighted from the Gemini
bus and was waiting for a tricycle. Appellant was not acting in any suspicious manner that
would engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to suspect and conclude that he
was committing or intending to commit a crime. Were it not for the information given by

Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the fruit of the poisonous tree, hence, the
confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the
1987 Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Without the confiscated shabu, appellants conviction cannot be sustained based on the

inform the Court of the date of his release, or the reasons for his confinement, within ten

remaining evidence. Thus, an acquittal is warranted, despite the waiver of appellant of his

(10) days from notice.

right to question the illegality of his arrest by entering a plea and his active participation in
the trial of the case. As earlier mentioned, the legality of an arrest affects only the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal, warrantless
arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an

No costs.
SO ORDERED.

illegal warrantless arrest.[40]

One final note. As clearly stated in People v. Nuevas,[41]

x x x In the final analysis, we in the administration of justice would have no

right to expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the
full protection of their rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors and judges may
still tend to gloss over an illegal search and seizure as long as the law
enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime regardless of the
methods by which they were obtained. This kind of attitude condones lawbreaking in the name of law enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the
more rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and the eventual
denigration of society. While this Court appreciates and encourages the
efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and
security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate
care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law. Truly,
the end never justifies the means.[42]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 22,
2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00425 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Jack Raquero
Racho isACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the immediate

release of appellant, unless the latter is being lawfully held for another cause; and to

Page 1
l\epuhlicoftbellbilippines
~upretne:ourt
;fflanila
FIRSTDIVISION
DONDJOWELSALESyABALAHIN,
Petitioner,
versus
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R.No.191023
Present:
SERENO,C.J,
Chairperson,
LEONARDODECAS1RO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
REYES,JJ.
Promulgated:
FEB062013
)(
DECISION
VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariassailingtheDecision
1
datedSeptember30,2009andResolution2datedJanuary27,2010ofthe
CourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CRNo.31942.TheCAupheldthe
judgmeneoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofPasayCity,Branch231
findingpetitionerDonDjowelSalesyAbalahinguiltybeyondreasonable
doubtofillegalpossessionofmarijuana.
PetitionerwaschargedwithviolationofSection11,ArticleII,
RepublicAct(R.A.)No.9165(ComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof
2002)underanInformationwhichstates:
2

Thatonoraboutthe24thdayofMay2003,inPasayCity,Metro
Manila,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
theabovenamedaccusedDONDJOWELA.SALES,withoutauthorityof
law,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyhaveinhis
possession,custodyandcontrol0.23gramofdriedMarijuanafruiting
tops,adangerousdrug.
Rollo,pp.2741.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRosmariD.CarandangwithAssociateJusticesArturo
G.TayagandMichaelP.Elbiniasconcurring.
Id.at4243.
CArolla,pp.1828.PennedbyJudgePedroB.Corales
Page 2
Decision
2
G.R.No.191023
Contrarytolaw.xxx
4
Uponarraignment,petitionerdulyassistedbycounseldeoficio,
pleadednotguiltytothecharge.
Evidenceadducedbytheprosecutionatthetrialestablishedthaton
May24,2003,petitionerwasscheduledtoboardaCebuPacificplanebound
forKalibo,Aklanatits9:45a.m.flight.HearrivedattheoldManila
DomesticAirport(nowTerminal1),DomesticRoad,PasayCityataround
8:30inthemorning.Aspartoftheroutinesecuritycheckatthepre
departurearea,petitionerpassedthroughtheWalkThruMetalDetector
Machineandimmediatelythereafterwassubjectedtoabodysearchbya
malefriskeronduty,DanielM.Soriano,anonuniformedpersonnel(NUP)
ofthePhilippineNationalPolice(PNP)AviationSecurityGroup(ASG).
5
Whilefriskingpetitioner,Sorianofeltsomethingslightlybulging
insidetherightpocketofhisshortpants.WhenSorianoaskedpetitionerto
bringtheitemout,petitionerobligedbutrefusedtoopenhishands.Soriano
struggledwithpetitionerasthelatterwasnervousandreluctanttoshow
whathebroughtoutfromhispocket.Sorianothencalledtheattentionofhis
supervisor,PO1CherryTrotaBartolomewhowasnearby.
6
PO1TrotaBartolomeapproachedpetitionerandaskedhimtoopen
hishands.Petitionerfinallyopenedhisrighthandrevealingtworolledpaper
stickswithdriedmarijuanaleaves/fruitingtops.Afterinformingpetitionerof
hisconstitutionalrights,PO1TrotaBartolomebroughtpetitionerandthe
seizedevidencetothe2
nd
PoliceCenterforAviationSecurity(2
nd

PCAS),
PNPASGIntelligenceandInvestigationBranchandimmediatelyturned
overpetitionertothePhilippineDrugEnforcementAgency(PDEA)Airport
TeamattheRampArea,NinoyAquinoInternationalAirport(NAIA)
Complex,PasayCity.
7
Theinvestigatingofficer,POIISamuelB.Hojilla,
8
placedthemarkingsonthetwomarijuanasticks:SBHAandSBHB.
9
ThespecimensmarkedSBHAandSBHBwhensubjectedto
chemicalanalysisatthePNPCrimeLaboratoryinCampCrame,Quezon
Cityyieldedpositiveresultsforthepresenceofmarijuana,adangerous
drug.
10
Denyingthechargeagainsthim,petitionertestifiedthatonMay24,
2003,he,togetherwithhisgirlfriendandherfamilywereheadedto
BoracayIslandforavacation.Whilehewasqueuingtoentertheairport,he
wasfriskedbytwopersons,amaleandafemale.Thetwoaskedhimto
4
Records,p.1.
5
Rollo,p.30.
6
Id.at3031.
7
ExhibitI(BookingSheet/ArrestReport),folderofexhibits,pp.910.
8
AlsoreferredtoasHubillainsomepartsoftherecords.
9
TSN,February2,2005,pp.78,1213.
10
ExhibitsEandF,folderofexhibits,pp.78.
Page 3
Decision
3
G.R.No.191023
emptyhispocketssinceitwasbulging.Insidehispocketwereapackof
cigarettesandcashintheamountofP8,000.00in500pesobills.Hisgirl
friendtoldhimtogetaboardingpassbutheaskedhertowaitforhimashe
willstillusethecomfortroom.Onthewaytothecomfortroom,hewas
blockedbyamalepersonwhofriskedhimforasecondtime,askingforhis
boardingpass.ThismalepersonwearingawhiteshirtwithoutanIDcard,

