Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 192432

June 23, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
LARRY MENDOZA y ESTRADA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The law enforcement agents who conduct buy-bust operations against persons suspected of drug
trafficking in violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA No. 9165), otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, should comply with the statutory requirements
for preserving the chain of custody of the seized evidence. Failing this, they are required to
render sufficient reasons for their non-compliance during the trial; otherwise, the presumption
that they have regularly performed their official duties cannot obtain, and the persons they charge
should be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Case
This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on April 26, 2010 in CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 03901 entitled People of the Philippines v. Larry Mendoza y Estrada,1
whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment rendered on February 24, 2009 by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, in Binangonan, Rizal finding accused Larry Mendoza y
Estrada guilty of a violation of Section 5 and a violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No.
9165.2
Antecedents
The accusatory portion of the information charging the violation of Section 5 of RA No. 9165
reads:
That on or about the 28th day of August 2007, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of
Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
sell, deliver and give away to a poseur buyer (PO1 Arnel D. Diocena), 0.03 gram and 0.01 gram
or a total weight of 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance contained in two (2) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets, which substance was found positive to the test for
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride alsoknown as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in consideration of
the amountof Php 500.00, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
The accusatory portion of the information charging the violation of Section 11 of RA No. 9165
alleges:
That, on or about the 28th day of August 2007, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of
Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly possess and have in his custody and control 0.01 gram of white
crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which substance

was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride also known as "shabu", a
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
After the accused pleaded not guiltyto both informations,5 the State presented Sr. Insp. Vivian C.
Sumobay, PO1 Arnel D. Diocena and Insp. Alfredo DG Lim as its witnesses, while the witnesses
for the Defense were the accused himself, Lolita Flores and Analiza Acapin.
The CA summarized the respective versions of the parties in the decision under review as
follows:
Evidence for the Prosecution
As culled from the herein assailed Decision, the prosecution presented the following witnesses:
"x x x Policemen Arnel Diocenaand Alfredo DG Limtestified that, on September 29, 2007, they
received reports that an alias Larry was selling shabuat St. Claire Street, Barangay Calumpang,
Binangonan, Rizal. They organized a buy-bust operationwhere Diocena acted as the poseur
buyer while Lim servedas back-up. They proceeded to the target area with their asset at around
10:45 p.m. There Diocena and the asset waited in the corner on their motorcycle while Lim and
the other cops positioned themselves in the perimeter. The asset texted Larry and they waited for
him to arrive. Later,Larry arrived and told them, Pasensya na at ngayon lang dumating ang mga
items. Larry then asked them how much they were buying and Diocena told P500.00 worth.
Larry took out two plastic sachets of shabuand gave it to Diocena who gave him a marked P500
bill (exhibit D). Diocenalit the left signal light of his motorcycle to signal Lim and the other
cops that the deal was done. They then arrested Larry who turned out to be the accused. After
frisking him, they recovered another sachet of shabufrom him. Diocena marked the first two
LEM-1and LEM-2while the one taken after the frisk he marked LEM-3(TSN dated April 23
and July 17, 2008, exhibits D, E and F). These were sent to the police crime lab for forensic
testing where they tested positive for 0.03 (LEM-1), 0.01 (LEM-2) and 0.01 (LEM-3) grams
for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu respectively (TSN dated December 5, 2007,
exhibits A,B and C). LEM-1 and LEM-2 were made the basis of the pushing charge while
LEM-3 the one for possession."
Evidence for the Defense
The defense witnesses version of facts, as summarized in the herein assailed Decision, is as
follows:
"x x x On that day, he was minding his own business, eating with his wife when his friend Rolly
Lopez knocked on the door. Rolly was wanted by the cops (may atraso) and asked Mendoza for
help to get them off his back.Rolly texted somebody and after there was another knock. It was
the police led by one Dennis Gorospewho asked Mendoza for his identity. When he said yes,
Gorospe cuffed him after showing him sachets of shabuwith his initials. Gorospe was then taken
to the police station where he was interrogated and asked how much protection money he can
cough up. When he refused, he was arrested and drug tested. He claims that he was supposed to
be a regaloto the new police chief. (TSN dated August 27, October 9, November 26, 2008 and
February 18, 2009)6
Ruling of the RTC
On February 24, 2009, the RTC convicted the accused of the crimes charged,7 disposing:
We thus find accused Larry Mendoza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of
R.A. No. 9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and topay a fine of
P500,000.00. We also find him GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11 of R.A.

No. 9165 and illegally possessing a total of 0.01 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or
shabuand accordingly sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as
minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00
Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular
No. 70-2007.
SO ORDERED.8
Judgment of the CA
The accused appealed, contendingthat the identity of the corpus delictiand the fact of illegal sale
had notbeen established beyond reasonable doubt; that PO1 Diocenas testimony on the sale of
the illegal drugs and on the buy-bust operation had not been corroborated; that the Prosecution
had patently failed to show compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165; and
that such failure to show compliance had negated the presumption of regularity accorded to the
apprehending police officers, and should warrant his acquittal.9
On April 26, 2010, the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused,10 holding and ruling thusly:
x x x [I]t is worthy of mention that prosecution of cases for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
arising from buy-bust operations largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who
conducted them. Unless clear and convincing evidence is proffered showing that the members of
the buy-bust team were driven by any improper motive or were not properly performing their
duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.
Here, accused-appellant failed to present any plausible reason or ill-motive on the part of the
police officers to falsely impute to him such a serious and unfounded charge. We thus are obliged
to accord great respect to and treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the prosecution
witnesses credibility. After all, it is settled doctrine that the trial courts evaluation of the
credibility of a testimony is accorded the highest respect, for the trial court has the distinct
opportunity of directly observing the demeanor of a witness and, thus, to determine whether he is
telling the truth.
Accused-appellants argument that the procedural requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1 of
ArticleII of Republic Act No. 9165 with respect to the custody and disposition of confiscated
drugs were not complied with is equally bereft of merit.
xxxx
Verily, failure of the police officers to strictly comply with the subject procedure isnot fatal [to]
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items having been properly
preservedby the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accuseds
arrest illegal or items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. For, what is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
xxxx
It thus behooves Us to believe that all the links in the chain from the moment it was seized from
the accused-appellant, marked in evidence and submitted to the crime laboratory, up to the time
it was offered in evidence were sufficiently establishedin this case.
We are thus constrained to uphold accused-appellants conviction.
xxxx

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated February 24,
2009 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.11
Issue
In this appeal, the accused presentsthe lone issue of whether the CA erred in finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the violations of Section 5 and Section 11 of RA No. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
1.
The State did not satisfactorilyexplain substantial lapses
committed by the buy-bust team in the chain of custody;
hence, the guilt of the accused for the crime charged
was not established beyond reasonable doubt
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in
every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. As such, the identityof the dangerous
drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing thatthe dangerous drugs offered in court
were the same substances boughtduring the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement,
known under RA No. 9165 as the chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring
thatunnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.12 As the Court has
expounded in People v. Catalan,13 the dangerous drugs are themselves the corpus delicti; hence:
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore,
the Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti.That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On
the other hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving
the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but
also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that
raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.14
As the means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of RA No.
9165 specifies that:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.
The following guideline in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165
complements Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, to wit:
(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 inthe
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom suchitems were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative orcounsel, 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 suchseizures of and
custody over said items;
Based on the foregoing statutory rules, the manner and timing of the marking of the seized drugs
or related items are crucial in proving the chain of custody. Certainly, the marking after seizure
by the arresting officer, being the starting point in the custodial link, should be made
immediately upon the seizure, or, if that is not possible, as close to the time and place of the
seizure as practicable under the obtaining circumstances. This stricture is essential because the
succeeding handlers of the contraband would use the markings as their reference to the seizure.
The marking further serves to separate the marked seized drugs fromall other evidence from the
time of seizure from the accused until the drugs are disposed of upon the termination of the
criminal proceedings. The deliberate taking of these identifying steps is statutorily aimed at
obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence.15 Indeed, the preservation of
the chain of custody vis--vis the contraband ensures the integrity of the evidence incriminating
the accused, and relates to the element of relevancy as one of the requisites for the admissibility
of the evidence.
An examination of the records reveals that the buy-bust team did not observe the statutory
procedures on preserving the chain of custody.
To start with, the State did not show the presence during the seizure and confiscation of the
contraband, aswell as during the physical inventory and photographing of the contraband, ofthe
representatives from the media or the Department of Justice, or of any elected public official.
Such presence was precisely necessary to insulatethe apprehension and incrimination
proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity.16
It is notable that PO1 Diocena, although specifically recalling having marked the confiscated
sachets of shabuwith the initials of the accused immediately after the seizure, did not state, as the
following excerpts from his testimony indicate, if he had madehis marking in the presence of the
accused himself or of his representative, and in the presence of a representative from the media
or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official, to wit:
Q - What did you do with the plasticsachets you bought or the plastic sachets handed to you and
the other plastic sachet Insp. Lim recovered from him?
A - I put markings, Maam.
Q - What markings did you place on the plastic sachets?
A - LEM-1, LEM-2 and LEM-3.
Q - And after marking those specimen, what did you do with them?
A - We brought them to the police station.
Q - What did the police station do with the plastic sachets?
A - Our investigator took pictures and brought them to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
xxxx
Q - You said that you put markings on the specimen at the target area?

A - Yes, Maam.
Q - You prepared the listing of all the specimen and marked money you recovered from the
accused?
A - No, Maam.
Q - When you returned to the police station that was the only time that you took pictures of the
marked money?
A - Yes, Maam.
Q - To whom did you turn it over?
A - To our investigator, Maam.
Q - What is the name of your investigator?
A - PO1 Dennis Gorospe, Maam.17
Similarly, P/Insp. Lim did not mention in his testimony, the relevant portions of which are quoted
hereunder, that a representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected
public official was present during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, as follows:
Q - What did you do with the subject sale and the one you recovered from the accused?
A - I told PO1 Diocena to mark it, the three heat-sealed plastic sachets.
Q - Do you know the markings placed on the plastic sachets?
A - LEM-1, LEM-2 and LEM-3.
Q - And aside from marking the specimen, what did you do with them?
A - I apprised the suspect of his rights, then right after that we went to the headquarters.
Q - And after you brought the accused and the specimen to the headquarters, what did you do
next with the specimen?
A - We submitted them to the Crime Laboratory for verification.
Q - Who personally brought them to the Crime Laboratory?
A - If I am not mistaken it was also PO1 Diocena and the other men.
xxxx
Q - Where was Officer Diocena when heput markings on the three plastic sachets you recovered?
A - When I arrested the subject, he alighted from the motorcycle and he helped me in arresting
the accused, it was just then beneath the Meralco post.
Q - And the markings represent the initials of the accused?
A - I dont know, Maam, LEM, maybe, Maam.
Q - But it was Officer Diocena who put the markings?

A - Yes, Maam.
Q - Was there an inventory or list of the things you recovered from the accused?
A - Yes, Maam.
Q - Did you ask the accused to sign that inventory?
A - I was not able, Maam.18
The consequences of the failure ofthe arresting lawmen to comply with the requirements of
Section 21(1), supra, were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. Without the insulating
presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public
official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting"
or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of
RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the
integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were
evidence herein of thecorpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have
preserved an unbroken chain of custody.
Secondly, the records nowhere indicated, contrary to the claim of P/Insp. Lim, that the buy-bust
team, orany member thereof, had conducted the physical inventory of the confiscated items. We
know this because the States formal offer of evidence did not include such inventory, to wit:
PROSECUTOR ARAGONES:
Your Honor, we formally offer Exhibit "A", the Chemistry Report No. D-221-07; Exhibit "B",
the request for laboratory examination from the Binangonan Police Station; and Exhibit "C", the
subject specimen. This is to prove that after request made by the Binangonan Police Station,
examined by the forensic chemical officer, and after examination proved positive to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. These exhibits are offered as part of the testimony of the
forensic chemist. Exhibit "D", the buy bust money, the P500.00 bill used during the operation;
Exhibit "D-1" is the marking placed by Police Officer Diocena. This is to prove that this is the
xerox copy of the original buy bust money used during the buy bust operation conducted against
the accused. Exhibit "E" is the sworn statement of Police Officer Diocena. This is to prove all the
facts alleged in the information and as part of the testimony of the said police officer. Exhibit "F"
is the sworn statement of P/Insp. Alfredo Lim to prove all the facts alleged in the information and
as part of the testimony of said witness. That would be all for our formal offer of evidence. 19
Without the inventory having beenmade by the seizing lawmen, it became doubtful whether any
shabu had been seized from the accused at all.
And, thirdly, although PO1 Diocena asserted that photographs of the confiscated items and the
marked money were taken at the police station,20 it still behooved him to justify why the
photographs of the seized shabuwas not taken immediately upon the seizure,and at the place of
seizure. The State did not explain this lapse. The pictorial evidence of the latter kind would have
more firmly established the identity of the seizedshabufor purposes of preserving the chain of
custody.
The last paragraph of Section 21(1) of the IRR of RA No. 9165 expressly provides a saving
mechanism tothe effect that not every case of non-compliance with the statutory requirements for
the physical inventory and photograph of the dangerous drugs being made "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" would prejudice the States case against the accused. But in order