askedpetitionertoemptyhispocketswhichhedid.Themalepersonthen
saiditwasokaybutaspetitionerproceededtogoinsidethecomfortroom,
themalepersoncalledhimagainsayingthatthisfellfromyouand
showinghimtwosmallwhitewrappingswhichseemedtobemarijuana.
Petitionertoldthemalepersonthatthoseitemswerenothisbutthelatter
saidtheywilltalkaboutitinthecomfortroom.
11
Atthatpoint,petitionerclaimedthathisgirlfriendwasalready
shouting(Anoyan,anoyan?)asshesawPO1TrotaBartolome
approachingthem.PO1TrotaBartolomethentoldpetitionertoexplainat
thegroundfloorwhilethemaleperson(Soriano)wasshowingtoherthe
marijuanastickssayingMaam,Isawthisfromhim.Petitionerwentback
tothecomfortroomandtherehesawhisgirlfriendsfather(theMayorof
theirhometown,Camiling,Tarlac)talkingwithapoliceofficer.However,
hisgirlfriendandherfamilylefthimandhewasinvestigatedbythepolice
officers.
12
Theprosecutionpresentedthetestimoniesofthefollowing:PO1
TrotaBartolome,P/Insp.SandraDecenaGo(ForensicOfficer,Chemistry
Division,PNPCrimeLaboratory)andNUPSoriano.
Aftertrial,theRTCrendereditsDecision,thedispositiveportionof
whichreads:
WHEREFORE,alltheforegoingconsidered,theCourtfindsthe
accused,DonDjowelSalesyAbalahin,GUILTYbeyondreasonable
doubtofviolationofSection11,ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.9165,also
knownasTheComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002.
Accordingly,heisherebysentencedtosufferindeterminatepenaltyof
imprisonmentoftwelve(12)yearsandone(1)dayasminimum,to
fourteen(14)years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)day,asmaximum,andto
payafineofThreeHundredThousandPesos(P300,000.00)without
subsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.
The0.23gramofdriedmarijuanafruitingtopsconfiscatedfrom
theaccusedisherebyorderedforfeitedinfavorofthegovernment.The
officerinchargeofthisCourtisherebyorderedtoimmediatelyturnover
thesametotheappropriategovernmentagencyforproperdispositionin
accordancewithlaw.
Costagainsttheaccused.
SOORDERED.
13
11
TSN,April16,2008,pp.312.
12
Id.at1216.
13

CArollo,p.28.
Page 4
Decision
4
G.R.No.191023
Onappeal,theCAruledthatthebodysearchconductedonpetitioner
isavalidwarrantlesssearchmadepursuanttoaroutineairportsecurity
procedureallowedbylaw.Itfoundnomeritinpetitionerstheoryofframe
upandextortion.Ontheissueoftheintegrityandprobativevalueofthe
evidenceusedtoconvictpetitioner,theCAheldthatthereisnohiatusor
confusionthatthemarijuanathatwasmarkedattheairport,thensubjectedto
qualitativeexaminationonthesamedayandeventuallyintroducedas
evidenceagainstpetitioner,isthesameprohibiteddrugthatwasfoundinhis
custodyandpossessionwhenhewasapprehendedatthepredeparturearea
oftheairportinthemorningofMay24,2003.
TheCAalsoexplainedthatwhilethemarijuanaleavesreferredto
bySorianoinhistestimonywasotherwisecalledbythepublicprosecutor
andtheForensicChemicalOfficerasdriedmarijuanafruitingtopsinboth
thecriminalinformationandtheLaboratoryReport,thesedonotreferto
differentitems.Bothmarijuanaleaveswithfruitingtopswererolledintwo
paperswhichwereactuallyfoundandseizedfrompetitionerspossessionin
thecourseofaroutinesecuritysearchandfrisking.
Withthedenialofhismotionforreconsideration,petitionerisnow
beforeusallegingthattheCAfailedtoaddressthefollowingassigned
errors:
ITHASNOTBEENESTABLISHEDWITHCOMPETENT
EVIDENCETHATTHEITEMSSUPPOSEDLYTAKENFROMTHE
APPELLANTWERETHEVERYSAMEITEMSTHATREACHED
THECHEMISTFORANALYSIS;
THIS,ESPECIALLYINLIGHTOFTHEPROSECUTIONS
IMPROBABLESCENARIOATTHEAIRPORTWHERE,FORNO
SPECIALREASONGIVEN,THEAPPELLANTHADTOBE
METICULOUSLYBODILYSEARCHEDEVENAFTERHEHAD
TWICESUCCESSFULLYPASSEDTHROUGHTHEDETECTOR.
14
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
Inaprosecutionforillegalpossessionofdangerousdrugs,the
followingfactsmustbeprovenwithmoralcertainty:(1)thattheaccusedis
inpossessionoftheobjectidentifiedasprohibitedorregulateddrug;(2)that
suchpossessionisnotauthorizedbylaw;and(3)thattheaccusedfreelyand
consciouslypossessedthesaiddrug.
15
Inthiscase,theprosecutionhassatisfactorilyestablishedthatairport