for that saving mechanism to apply, and thus save the day for the States cause, the Prosecution
must have to recognize first the lapse or lapses, and then credibly explain them.21
It appears that the application ofthe saving mechanism in this case was not warranted. The
Prosecution did notconcede that the lawmen had not complied with the requirement for "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." Also, the Prosecution did not tender any justification why no
representatives from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official had
been present during the seizure and confiscation of the shabu. The omissions, particularly the
failure to justify on the part of the lawmen, were strange and improbable, particularly because
the records indicated that the lawmen had sufficient time and the opportunity to prepare for the
proper conductof the buy-bust operation against the accused due to such operation having come
in the aftermath of a successful test buy.
Anent the test buy, PO1 Diocena mentioned the same in his sinumpaang salaysay, thusly:
x x x Na itong sinasabi ng aming asset na alyas "Larry" ay matagal na naming minamanmanan at
sa katunayan ay nagsagawa na kami ng Test Buy noong Hulyo 10, 2007 at kami ay nakabili sa
kanya ng isang pirasong maliit na plastic na may lamang shabu at amin itong ipinasuri sa RIZAL
PNP Crime Laboratory Office na nagbigay ng positibong resulta sa pinagbabawal na droga at
siya ay di namin kaagad nahuli sapagkat siya ay huminto pansamantala sa pagbebenta ng iligal
na droga. x x x22
Similarly, P/Insp. Lim adverted to the test buy in his own sinumpaang salaysayas follows:
x x x Sapagkat ako ay bago lamang dito sa himpilan ng Binangonan, napagalaman ko mula
saaking mga kasamahan na itong sinasabi ng aming asset na alyas "Larry" ay matagal na nilang
minamanmanan at sa katunayan aynagsagawa ng Test Buy noong Hulyo 10, 2007 laban dito kay
alyas "Larry" at ang nabiling pinaghihinalaang shabu ay ipinasuri sa RIZAL PNP Crime
Laboratory Office na nagbigay ng positibong resulta sa pinagbabawal na droga na kaya lamang
hindi nahuhuli itong si alyas "Larry" sa dahilang siya at huminto pansamantala sa pagbebenta ng
iligal na droga.23
P/Insp. Lim reiterated his story on direct examination, viz:
Q - And what report, if any, was madeby that asset aside from there was an ongoing sale of drugs
in Calumpang?
A - That there was an ongoing sale byalias Larry na matagal na nilang minamatyagan, in fact
they havealready testbuy noong mga nakaraang taon, eh, wala pa ho ako noon.24
In all, the buy-bust team had about 48 days the period intervening between July 10, 2007, when
the test buy was conducted, and August 28, 2007, when the crimes charged were committed
within which to have the media and the Department of Justice be represented during the buy-bust
operation, as well as to invite an elected public official of the place of operation to witness the
operation. It puzzles the Court, therefore, that the buy-bust team did not prudently follow the
procedures outlined in Section 21(1), supra, despite their being experienced policemen who
knew the significance of the procedures in the preservation of the chain of custody.
With the chain of custody being demonstrably broken, the accused deserved to be acquitted of
the seriouscharges. Even if we rejected the frame-up defense of the accused, the unexplained
failures and lapses committed by the buy-bust team could not be fairly ignored. At the very least,
they raised a reasonable doubt on his guilt. "A reasonable doubt of guilt," according toUnited
States v. Youthsey:25

x x x is a doubt growing reasonably out of evidence or the lack of it. It is not a captious doubt;
not a doubt engendered merely by sympathy for the unfortunate position of the defendant, or a
dislike to accept the responsibility of convicting a fellowman. If, having weighed the evidence on
both sides, you reach the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, to that degree of certainty as
would lead you toact on the faith of it in the most important and crucial affairs of your life, you
may properly convict him. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is notproof to a mathematical
demonstration. It is not proof beyond the possibility of mistake.
Thus, the accused was entitled to beacquitted and freed, for, as we pointed out in People v.
Belocura:26
x x x in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecutions duty is to prove
each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for
that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must further
prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. In doing all these, the
Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the
weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises
from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no less thanthe Constitution has
guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof, that he must
then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence
in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the defense put up bythe accused is inconsequential
in the proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in
establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the
malefactor responsible for it.
2.
The CA and the RTC erred in relying
on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty of the arresting officers
Even if the foregoing conclusion already renders any further discussion of the applicability of the
presumption of regularity in favor of the members of the buy-bust team superfluous, we need to
dwell a bit on the matter if only to remind the lower courtsnot to give too much primacy to the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty at the expense of the higher and
stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in a prosecution for violation of the
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.
We have usually presumed the regularity of performance of their official duties in favor of the
members of buy-bust teams enforcing our laws against the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Such
presumption is based on three fundamental reasons, namely: first, innocence, and not wrongdoing, is to be presumed; second, an official oath will not be violated; and, third, a republican
form of government cannot survive long unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain
trust and confidence reposed in each governmental department or agent by every other such
department or agent, at least to the extent of such presumption.27 But the presumption is
rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any failure to perform a duty.28 Judicial
reliance on the presumption despite any hint of irregularity in the procedures undertaken by the
agents of the law will thus be fundamentally unsound because such hint is itself affirmative proof
of irregularity.
The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason exists
in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in
that instance the presumption of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the

constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. Trial courts are instructed to apply this
differentiation, and to always bear in mind the following reminder issued in People v. Catalan:29
x x x We remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise,
the constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held sut ordinate
to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced
against the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the
crime charged.
Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in
favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a
rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only
from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the
established basic fact that triggers the presumed fact of regular performance. Where there is any
hint of irregularity committed by the police officers in arresting the accused and thereafter,
several of which we have earlier noted, there can be no presumption of regularity of performance
in their favor.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on April 26,
2010 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03901 entitled People of the Philippines
v. Larry Mendoza y Estrada; ACQUITS LARRY MENDOZA y ESTRADA on the ground of
reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate release from detention at the National
Penitentiary, unless there are other lawful causes warranting his continued detention.
The Director of Bureau of Corrections is directed to forthwith implement this decision and to
report to this Court his action hereon within ten (10) days from receipt.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate
Justice Francisco P. Acosta and Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
2 CA Rollo, pp. 14-16.
3 Original Records, Criminal Case No. 07-496, p. 1.
4 Original Records, Criminal Case No. 07-497, p. 1.
5 Supra note 3, at 29.
6 Rollo, pp. 4-6.
7 Supra note 2
8 Id. at 16.
9 Rollo, pp. 8-9.
10 Supra note 1.
11 Rollo, pp.11-18.
12 Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.
13 G.R. No. 189330, November 28, 2012, 686 SCRA 631.
14 Id. at 642-643.
15 People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 357.
16 People v. Catalan, supra note 13, at 644.
17 TSN of April 23, 2008, pp. 8-15.
18 TSN of July 17, 2008, pp. 9-17.
19 TSN of July 17, 2008, pp. 19-20.
20 Supra note 17.
21 People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 270.
22 Original Records, Criminal Case No. 07-496, p. 6.
23 Id. at 9.
24 TSN of July 17, 2008, p. 4.
25 91 Fed. Rep. 864, 868.
26 G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 318, 346-347. Citing Patula v. People,
G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 135, 150-151.
27 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 106025, February 9, 1994, 229 SCRA 795, 799.

28 Id.
29 Supra note 13, at 646-647.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 188653

January 29, 2014

LITO LOPEZ, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Assailed. in this petition is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of
petitioner Lito Lopez by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)2 in Criminal Case No. T-3476, which
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, in an
Information which reads:
That on or about the 31st day of July, 2000, at 7:30 o'clock in the evening, more or less, at Purok
1, Brgy. Baranghawon, Municipality of Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to possess and violate
the law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally have in his possession and control
0.0849 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu", a regulated
drug contained in four (4) small transparent packets; four (4) pieces of aluminum foil and one (1)
transparent plastic packet, both containing "shabu" residue, without authority, license or permit
from the government or its duly authorized representatives.3
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
The witnesses for the prosecution testified on the following facts:
Senior Police Officer 4 Benito Bognalos (SPO4 Bognalos) was the team leader of the group of
police officers assigned to implement the search warrant issued by Judge Arsenio Base of the
Municipal Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, on the house of petitioner located at Purok 1, Barangay
Baranghawon, Tabaco, Albay. The search group was composed of SPO3 Domingo Borigas
(SPO3 Borigas), PO3 Carlos Desuasido (PO3 Desuasido), and PO3 Ferdinand Telado (PO3
Telado) while another group, consisting of SPO1 Venancio Rolda, PO3 Cesar Templonuevo and
SPO2 Melchor Codornes, were tasked to secure the perimeter area. SPO4 Bognalos contacted
the barangay officials to ask for assistance in the conduct of the search.
At around 7:30 p.m. of 31 July 2000, the search team, together with three (3) barangay officials,
went to the house of petitioner and presented the search warrant to him. He eventually relented to
the conduct of search. PO3 Desuasido seized a piece of folded paper containing four (4) 1/4 x 1/2
inch transparent plastic packets of white powder, two (2) 2x1-1/2 inch plastic sachets containing
white powder, and a crystal-like stone measuring 2 inches in contoured diameter concealed in the
kitchen.4 SPO3 Borigas found two (2) 2x1-1/2 inch plastic sachets containing white powder in
the bathroom. PO3 Telado seized one (1) 1/4 x 1/2 inch plastic packet containing suspected
residue of shabu inside the masters bedroom. PO3 Telado also recovered one (1) 1x1-1/2 inch
plastic sachet containing suspected residue of shabu, four aluminum rolls, and a piece of paper
partly burned at one end.5 Barangay Captain Angeles Brutas witnessed the conduct by the
policemen of the search in petitioners kitchen and saw how the plastic sachets containing the
suspected shabu were recovered.6 Barangay Kagawad Leticia Bongon also saw how the

policemen found outside the house a white, round, hard and "tawas-like" object in the kitchen
and aluminum foils, which were allegedly used as shabu paraphernalia.7 After the search, the
seized items were photographed and a seizure receipt, properly acknowledged by petitioner, was
issued. Petitioner was then brought to the police station while the seized plastic sachets were
brought by the Chief of Police to the Legazpi City Crime Laboratory for examination.8
Forensic Chemist Police Superintendent Lorlie Arroyo in her Chemistry Report No. D-1112000,9 found that the seized plastic sachets are positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu. She likewise testified on her findings.
Testifying on his own behalf, petitioner narrated that at exactly 7:30 p.m. on 31 July 2000, more
than ten (10) policemen barged into his house. Petitioner initially asked them for their purpose
and he was told that they had a search warrant. Petitioner was not able to take a good look at the
search warrant because one Butch Gonzales pushed him aside while the others entered his house.
The policemen searched different parts of his house while he was made to sit in the living room
by PO3 Desuasido. From where he was seated, he could not see what was happening inside the
kitchen or in the bedroom, where policemen allegedly recovered plastic sachets containing
shabu. He was asked to sign a seizure receipt but refused to do so. After the search, he was taken
into custody and brought to the police station.10 Salvacion Posadas, petitioners former
common-law partner, was also inside petitioners house at the time of the search. She
corroborated petitioners testimony that they were not able to witness the search because they
were made to sit in the living room. She also claimed that the barangay officials did not
accompany the policemen in the search inside the kitchen and bedroom.11
On 23 May 2007, the RTC convicted petitioner of the charge of illegal possession of shabu in
violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425.
The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused Lito Lopez
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act 6425 and
considering the quantity of the methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from the accused, which
is 0.0849 gram, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court hereby sentences him
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its
medium period as minimum, to three (3) years of prision correccional in its medium period as
maximum.
The Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, subject matter of this case is forfeited in favor of the
government, and the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the same to the Dangerous
Drugs Board for proper disposition, upon finality of this decision.12
In convicting petitioner of illegal possession of shabu, the trial court lent more credence to the
evidence of the prosecution. The trial court held that the prosecution was able to prove all
elements of the crime charged, more particularly, that petitioner was in possession of the shabu.
The trial court dismissed petitioners claim that the seized shabu was planted by the policemen
by explaining that these police officers have no ill-motive to falsely testify against petitioner.
In his Brief filed before the Court of Appeals, petitioner contended that there was an irregularity
in the conduct of the search when it was witnessed only by barangay officials while petitioners
view from the living room was blocked by a concrete wall partition. Petitioner thus advanced the
possibility of indiscriminate search and planting of evidence. Petitioner also questioned the time
when the search was conducted. Petitioner pointed out that one Butch Gonzales, who is not a part
of the search team, participated in the search and was able to seize a plastic sachet allegedly
containing shabu. Petitioner averred that the seized items were not delivered to the court which
issued the warrant. In addition, petitioner claimed that the police officers did not properly
observe the chain of custody rule, such that the pieces of evidence were not properly marked in
the house of petitioner but were marked at the police station.