securityofficersfoundinthepersonofpetitionerthemarijuanafruitingtops
containedinrolledpapersticksduringthefinalsecuritycheckatthe
airportspredeparturearea.Petitioneratfirstrefusedtoshowthecontents
ofhisshortpantspockettoSorianowhobecamesuspiciouswhenhishand
felttheslightlybulgingitemwhilefriskingpetitioner.
14
Rollo,p.18.
15
Peoplev.DelNorte,G.R.No.149462,March29,2004,426SCRA383,388.
Page 5
Decision
5
G.R.No.191023
InPeoplev.Johnson,
16
whichalsoinvolvedseizureofadangerous
drugfromapassengerduringaroutinefriskattheairport,thisCourtruled
thatsuchevidenceobtainedinawarrantlesssearchwasacquired
legitimatelypursuanttoairportsecurityprocedures,thus:
Personsmaylosetheprotectionofthesearchandseizureclauseby
exposureoftheirpersonsorpropertytothepublicinamannerreflectinga
lackofsubjectiveexpectationofprivacy,whichexpectationsocietyis
preparedtorecognizeasreasonable.Suchrecognitionisimplicitinairport
securityprocedures.Withincreasedconcernoverairplanehijackingand
terrorismhascomeincreasedsecurityatthenationsairports.Passengers
attemptingtoboardanaircraftroutinelypassthroughmetaldetectors;
theircarryonbaggageaswellascheckedluggageareroutinelysubjected
toxrayscans.Shouldtheseproceduressuggestthepresenceof
suspiciousobjects,physicalsearchesareconductedtodeterminewhatthe
objectsare.Thereislittlequestionthatsuchsearchesarereasonable,
giventheirminimalintrusiveness,thegravityofthesafetyinterests
involved,andthereducedprivacyexpectationsassociatedwithairline
travel.Indeed,travelersareoftennotifiedthroughairportpublicaddress
systems,signs,andnoticesintheirairlineticketsthattheyaresubjectto
searchand,ifanyprohibitedmaterialsorsubstancesarefound,such
wouldbesubjecttoseizure.Theseannouncementsplacepassengerson
noticethatordinaryconstitutionalprotectionsagainstwarrantlesssearches
andseizuresdonotapplytoroutineairportprocedures.
17
Petitionerconcedesthatfriskingpassengersattheairportisastandard
procedurebutassailstheconductofSorianoandPO1TrotaBartolomein
singlinghimoutbymakinghimstretchouthisarmsandemptyhispockets.
Petitionerbelievessuchmeticuloussearchwasunnecessarybecause,as

Sorianohimselftestified,therewasnobeepsoundwhenpetitionerwalked
pastthroughthemetaldetectorandhencenothingsuspiciouswasindicated
bythatinitialsecuritycheck.Helikewisementionedthefactthathewas
carryingabundleofmoneyatthattime,whichhesaidwasnotaccounted
for.
Wefindnoirregularityinthesearchconductedonpetitionerwhowas
askedtoemptythecontentsofhispocketsuponthefriskersreasonable
beliefthatwhathefeltinhishandwhilefriskingpetitionersshortpantswas
aprohibitedorillegalsubstance.
Suchsearchwasmadepursuanttoroutineairportsecurityprocedure,
whichisallowedunderSection9ofR.A.No.6235.Saidprovisionreads:
SEC.9.Everyticketissuedtoapassengerbytheairlineorair
carrierconcernedshallcontainamongothersthefollowingcondition
printedthereon:Holderhereofandhishandcarriedluggage(s)are
subjecttosearchfor,andseizureof,prohibitedmaterialsorsubstances.
Holderrefusingtobesearchedshallnotbeallowedtoboardtheaircraft,
whichshallconstituteapartofthecontractbetweenthepassengerandthe
aircarrier.(Italicsintheoriginal)
16
401Phil.734(2000).
17
Id.at743.
Page 6
Decision
6
G.R.No.191023
TherulinginPeoplev.JohnsonwasappliedinPeoplev.Canton
18
wheretheaccused,afemalepassengerwasfriskedattheNAIAafterpassing
throughthemetaldetectorbooththatemittedabeepingsound.Sincethe
friskernoticedsomethingbulgingataccusedsabdomen,thighsandgenital
area,whichfeltlikepackagescontainingricegranules,accusedwas
subjectedtoathoroughphysicalexaminationinsidetheladiesroom.Three
sealedpackagesweretakenfromaccusedsbodywhichwhensubmittedfor
laboratoryexaminationyieldedpositiveresultsformethamphetamine
hydrochlorideorshabu.Accusedwasforthwitharrestedandprosecutedfor
illegalpossessionofaregulateddrug.
AffirmingaccusedCantonsconvictionforthecrimeofillegal
possessionofshabu,weruledthataccusedappellantwaslawfullyarrested
withoutawarrantafterbeingcaughtinflagrantedelicto.Wefurtherheld
thatthescopeofasearchpursuanttoairportsecurityprocedureisnot
confinedonlytosearchforweaponsundertheTerrysearch
19

doctrine.
ThemoreextensivesearchconductedonaccusedCantonwasnecessitated
bythediscoveryofpackagesonherbody,herapprehensivenessandfalse
statementswhicharousedthesuspicionofthefriskerthatshewashiding
somethingillegal.Thus:
xxx.ItmustberepeatedthatR.A.No.6235authorizessearch
forprohibitedmaterialsorsubstances.Tolimittheactionoftheairport
securitypersonneltosimplyrefusingherentryintotheaircraftand
sendingherhome(assuggestedbyappellant),andtherebydeprivingthem
oftheabilityandfacilitytoactaccordingly,includingtofurthersearch
withoutwarrant,inlightofsuchcircumstances,wouldbetosanction
impotenceandineffectivityinlawenforcement,tothedetrimentof
society.Thus,thestripsearchintheladiesroomwasjustifiedunderthe
circumstances.
20
(Emphasissupplied)
Thesearchofthecontentsofpetitionersshortpantspocketsbeinga
validsearchpursuanttoroutineairportsecurityprocedure,theillegal
substance(marijuana)seizedfromhimwasthereforeadmissibleinevidence.
Petitionersreluctancetoshowthecontentsofhisshortpantspocketafter
thefriskershandfelttherolledpaperscontainingmarijuana,andhis
nervousdemeanorarousedthesuspicionofthearrestingofficersthathewas
indeedcarryinganitemormaterialsubjecttoconfiscationbythesaid
authorities.
Thetrialandappellatecourtscorrectlygavecredencetothe
straightforwardandcandidtestimoniesofPO1TrotaBartolomeandNUP
18
442Phil.743(2002).
19
FromtheUSSupremeCourtdecisioninTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,20L.Ed.2nd889(1968)citedin
Peoplev.Canton,id.at756757.
TheTerrysearchorthestopandfrisksituationreferstoacasewhereapoliceofficer
approachesapersonwhoisactingsuspiciously,forpurposesofinvestigatingpossiblycriminal
behaviorinlinewiththegeneralinterestofeffectivecrimepreventionanddetection.Toassure
himselfthatthepersonwithwhomheisdealingisnotarmedwithaweaponthatcouldunexpectedly
andfatallybeusedagainsthim,hecouldvalidlyconductacarefullylimitedsearchoftheouter
clothingofsuchpersontodiscoverweaponswhichmightbeusedtoassaulthim.
20
Peoplev.Canton,id.at757758.
Page 7
Decision
7
G.R.No.191023

Sorianoonthefriskingofpetitioneratthepredeparturearea,duringwhich
thetworolledpaperscontainingdriedmarijuanafruitingtopswerefoundin
hispossession,andonpetitionersimmediatearrestandinvestigationby
policeofficersfromthe2
nd
PCASandPDEAteamsstationedattheairport.
Asamatterofsettledjurisprudenceonillegalpossessionofdrugcases,
credenceisusuallyaccordedthenarrationoftheincidentbythe
apprehendingpoliceofficerswhoarepresumedtohaveperformedtheir
dutiesinaregularmanner.
21
Petitionerreiterateshisdefenseofbeingavictimofanallegedframe
upandextortion.However,theCAfoundhisclaimunworthyofbelief
consideringthatthereisnoevidencethattheapprehendingpoliceauthorities
hadknownpetitionerbeforehewascaughtandarrestedforpossessionof
marijuana.TheCAaptlyobserved:
ItbearsstressingthatwhilethedefenseofSalesisanchored
heavilyonhistheoryofpurportedframeupandextortion,nonetheless
Salestestimonyiswithoutanyallegationthatthepoliceandsecurity
personnelwhoparticipatedinhisarrest,investigationanddetentionhave
demandedmoneyinexchangeforhisfreedom,thewithdrawalofthe
drugschargeagainsthim,orotherwisetheirdesistancefromtestifying
againsthimincourt.Trueenough,Saleshimselfadmittedinthecourseof
thetrialthatthesecurityandpolicepersonneldemandedhimtoturnover
andsurrenderallhispossessions,towit:cellularphone,pla[n]eticketand
boardingpass,excepthismoney(TSN,April16,2008,p.18).This,to
themindofthisCourt,stronglybeliedSalesimputationofframeupby
thepolicetosecuremonetarygain.
22
(Emphasisandunderscoringinthe
original)
Petitionerquestionstheintegrityofthedrugspecimensupposedly
confiscatedfromhimattheairportbyPO1TrotaBartolome.Hemaintains
thattherewasnoevidenceadducedtoassurethatthoseitemsthatreached
theChemistwerethesameitemswhichweretakenfromhim.Thisis
crucialsincetheChemisthadsaidthattheitemswerebroughttoher,notby
thePNPofficer,butanotherperson(SPO2RosendoOlandescaofPDEA)
whowasnotpresentedaswitness.
Asamodeofauthenticatingevidence,thechainofcustodyrule
requiresthatthepresentationandadmissionoftheseizedprohibiteddrugas
anexhibitbeprecededbyevidencetosupportafindingthatthematterin
questioniswhattheproponentclaimsittobe.Thisrequirementisessential
toobviatethepossibilityofsubstitutionaswellastoensurethatdoubts
regardingtheidentityoftheevidenceareremovedthroughthemonitoring

andtrackingofthemovementsandcustodyoftheseizedprohibiteditem,
fromtheaccused,tothepolice,totheforensiclaboratoryforexamination,
andtoitspresentationinevidenceincourt.Ideally,thecustodialchain
wouldincludetestimonyabouteverylinkinthechainormovementsofthe
illegaldrug,fromthemomentofseizureuntilitisfinallyadducedin
21
Castrov.People,G.R.No.193379,August15,2011,655SCRA431,441.
22
Rollo,p.37.
Page 8
Decision
8
G.R.No.191023
evidence.Itcannotbeoveremphasized,however,thatatestimonyabouta
perfectchainisalmostalwaysimpossibletoobtain.
23
Theidentityoftheseizedsubstanceindangerousdrugcasesisthus
establishedbyshowingitschainofcustody.Section1(b)ofDangerous
DrugsBoardRegulationNo.1,Seriesof2002definedtheconceptofchain
ofcustodyasfollows:
b.ChainofCustodymeansthedulyrecordedauthorized
movementsandcustodyofseizeddrugsorcontrolledchemicalsorplant
sourcesofdangerousdrugsorlaboratoryequipmentofeachstage,from
thetimeofseizure/confiscationtoreceiptintheforensiclaboratoryto
safekeepingtopresentationincourtfordestruction.Suchrecordof
movementsandcustodyofseizeditemshallincludetheidentityand
signatureofthepersonwhoheldtemporarycustodyoftheseizeditem,the
dateandtimewhensuchtransferofcustodyweremadeinthecourseof
safekeepinganduseincourtasevidence,andthefinaldisposition[.]
TheruleonchainofcustodyunderR.A.No.9165andits
implementingrulesandregulations(IRR)expresslydemandsthe
identificationofthepersonswhohandletheconfiscateditemsforthe
purposeofdulymonitoringtheauthorizedmovementsoftheillegaldrugs
and/ordrugparaphernaliafromthetimetheyareseizedfromtheaccused
untilthetimetheyarepresentedincourt.
24
Wehaveheld,however,thatthe
failureoftheprosecutiontoshowcompliancewiththeprocedural
requirementsprovidedinSection21,ArticleIIofR.A.No.9165anditsIRR
isnotfatalanddoesnotautomaticallyrenderaccusedappellantsarrest
illegalortheitemsseized/confiscatedfromhiminadmissible.
25
Whatisof