On 31 March 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTCs Decision convicting petitioner of
illegal possession of shabu. The appellate court upheld the valid implementation of the search
warrant by police officers. According to the appellate court, petitioner was present during the
search and his movement was not restricted as he was free to follow the policemen conducting
the search. The appellate court considered the time of the search as reasonable. With respect to
the argument that the seized items were not delivered to the court, the appellate court observed
that said issue was not raised during trial, hence, the objection is deemed waived.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari zeroing in on the argument that the
identity and integrity of the seized items were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner
insists that the records were bereft of evidence showing every link in the chain of custody of the
seized shabu. Petitioner points out that the person in the crime laboratory who allegedly handled
the seized items was not presented during the trial and there was no testimony made on the
disposition of the alleged shabu after its examination by the forensic chemist and prior to its
presentation in court. Petitioner also notes that the alleged seized drugs were not immediately
marked at the time of the alleged seizure.
In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the
corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt. To successfully prosecute a case
involving illegal drugs, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to
have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique
characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering,
alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that
the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accusedpetitioner.13
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show
the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti, which is the
dangerous drug itself.14 The chain of custody rule comes into play as a mode of authenticating
the seized illegal drug as evidence. It includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of
the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which
a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as
that seized from the accused.15 This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons
from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from
harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.16
The rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence of the
apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.17
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized
contraband is 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 at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or
contamination of evidence.18
According to PO3 Telado, all the seized items were marked only at the police station. But when
asked who put the markings, PO3 Telado surmised that it was PO3 Desuasido.19 Aside from
PO3 Telado, no other witnesses testified on the supposed markings. PO3 Desuasido was not

asked on the witness stand about the markings. When cross-examined how the seized items were
handled, SP04 Bognalos testified:
Q: After you have searched and found these sachets containing "Shabu" what did you and your
party do?
A: It was photographed, given seizure receipt properly acknowledged by the respondent. And
later on for proper disposition and then Lito Lopez was brought to the police station for proper
booking and further investigation.
Q: You said these recovered sachets found in the house of the accused were photographed. Do
you have copies of these photographs?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why?
A: Because it was submitted to the Municipal Trial Court, Tabaco together with the filing of the
case.
Q: What did you do with these seized sachets containing "Shabu" after the same was brought to
the police station?
A: It was sent to the Legazpi City Crime Laboratory for proper examination.20
There are occasions when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the
seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation is allowed to be undertaken at the police
station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in
illegal drugs cases.21 However, even a less-than-stringent application of the requirement would
not suffice to sustain the conviction in this case. There was no categorical statement from any of
the prosecution witnesses that markings were made, much less immediately upon confiscation of
the seized items. There was also no showing that markings were made in the presence of the
accused in this case.
Evidently, there is an irregularity in the first link of the chain of custody.
We have consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs
raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Failure to mark the drugs
immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence,
warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.22
Furthermore, the Chemistry Report, containing a description of the items seized, does not show
or make any mention of any markings made on all the items seized. As a matter of fact, during
the trial, PO3 Desuasido seemingly could not readily identify the plastic sachets he allegedly
seized inside petitioners house, thus:
Q: If I show to you the four (4) plastic sachets containing "shabu" will you be able to recognize
it?
ATTY. BROTAMONTE:
Same objection. No basis.
COURT:
Let the witness answer.

PROSECUTOR PIFANO:
Q: Showing to you [these] plastic sachets. Kindly examine the same and tell the court if these
were the ones that were found in the house of the accused?
WITNESS:
A: If it were the ones that came from the crime laboratory then it is, sir.23
On the other hand, PO3 Telado identified the plastic sachets he seized based only on their sizes,
to wit:
Q: Now, you identified the supposed sachets that you had found in the house of the accused.
What made you identify them today as the ones that you had found?
A: Because I can distinctly remember those aluminum foils.
Q: Okay. No, Im referring to the sachets?
A: I can remember it because of the size.
Q: Of course, you will agree with me that you did not first measure the size of those two (2)
sachets at that time before you actually identified them today?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How were you able to identify today that the aluminum foils shown to you by the Fiscal were
the ones used as supposedly found in the house of the accused?
A: Because its crumpled and folded.
ATTY. BROTAMONTE:
Q: Was that your only basis as you have identified it today?
WITNESS:
A: Yes, sir.24
Even the evidence presented in court were not identified with certainty as the ones which were
seized by the police officers.
As already stated, it is the unique characteristic of dangerous and illegal drugs which renders
imperative strict compliance with the prescribed measures to be observed during and after the
seizure of dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia, during the custody and transfer thereof for
examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court.25
The conflicting testimonies of the police officers and lack of evidence lead to a reasonable
conclusion that no markings were actually made on the seized items. It is also worth mentioning
that the photographs which the prosecution witnesses claim to have been taken after the seizure
do not appear on the records nor were they presented or offered as evidence.
A substantial gap in the chain of custody renders the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti
dubious.
We ruled in People v. Kamad26 that the links that must be established in the chain of custody in
a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug

recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court.27
There were indeed substantial gaps in the chain of custody from the initial stage with the
apparent lack of markings. Upon confiscation of the shabu, the prosecution witnesses never
recounted which police officer had initial control and custody upon their confiscation and while
in transit. At the police station, nobody witnessed if and how the seized items were marked.
SPO4 Bognalos alleged that it was the Chief of Police who forwarded the seized sachets to the
crime laboratory,28 while PO3 Telado intimated that it was the investigator who turned them
over to the crime laboratory. Their records were likewise bereft of any detail as to who exercised
custody and possession of the seized items after their chemical examination and before they were
offered as evidence in court. All these weak links in the chain of custody significantly affected
the integrity of the items seized, which in turn, created a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused.
In this light, we are constrained to acquit petitioner on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 31 March 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 30939 affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Tabaco
City, in Criminal Case No. T-3476 for illegal possession of shabu under Section 16, Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner LITO LOPEZ is
ACQUITTED and ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for
any other lawful cause.
The Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Tabaco District Jail, San Lorenzo,
Tabaco City is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this Court the action
taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court) with Associate
Justices Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring. Rollo, pp. 88-101.
2 Presided by Judge Arnulfo B. Cabredo. Id. at 27-42.
3 Records, p. 36.
4 TSN, 20 August 2003, pp. 8-10.
5 TSN, 2 October 2003, pp. 10-12.
6 TSN, 29 June 2005, pp. 4-5.
7 TSN, 29 September 2005, pp. 6-8.
8 TSN, 18 April 2002, pp. 4-8.
9 Records, p. 7.
10 TSN, 8 June 2006, pp. 4-11.
11 TSN, 1 March 2006, pp. 4-10.
12 Rollo, pp. 41-42.
13 People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 267 citing People v.
Robles, G.R. No. 177220, 24 April 2009, 586 SCRA 647, 654.
14 People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 17 July 2013 citing People v. Remigio, G.R. No.
189277, 5 December 2012, 687 SCRA 336, 347.
15 Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 184037, 29 September 2009, 601 SCRA 316, 326-327 citing
Catuiran v. People, G.R. No. 175647, 8 May 2009, 587 SCRA 567, 576-577.
16 People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 218-219.
17 Id.
18 People v. Guzon, G.R. No. 199901, 9 October 2013; People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 194948, 2
September 2013 citing People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 350,
357.
19 TSN, 2 October 2003, pp. 27-28.
20 TSN, 18 April 2002, p. 8.