utmostimportanceisthepreservationoftheintegrityandevidentiaryvalue
oftheseizeditems,asthesamewouldbeutilizedinthedeterminationofthe
guiltorinnocenceoftheaccused.
26
Aslongasthechainofcustodyremains
unbroken,theguiltoftheaccusedwillnotbeaffected.
27
Afterathoroughreviewoftherecords,weholdthattheprosecutionin
thiscasehasestablishedbyfactsprovedatthetrialthatthechainofcustody
requirementwasnotbroken.
Duringherdirectexamination,PO1TrotaBartolomenarratedclearly
andconsistentlyhowsheobtainedinitialcustodyoftheseizeddangerous
drugwhileondutyattheairportspredeparturearea.Saidwitness
identifiedExhibitsGandHwithmarkingsSBHAandSBHB
presentedincourttobethesamedriedmarijuanafruitingtopsintworolled
papersthattheyfoundinthepossessionofpetitionerwhilethelatterwas
beingfriskedbySoriano.Shealsotestifiedthatpetitionerandthe
23
Castrov.People,supranote21,at440.
24
Peoplev.Bautista,G.R.No.177320,February22,2012,666SCRA518,533.
25
Peoplev.Rosialda,G.R.No.188330,August25,2010,629SCRA507,520521,citingPeoplev.
Rivera,G.R.No.182347,October17,2008,569SCRA879,897898.
26
Id.at521,citingPeoplev.DelMonte,G.R.No.179940,April23,2008,552SCRA627,636.
27
Peoplev.Manlangit,G.R.No.189806,January12,2011,639SCRA455,469470,citingPeoplev.
Rosialda,supranote25,at522.
Page 9
Decision
9
G.R.No.191023
confiscatedmarijuanawerepromptlybroughttothePDEAteamstationedat
theairportwhereitwasmarkedinherpresencebytheassignedofficer,
SamuelB.Hojilla,usinghisowninitials.
28
Thetworolledpaperscontaining
marijuanafruitingtopswithmarkingsSBHAandSBHBwas
submittedtothePNPCrimeLaboratoryonthesamedaybySPO2Rosendo
Olandesca.
29
PoliceInspectorEngr.SandraDecenaGo,ForensicChemical

OfficeratthePNPCrimeLaboratorylikewisetestifiedthatonthesameday,
shepersonallyreceivedfromSPO2Olandescatheletterrequesttogether
withtheseizeddriedmarijuanafruitingtopsintworolledpapers(sheet
cigarettewrapper)likeimprovisedcigarettesticks,markedasSBHAand
SBHBandwrappedinwhitebondpaper.
30
Afterdescribingthecondition
ofthespecimenatthetimeshereceivedit,P/Insp.DecenaGoconfirmedthe
findingsofthechemicalanalysisofthesaidsubstancealreadypresentedin
court,andidentifiedherInitialLaboratoryReportandCertification,both
datedMay24,2003,statingthatthequalitativeexaminationgavepositive
resultsforthepresenceofMarijuana.
31
Wefindnomeritinpetitionersargumentthatthenonpresentationof
SPO2OlandescaandPO2Hojillaaswitnessesisfataltotheprosecutions
case.AsthisCourtheldinPeoplev.Amansec
32
:
xxxthereisnothinginRepublicActNo.9165orinits
implementingrules,whichrequireseachandeveryonewhocameinto
contactwiththeseizeddrugstotestifyincourt.Aslongasthechainof
custodyoftheseizeddrugwasclearlyestablishedtohavenotbeenbroken
andtheprosecutiondidnotfailtoidentifyproperlythedrugsseized,itis
notindispensablethateachandeverypersonwhocameintopossessionof
thedrugsshouldtakethewitnessstand.ThisCourt,inPeoplev.
Hernandez,
33
citingPeoplev.ZengHuaDian,
34
ruled:
Afterathoroughreviewoftherecordsofthiscase
wefindthatthechainofcustodyoftheseizedsubstance
wasnotbrokenandthattheprosecutiondidnotfailto
identifyproperlythedrugsseizedinthiscase.Thenon
presentationaswitnessesofotherpersonssuchasSPO1
Grafia,theevidencecustodian,andPO3Alamia,theofficer
onduty,isnotacrucialpointagainsttheprosecution.The
matterofpresentationofwitnessesbytheprosecutionis
notforthecourttodecide.Theprosecutionhasthe
discretionastohowtopresentitscaseandithastheright
tochoosewhomitwishestopresentaswitnesses.
35
Inthelightofthetestimonial,documentaryandobjectevidenceon
record,theCAcorrectlyconcludedthattheidentity,integrityandprobative

valueoftheseizedmarijuanawereadequatelypreserved.Theprosecution
28
TSN,February2,2005,pp.610,1214.
29
ExhibitD,folderofexhibits,p.6.
30
ExhibitD2,id.;TSN,August16,2005,pp.1116,3343,5152,5860.
31
ExhibitsEandF,id.at78;id.at1822.
32
G.R.No.186131,December14,2011,662SCRA574.
33
G.R.No.184804,June18,2009,589SCRA625,647648.
34
G.R.No.145348,June14,2004,432SCRA25,32.
35
Peoplev.Amansec,supranote32,at595.
Page 10
Decision
10
G.R.No.191023
hasprovedwithmoralcertaintythatthetwopiecesofrolledpapers
containingdriedmarijuanafruitingtopspresentedincourtwerethesame
itemsseizedfrompetitionerduringtheroutinefriskattheairportinthe
morningofMay24,2003.Itspresentationinevidenceaspartofthecorpus
delictiwasthereforesufficienttoconvictpetitioner.
AstothepenaltyimposedbytheRTC,wefindthesameinorderand
proper.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewoncertiorariisDENIED.
TheDecisiondatedSeptember30,2009andResolutiondatedJanuary27,
2010oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.31942arehereby
AFFIRMEDandUPHELD.
Withcostsagainstthepetitioner.
SOORDERED
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 177320

Present:
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
*
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

- versus -

That on or about the 25th day of April 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession, custody and control six (6) pieces of plastic
sachets containing METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu)
weighing 0.05 gram, 0.09 gram, 0.05 gram, 0.09 gram, 0.07 gram & 0.06 gram
knowing the same to be dangerous drug under the provisions of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]

Promulgated:
February 22, 2012

CESAR BAUTISTA y SANTOS,

Accused-Appellant.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

Criminal Case No. C-67994

That on or about the 25th day of April 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell
and deliver to PO2 AMADEO TAYAG who posed, as buyer
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU) weighing 0.05 gram, a
dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or prescription therefore, knowing
the same to be such.

Under review is the conviction of the accused for illegal sale and illegal possession

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]

of shabu respectively punished under Section 5 and Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No.
9165(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). He had been tried for and found guilty of the
offenses by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 127, Caloocan City, and the Court of Appeals
(CA) had affirmed the convictions through the decision promulgated on February 15, 2007.[1]

Evidence of the Prosecution

In the afternoon of April 25, 2003, an informant went to the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of
the Caloocan Police Station to report the peddling of illegal drugs by Bautista on Kasama Street,

Antecedents

Barangay 28, Caloocan City. Forthwith, Police Insp. Cesar Cruz formed a team consisting of SPO1
Rommel Ybaez, PO3 Rizalino Rangel, PO2 Jessie Caragdag, PO2 Juanito Rivera, and PO2 Amadeo L.

On April 28, 2003, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City filed in the RTC two

Tayag to conduct a buy-bust operation against Bautista. PO2 Tayag, designated as the poseur-buyer,

separate informations charging Cesar Bautista y Santos with a violation of Section 5 and a violation of

was given a P100.00 bill as buy-bust money, on which he placed his initials ALT. The rest of the buy-

Section 11 (3) of RA 9165, alleging thus:

bust team would serve as back up for PO2 Tayag. The team proceeded to the target area with the

Criminal Case No. C-67993

informant.[4]

Upon arriving at the target area, the informant pointed out Bautista to the team. Bautista was
then standing in front of a house. PO2 Tayag and the informant then approached Bautista even as the

they demanded money from him, but he told them that he had none; and that he was brought to and
detained at the Caloocan City Jail.[10]

rest of the team took up positions nearby. The informant introduced PO2 Tayag to Bautista as biyahero
ng shabu, after which the informant left PO2 Tayag and Bautista alone to themselves. PO2 Tayag told

Decision of the RTC

Bautista: Cesar, pakuha ng piso. Bautista drew a plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it to PO2
Tayag, who in turn handed the P100.00 bill buy-bust money to Bautista. PO2 Tayag then turned his cap
backwards as the pre-arranged signal to the back-up members. The latter rushed forward and arrested

After trial, the RTC found Bautista guilty as charged through its joint decision dated
September 5, 2005,[11] disposing:

Bautista. Upon informing Bautista of his constitutional rights, SPO1 Ybaez frisked him and found in
his pocket six other plastic sachets, while PO2 Caragdag seized the buy-bust money from Bautistas
hand. The team brought Bautista and the seized plastic sachets back to the police station.[5]
In the police station, the team recorded the buy-bust bill in the police blotter and turned over
the plastic sachets to PO2 Hector Castillo, the investigator on duty. [6] PO2 Castillo marked the sachet
handed by Bautista to PO2 Tayag as CBS (Bautistas initials) Buy-bust, and the other six sachets
recovered by SPO1 Ybaez from appellants possession as CBS-1, CBS-2, CBS-3, CBS-4, CBS-5, and
CBS-6.

[7]

Based on the written request of Insp. Cruz, Forensic Chemist Albert S. Arturo conducted a
laboratory examination on the contents of the marked sachets, [8] and stated in his Physical Science
Report that the marked sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous
substance. The Physical Science Report enumerated the marked sachets examined and gave the weight

WHEREFORE, premises considered and the prosecution having established

to a moral certainty the guilt of Accused CESAR BAUTISTA y SANTOS @ CESAR
TAGILID, this Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1.
In Criminal Case No. C-67993 for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA
9165, this Court in the absence of any aggravating circumstance hereby sentences
same Accused to a prison term of twelve (12) years, eight (8) months and one day to
seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months and to pay the fine of Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
and
2.
In Crim. Case No. C-67994 for Violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A.
9165, this Court in the absence of any aggravating circumstance hereby sentences
said Accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay the fine of Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Subject drug in both cases are declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of
the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.

of the shabu in each as follows: CBS (Bautistas initials) Buy-bust 0.05 gram; CBS-1 0.05 gram; CBS-2
0.09 gram; CBS-3 0.05 gram; CBS-4 0.09 gram; CBS-5 0.07 gram; and CBS-6 0.06 gram.[9]
Evidence of the Accused
Bautista denied the charge. He claimed that on April 25, 2003, at around 6:00 p.m., he and his
wife, Rosario, were in their house cutting cloth to be made into door mats when PO2 Tayag and two
others barged in; that when he asked what they wanted, they told him that it was none of his business;
that the three introduced themselves as policemen and ordered him to go with them; that they forced
him to go with them, with PO2 Tayag hitting him on the nape; that as they were walking on the road,