21 People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, 12 October 2009, 603 SCRA 510, 520.
22 People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 339; San Juan v.
People, G.R. No. 177191, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 300, 316-317; People v. Coreche, supra note
18 at 357-358.
23 TSN, 20 August 2003, pp. 11-12.
24 TSN, 2 October 2003, pp. 28-29.
25 People v. Nacua, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013, 689 SCRA 819, 832 citing People v.
Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, 20 October 2010, 634 SCRA 441, 449.
26 G.R. No. 174198, 19 January 2010, 610 SCRA 295.
27 Id. at 307-308.
28 TSN, 18 April 2002, p. 8.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 200304

January 15, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
DONALD VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN @ "DON," Accused-Appellant,
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
The case before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 31, 2011 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04201. Said decision affirmed with modification the Joint
Decision2 dated August 6 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41, in
Criminal Case Nos. 98-164174 and 98-164175, which convicted the appellant Donald Vasquez y
Sandigan of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs under Sections 15
and 16 Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972.
Criminal Case No. 98-164174 stemmed from a charge of violation of Section 15 Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,3 which was allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about April 3, 1998 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having
been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did
then and there [willfully], unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale, dispense, deliver,
transport or distribute 45.46 grams, 44.27 grams, 45.34 grams, 51.45 grams, 41.32 grams and
20.14 grams or with a total weight of TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN POINT NINETYEIGHT (247.98) grams contained in six (6) transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline
substance known as "Shabu" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated
drug.4
Criminal Case No. 98-164175, on the other hand, arose from an alleged violation of Section 16,
Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,5 which was said to be committed in this
manner:
That on or about April 3, 1998 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused without being
authorized by law to possess or use any regulated drug, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully
and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control 1.61 grams, 0.58 grams,
0.29 grams, 0.09 [grams], 0.10 grams, 0.17 grams, 0.21 grams, 0.24 grams, 0.12 grams, 0.06
grams, 0.04 grams, [0].51 grams or all with a total weight of four point zero three grams of white
crystalline substance contained in twelve (12) transparent plastic sachets known as "SHABU"
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the corresponding license
or prescription thereof.6
Initially, Criminal Case No. 98-164175 was raffled to the RTC of Manila, Branch 23. Upon
motion7 of the appellant, however, said case was allowed to be consolidated with Criminal Case
No. 98-164174 in the RTC of Manila, Branch 41.8 On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not
guilty to both charges.9 The pre-trial conference of the cases was held on July 27, 1998, but the
same was terminated without the parties entering into any stipulation of facts.10
During the trial of the cases, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the following
witnesses: (1) Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Jean Fajardo,11 (2) P/Insp. Marilyn Dequito,12 and (3)

Police Officer (PO) 2 Christian Trambulo.13 Thereafter, the defense presented in court the
testimonies of: (1) the appellant Donald Vasquez y Sandigan,14 (2) Angelina Arejado,15 and (3)
Anatolia Caredo.16
The Prosecutions Case
The prosecutions version of the events was primarily drawn from the testimonies of P/Insp.
Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo.
P/Insp. Fajardo testified that in the morning of April 1, 1998, a confidential informant went to
their office and reported that a certain Donald Vasquez was engaged in illegal drug activity. This
alias Don supposedly claimed that he was an employee of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI). According to the informant, alias Don promised him a good commission if he (the
informant) would present a potential buyer of drugs. P/Insp. Fajardo relayed the information to
Police Superintendent (P/Supt.) Pepito Domantay, the commanding officer of their office. P/Insp.
Fajardo was then instructed to form a team and conduct a possible buy-bust against alias Don.
She formed a team on the same day, which consisted of herself, PO2 Trambulo, PO1 Agravante,
PO1 Pedrosa, PO1 Sisteno, and PO1 De la Rosa. P/Insp. Fajardo was the team leader. With the
help of the informant, she was able to set up a meeting with alias Don. The meeting was to be
held at around 9:00 p.m. on that day at Cindys Restaurant located in Welcome Rotonda. She was
only supposed to meet alias Don that night but she decided to bring the team along for security
reasons.17
At about 9:00 p.m. on even date, P/Insp. Fajardo and her team went to the meeting place with the
informant. The members of her team positioned themselves strategically inside the restaurant.
The informant introduced P/Insp. Fajardo to alias Don as the buyer of shabu. She asked alias
Don if he was indeed an employee of the NBI and he replied in the affirmative. They agreed to
close the deal wherein she would buy 250 grams of shabu for P250,000.00. They also agreed to
meet the following day at Cindys Restaurant around 10:00 to 11:00 p.m.18
In the evening of April 2, 1998, P/Insp. Fajardo and her team went back to Cindys Restaurant.
Alias Don was already waiting for her outside the establishment when she arrived. He asked for
the money and she replied that she had the money with her. She brought five genuine P500.00
bills, which were inserted on top of five bundles of play money to make it appear that she had
P250,000.00 with her. After she showed the money to alias Don, he suggested that they go to a
more secure place. They agreed for the sale to take place at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. on April 3,
1998 in front of alias Dons apartment at 765 Valdez St., Sampaloc, Manila. The team proceeded
to the Western Police District (WPD) Station along U.N. Avenue for coordination. Afterwards,
the team held their final briefing before they proceeded to the target area. They agreed that the
pre-arranged signal was for P/Insp. Fajardo to scratch her hair, which would signify that the deal
had been consummated and the rest of the team would rush up to the scene. The team then
travelled to the address given by alias Don.19
When the team arrived at the target area around 1:15 a.m. on April 3, 1998, the two vehicles they
used were parked along the corner of the street. P/Insp. Fajardo and the informant walked
towards the apartment of alias Don and stood in front of the apartment gate. Around 1:45 a.m.,
alias Don came out of the apartment with a male companion. Alias Don demanded to see the
money, but P/Insp. Fajardo told him that she wanted to see the drugs first. Alias Don gave her the
big brown envelope he was carrying and she checked the contents thereof. Inside she found a
plastic sachet, about 10x8 inches in size, which contained white crystalline substance. After
checking the contents of the envelope, she assumed that the same was indeed shabu. She then
gave the buy-bust money to alias Don and scratched her hair to signal the rest of the team to rush
to the scene. P/Insp. Fajardo identified herself as a narcotics agent. The two suspects tried to flee
but PO2 Trambulo was able to stop them from doing so. P/Insp. Fajardo took custody of the
shabu. When she asked alias Don if the latter had authority to possess or sell shabu, he replied in
the negative. P/Insp. Fajardo put her initials "JSF" on the genuine P500.00 bills below the name