Decision of the CA
On February 15, 2007, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment, pertinently holding:[12]
In sum, the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of herein appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. The actual sale of prohibited or regulated drugs coupled
with their presentation in court has been sufficiently proven by the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. Their recount of the incident complement each other, giving a
complete picture on how the illegal sale of shabu transpired and how the sale led to
the apprehension of appellant in flagrante delicto. Their testimonies likewise
established beyond doubt that appellant was found in actual possession of six (6)

additional pieces of heat-sealed sachets containing white crystalline substance

(shabu) when he was arrested.
Appellants claim, therefore, that in convicting him, the trial court merely
relied on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is without
merit. Appellants conviction was based on established facts and evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Joint Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127 in Criminal Cases Nos. C-67993 and C67994 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.

Issues
Hence, this appeal, in which Bautista contends that the CA erred in affirming his conviction
because: (a) there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses as to who of them
had actually received the tip from the informant; (b) PO2 Tayags testimony that Bautista had handed
him a sachet of shabu without inquiring about the formers identity ran counter to human experience;
(c) the back-up members of the buy-bust team did not actually witness the transaction between PO2
Tayag and Bautista; and (d) the plastic sachets were not immediately marked after their seizure from
Bautista.[13]
Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
I
Illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu
were established beyond reasonable doubt
Section 5 and Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 pertinently provide as follows:

Section 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 such
transactions.
xxx
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities,
regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less
than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, or cocaine hydrochloride
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, or
other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or ecstacy, PMA, TMA,
LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far
beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be
established: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration;
and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material in prosecutions
for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[14]
The requisites for illegal sale of shabu were competently and convincingly proven by the
Prosecution. PO2 Tayag, as the poseur-buyer, attested that Bautista sold shabu to him during a
legitimate buy-bust operation.[15] According to Forensic Chemist Arturo, the substance subject of the

transaction, which weighed 0.05 gram, was examined and found to be methamphetamine

certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as

hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[16] PO2 Caragdag declared that he recovered the buy-bust

the cause of this act or result. [24] The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of

money from Bautistas hand right after the sale. [17] Further, the Prosecution later presented as evidence

the law prohibiting the possession of the dangerous drug. [25] Consequently, the State does not comply

both the sachet of shabu subject of the sale and the buy-bust money used in the buy-bust operation.

with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti when the drug is missing, and when

[18]

substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity

Thereby, the Prosecution directly incriminated Bautista.

of the evidence presented in court.[26]

For illegal possession of a dangerous drug, like shabu, the elements are: (a) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; ( b) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

[19]

The elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug were similarly competently and
convincingly established by the Prosecution. SPO1 Ybaez stated that upon seeing the pre-arranged
signal given by PO2 Tayag, he and the other members of the team proceeded to arrest Bautista; and
that he frisked Bautista and then recovered six other plastic sachets from Bautistas pocket.
[20]

Undoubtedly, the frisking was legally authorized as a search incidental to the lawful arrest of

Bautista for evidence in the commission of illegal drug pushing. [21] Forensic Chemist Arturo certified
that each of the sachets contained different shabu of different weights.[22]

To ensure that the chain of custody is established, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165
relevantly provides:
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.
xxx
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physical 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;
xxx

The lower courts justifiably accorded credence to the eyewitness testimonies of PO2 Tayag,
PO2 Caragdag, and SPO1 Ybaez. Their testimonial accounts were consistent with the documentary and
object evidence of the Prosecution. It was significant that no ill motive was imputed to them to falsely
testify against Bautista, with Bautista himself admitting not being aware of any reason why they would
wrongly incriminate him.[23]
In drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of
the offenses of sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165, but also of proving
thecorpus delicti, the body of the crime. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of
the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As
applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime
charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz: the existence of a

The complementary Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No.
9165 instructs the apprehending officer or team on the custody and control of the confiscated drugs in
the following manner:
xxx
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search 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;
xxx

examined and rendered the weights of the shabu they contained, as follows: CBS (Bautistas initials)
Buy-bust 0.05 gram; CBS-1 - 0.05 gram; CBS-2 - 0.09 gram; CBS-3 0.05 gram; CBS-4 0.09 gram;
CBS-5 0.07 gram; and CBS-6 0.06 gram.[31]

The rule on chain of custody under the foregoing enactments expressly demands the

We have held that a non-compliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render

identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the

an accuseds arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, for

authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized

what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the

from the accused until the time they are presented in court. In this regard, Section 1(b) of Dangerous

confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence. [32]

Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines the chain of custody rule as follows:
b. Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the
identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody [was] of the seized
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
Here, the buy-bust team did not mark the sachets until after reaching the police station. Even
so, the omission did not destroy the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items. We are
satisfied that PO2 Tayag and SPO1 Ybaez brought the confiscated sachets of shabu to the police
station immediately after the buy-bust operation, and turned them over to the duty investigator, PO2
Castillo, for marking;[27] that in their presence, PO2 Castillo marked the sachet of shabu sold by
Bautista to PO2 Tayag as CBS (Bautistas initials) Buy-bust, and the six sachets of shabu recovered by
SPO1 Ybaez from Bautistas possession as CBS-1, CBS-2, CBS-3, CBS-4, CBS-5, and CBS-6; [28] that
PO2 Castillo then delivered the marked sachets to Insp. Cruz who in turn caused their transmittal to the
Crime Laboratory Office, Northern Police District (NPD), in Caloocan City, for appropriate laboratory
examination;