of Benigno Aquino. After the arrest of the two suspects, the buy-bust team brought them to the
police station. The suspects rights were read to them and they were subsequently booked.20
P/Insp. Fajardo said that she found out that alias Don was in fact the appellant Donald Vasquez.
She learned of his name when he brought out his NBI ID while he was being booked. P/Insp.
Fajardo also learned that the name of the appellants companion was Reynaldo Siscar, who was
also arrested and brought to the police station. P/Insp. Fajardo explained that after she gave the
buy-bust money to the appellant, the latter handed the same to Siscar who was present the entire
time the sale was being consummated. Upon receiving the buy-bust money placed inside a green
plastic bag, Siscar looked at the contents thereof and uttered "okey na to." P/Insp. Fajardo
marked the drug specimen and brought the same to the Crime Laboratory. She was accompanied
there by PO2 Trambulo and PO1 Agravante. She handed over the drug specimen to PO1
Agravante who then turned it over to P/Insp. Taduran, the forensic chemist on duty. The police
officers previously weighed the drug specimen. Thereafter, the personnel at the crime laboratory
weighed the specimen again. P/Insp. Fajardo and her team waited for the results of the laboratory
examination.21
P/Insp. Fajardo further testified that the six plastic bags of shabu seized during the buy-bust
operation were actually contained in a self-sealing plastic envelope placed inside a brown
envelope. When the brown envelope was confiscated from the appellant, she put her initials
"JSF" therein and signed it. She noticed that there were markings on the envelope that read "DD93-1303 re Antonio Roxas y Sunga" but she did not bother to check out what they were for or
who made them. When she interrogated the appellant about the brown envelope, she found out
that the same was submitted as evidence to the NBI Crime Laboratory. She also learned that the
appellant worked as a Laboratory Aide at the NBI Crime Laboratory. She identified in court the
six plastic sachets of drugs that her team recovered, which sachets she also initialed and signed.
P/Insp. Fajardo also stated that after the appellant was arrested, PO2 Trambulo conducted a body
search on the two suspects. The search yielded 12 more plastic sachets of drugs from the
appellant. The 12 sachets were varied in sizes and were contained in a white envelope. P/Insp.
Fajardo placed her initials and signature on the envelope. As to the 12 sachets, the same were
initialed by P/Insp. Fajardo and signed by PO2 Trambulo.22
The testimony of PO2 Trambulo corroborated that of P/Insp. Fajardos. PO2 Trambulo testified
that in the morning of April 1, 1998, a confidential informant reported to them about the illegal
drug activities of alias Don. P/Supt. Domantay then tasked P/Insp. Fajardo to form a buy-bust
team. P/Insp. Fajardo was able to set up a meeting with alias Don at Cindys Restaurant in
Welcome Rotonda, Quezon City. At that meeting, PO2 Trambulo saw P/Insp. Fajardo talk to
alias Don. P/Insp. Fajardo later told the members of the team that she convinced alias Don that
she was a good buyer of shabu and the latter demanded a second meeting to see the money. After
the initial meeting, P/Insp. Fajardo briefed P/Supt. Domantay about what happened. PO2
Trambulo stated that on April 2, 1998, P/Insp. Fajardo was furnished with five genuine P500.00
bills together with the boodle play money. P/Insp. Fajardo placed her initials in the genuine bills
below the name "Benigno Aquino, Jr." Afterwards, the team left the office. When they arrived at
Cindys Restaurant past 10:00 p.m., alias Don was waiting outside. P/Insp. Fajardo showed the
boodle money to alias Don and after some time, they parted ways. P/Insp. Fajardo later told the
team that alias Don decided that the drug deal would take place in front of alias Dons rented
apartment on Valdez St., Sampaloc, Manila. After an hour, the team went to Valdez St. to
familiarize themselves with the area. They then proceeded to the WPD station to coordinate their
operation. Thereafter, P/Insp. Fajardo conducted a final briefing wherein PO2 Trambulo was
designated as the immediate back-up arresting officer. The agreed pre-arranged signal was for
P/Insp. Fajardo to scratch her hair to indicate the consummation of the deal. PO2 Trambulo was
to signal the same to the other members of the team.23
The buy-bust team went to the target area at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. on April 3, 1998. P/Insp.
Fajardo and the informant walked towards the direction of alias Dons apartment, while PO2
Trambulo positioned himself near a parked jeepney about 15 to 20 meters from the apartment
gate. The rest of the team parked their vehicles at the street perpendicular to Valdez St. Later,

alias Don went out of the gate with another person. PO2 Trambulo saw alias Don gesturing to
P/Insp. Fajardo as if asking for something but P/Insp. Fajardo gestured that she wanted to see
something first. Alias Don handed P/Insp. Fajardo a big brown envelope, which the latter
opened. P/Insp. Fajardo then handed to alias Don a green plastic bag containing the buy-bust
money and gave the pre-arranged signal. When PO2 Trambulo saw this, he immediately
summoned the rest of the team and rushed to the suspects. He was able to recover the buy-bust
money from alias Dons male companion. Upon frisking alias Don, PO2 Trambulo retrieved 12
pieces of plastic sachets of suspected drugs. The same were placed inside a white envelope that
was tucked inside alias Dons waist. PO2 Trambulo marked each of the 12 sachets with his
initials "CVT" and the date. The police officers then informed the suspects of their rights and
they proceeded to the police headquarters in Fort Bonifacio.24
As regards the brown envelope that alias Don handed to P/Insp. Fajardo, the latter retained
possession thereof. The envelope contained six pieces of plastic bags of white crystalline
substance. When they got back to their office, the team reported the progress of their operation to
P/Supt. Domantay. The arrested suspects were booked and the required documentations were
prepared. Among such documents was the Request for Laboratory Examination of the drug
specimens seized. PO2 Trambulo said that he was the one who brought the said request to the
PNP Crime Laboratory, along with the drug specimens.25
P/Insp. Marilyn Dequito, the forensic chemist, testified on the results of her examination of the
drug specimens seized in this case. She explained that P/Insp. Macario Taduran, Jr. initially
examined the drug specimens but the latter was already assigned to another office. The results of
the examination of P/Insp. Taduran were laid down in Physical Science Report No. D-1071-98.
P/Insp. Dequito first studied the data contained in Physical Science Report No. D-1071-98 and
retrieved the same from their office. She entered that fact in their logbook RD-17-98. She then
weighed the drug specimens and examined the white crystalline substance from each of the
plastic sachets. She examined first the specimens marked as "A-1," "A-2," "A-3," "A-4," "A-5"
and "A-6." P/Insp. Dequitos examination revealed that the white crystalline substances were
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.26 She also examined the contents of 12 heatsealed transparent plastic sachets that also contained crystalline substances. The 12 plastic
sachets were marked "B-1" to "B-12." The white crystalline powder inside the 12 plastic sachets
also tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. P/Insp. Dequitos findings were
contained in Physical Science Report No. RD-17-98.27
The prosecution, thereafter, adduced the following object and documentary evidence: (1)
photocopies of the five original P500.00 bills28 used as buy-bust money (Exhibits A-E); (2)
Request for Laboratory Examination29 dated April 3, 1998 (Exhibit F); (3) Initial Laboratory
Report30 dated April 3, 1998, stating that the specimen submitted for examination tested positive
for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (Exhibit G); (4) Court Order31 dated September 2, 1998
(Exhibit H); (5) Physical Sciences Report No. D-1071-9832 dated April 3, 1998 (Exhibit I); (6)
Drug specimens A-1 to A-6 (Exhibits J-O); (7) Big brown envelope (Exhibit P); (8) Small white
envelope (Exhibit Q); (9) Drug specimens B-1 to B-12 (Exhibits R-CC); (10) Physical Sciences
Report No. RD-17-9833 (Exhibit DD); (11) Joint Affidavit of Arrest34 (Exhibit EE); (12) Play
money (Exhibit FF); (13) Booking Sheet and Arrest Report35 (Exhibit GG); (14) Request for
Medical Examination36 (Exhibit HH); (15) Medico Legal Slip37 of Donald Vasquez (Exhibit II);
and (16) Medico Legal Slip38 of Reynaldo Siscar (Exhibit JJ).
The Defenses Case
As expected, the defense belied the prosecutions version of events. The appellants brief39
before the Court of Appeals provides a concise summary of the defenses counter-statement of
facts. According to the defense:
Donald Vasquez was a regular employee of the NBI, working as a Laboratory Aide II at the NBI
Forensics Chemistry Division. His duties at the time included being a subpoena clerk, receiving
chemistry cases as well as requests from different police agencies to have their specimens