[29]

that upon the instruction of Insp. Cruz, SPO1 Ybaez handcarried the written request

That was done herein. PO2 Tayag firmly identified the sachet of shabu marked as
CBS(Bautistas initials) Buy bust as the one he had bought from Bautista in the buy-bust operation.
[33]

In the same manner, SPO1 Ybaez identified the sachets of shabu marked CBS-1, CBS-2, CBS-3,

CBS-4, CBS-5, and CBS-6 presented in court as those he had recovered from Bautistas possession
right after the buy-bust operation.[34] Finally, Forensic Chemist Arturo properly stated that the same
exhibits were the very specimens he had subjected to chemical analysis upon the formal request of
Insp. Cruz.[35] Without question, then, the quantities of shabu recovered from Bautista were duly
preserved within the context of the rule on chain of custody.
As if confirming the arresting officers observance of the rule on chain of custody, Bautista did
not assail the integrity of the confiscated shabu except by insisting on being framed up by the
policemen. His insistence did not deflect guilt from him, however, considering that his failure to charge
the policemen with frame-up and extortion could only be regarded as his tacit admission that such
evidence had not been tampered or meddled with but preserved and intact.[36]
II
Denial and frame-up not established

and the marked sachets to the NPD Crime Laboratory Office for laboratory examination, where one
PO2 Bonifacio received them;[30] and that thereafter, Forensic Chemist Arturo certified in the Physical
Science Report prepared following his qualitative examination that the contents of the marked sachets
were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, and enumerated the marked sachets

Bautistas denial and defense of frame-up were given no consideration due to their being selfserving and uncorroborated. We declare such treatment warranted. He did not present Rosario, his
wife, to corroborate his claim of being framed up although she was supposed to have been around at

the time of his arrest. He did not also adduce evidence to substantiate his story of being falsely

themselves did actually witness the transaction between Bautista and PO2 Tayag, with PO2 Caragdag

incriminated in a frame-up by competent evidence. His claim thereon did not prevail over the positive

specifically saying that he had seen their transaction from seven meters away from them; [40] and with

identification of him by PO2 Tayag as the drug pusher he had transacted with. As the Court sees it, he

SPO1 Ybaez, despite admitting not actually seeing the exchange between Bautista and PO2 Tayag, still

was not even sincere in claiming frame-up, for he did not formally charge the policemen for the

seeing PO2 Tayag giving the pre-arranged signal to communicate the consummation of the sale

supposed frame-up and extortion committed against him. Verily, defenses of frame-up and extortion

of shabu.[41] And, thirdly, the giving of the pre-arranged signal rendered a full ocular view of the

are not looked upon with favor due to their being conveniently concocted and usually asserted by

exchange between Bautista and PO2 Tayag superfluous. Worthy of noting is that the giving of the pre-

culprits arrested for violations of Republic Act No. 9165.

[37]

arranged signal in a buy-bust operation has been an accepted form of communicating the
consummation of the exchange between the drug pusher and the poseur buyer.

III
Inconsistencies in testimony
are inconsequential
Bautista argues that the arresting policemen incurred inconsistencies because they could not
be sure on who of them had actually received the report of the informant on the illegal drug pushing of
Bautista.

IV
Penalties
Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that the illegal possession of less than five
grams of shabu is penalized with imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 years, and a fine ranging
from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. Bautista was guilty of illegal possession of shabu weighing 0.41

The argument has no merit. There is no dispute that the matter of who among the policemen
actually received the report from the informant did not relate to the essential elements of the crimes

gram. The RTC and the CA imposed on him an indeterminate sentence of 12 years, eight months and
one day, as minimum, to 17 years and eight months, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00.

charged. Nor did such matter refer to the actual buy-bust itself that crucial moment when Bautista was
caught red-handed selling and possessing shabu in question. As such, it was insignificant in this
adjudication. We deem to be basic enough that an inconsistency that had nothing to do with the
elements of the crime could not be a basis for acquittal.[38]

Although the penalty thus imposed is within the range of the penalty imposable under
Republic Act No. 9165, the increment of one day as part of the minimum of the indeterminate sentence
is deleted despite its being within the parameters of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The one-day
increment to the minimum of the indeterminate sentence was surplusage that may occasion a slight

Bautistas insistence that it was impossible for him to sell shabu to PO2 Tayag due to the latter
being unknown to him merits no attention. Based on our collective experience as judges, we know that
drug pushing has been committed with so much casualness even between total strangers. It was
credible enough, then, that PO2 Tayag categorically declared that the informant had first introduced
him to Bautista as biyahero ng shabu before PO2 Tayag and Bautista started transacting with each

degree of inconvenience when it will be time for the penal administrators concerned to pass upon and
determine whether or not Bautista is already qualified to enjoy the benefits under theIndeterminate
Sentence Law and other relevant legal provisions.[42] Accordingly, the penalty should be an
indeterminate sentence of 12 years and eight months, as minimum, to 17 years and eight months, as
maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00.

other.[39]
Bautista posits that the back-up members did not visually see the sale between him and PO2
Tayag. That position is unfounded for three reasons. The first is that PO2 Tayag testified that Bautista
had sold shabu to him during the buy-bust operation. The second is that the back-up members

Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its
quantity and purity, carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging

fromP500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. The RTC and the CA were correct in prescribing life

12 years and eight months, as minimum, to 17 years and eight months, as maximum, and a fine

imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance. It is

of P300,000.00.

relevant to observe that the higher penalty of death might no longer be possibly prescribed in view of
the intervening enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, [43] a law that prohibits the imposition of the death
penalty.
The accused shall pay the costs of suit.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated on February 15, 2007 by the Court
of Appeals, subject to the SOLE MODIFICATION that the indeterminate sentence prescribed on the

SO ORDERED.

illegal possession of shabu as defined and punished under Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165 is
(KULANG ISA KA CASE)