examined by the chemist. He also rendered day and night duties, and during regular office hours
and in the absence of the laboratory technician, he would weigh the specimens. As subpoena
clerk, he would receive subpoenas from the trial courts. When there is no chemist, he would get a
Special Order to testify, or bring the drug specimens, to the courts.
On 1 April 1998, Donald Vasquez took his examination in Managerial Statistics between 6:00 to
9:00 oclock p.m. Thereafter, he took a jeepney and alighted at Stop and Shop at Quiapo. From
there, he took a tricycle to his house, arriving at 9:45 oclock that evening, where he saw
Reynaldo Siscar and Sonny San Diego, the latter a confidential informant of the narcotics agents.
On 3 April 1998, at 1:45 oclock in the morning, Donalds household help, Anatolia Caredo, who
had just arrived from Antipolo that time, was eating while Donald was asleep. She heard a knock
on the door. Reynaldo Siscar opened the door and thereafter two (2) men entered, poking guns at
Reynaldo. They were followed by three (3) others. The door to Donalds room was kicked down
and they entered his room. Donald, hearing noise, woke up to see P./Insp. Fajardo pointing a gun
at him. He saw that there were six (6) policemen searching his room, picking up what they could
get. One of them opened a cabinet and got drug specimens in [Donalds] possession in relation to
his work as a laboratory aide. The drugs came from two (2) cases and marked as DD-93-1303
owned by Antonio Roxas, and DD-96-5392 owned by SPO4 Emiliano Anonas. The drug
specimen contained in the envelope marked as DD-93-1303 was intended for presentation on 3
April 1998. Aside from the drug specimens, the policemen also took his jewelry, a VHS player,
and his wallet containing P2,530.00.
Angelina Arejado, Donalds neighbor, witnessed the policemen entering the apartment and
apprehending Donald and Reynaldo from the apartment terrace.40 (Citations omitted.)
The defense then offered the following evidence: (1) NBI Disposition Form41 dated April 3,
1998 (Exhibit 1); (2) Sworn Statement of Idabel Bernabe Pagulayan42 (Exhibit 2); (3)
Photocopy of the buy-bust money43 (Exhibit 3); (4) List of Hearings44 attended by Donald
Vasquez (Exhibit 4); (5) Authorization Letter45 prepared by Acting Deputy Director Arturo A.
Figueras dated March 27, 1998 (Exhibit 5); and (6) List of Evidence46 taken by Donald Vasquez
from 1996-1998 (Exhibit 6).
The Decision of the RTC
On August 6, 2009, the RTC convicted the appellant of the crimes charged. The RTC gave more
credence to the prosecutions evidence given that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty on the part of the police officers was not overcome. The trial court
held that the appellant did not present any evidence that would show that the police officers in
this case were impelled by an evil motive to charge him of very serious crimes and falsely testify
against him. Also, the trial court noted that the volume of the shabu involved in this case was
considerable, i.e., 247.98 grams and 4.03 grams for illegal sale and illegal possession,
respectively. To the mind of the trial court, such fact helped to dispel the possibility that the drug
specimens seized were merely planted by the police officers. Furthermore, the RTC ruled that the
positive testimonies of the police officers regarding the illegal drug peddling activities of the
appellant prevailed over the latters bare denials.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant was merely framed up by the police, the
trial court pointed out that:
[T]he accused should have reported the said incident to the proper authorities, or asked help from
his Acting Chief [Idabel] Pagulayan from the NBI to testify and identify in Court the xerox copy
of the Disposition Form which she issued to the accused and the Affidavit dated April 17, 1998
(xerox copy) executed by her or from Mr. Arturo A. Figueras, Acting Deputy Director, Technical
Services of the NBI to testify and identify the Letter issued by the said Acting Deputy Director in
order to corroborate and strengthen his testimony that he was indeed authorized to keep in his
custody the said shabu to be presented or turned over to the Court as evidence, and he should

have filed the proper charges against those police officers who were responsible for such act. But
the accused did not even bother to do the same. Further, the pieces of evidence (Disposition
Form, Affidavit of [Idabel] Pagulayan and Letter dated March 27, 1998 issued by Acting Deputy
Director) presented by the accused in Court could not be given weight and credence considering
that the said persons were not presented in Court to identify the said documents and that the
prosecution has no opportunity to cross-examine the same, thus, it has no probative value.47
The trial court, thus, decreed:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. 98-164174, finding accused, DONALD VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN @
"DON" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 15, Art. III in Relation
to Sec.
2 (e), (f), (m), (o), Art. I of R.A. No. 6425 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and a fine of P5,000,000.00; and 2. In Crim. Case No. 98-164175, judgment is
hereby rendered finding the accused, DONALD VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN @ "DON" guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 16, Art. III in Relation to Sec. 2 (e-2)
Art. I of R.A. 6425 as Amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179 and hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS and a fine of
FOUR THOUSAND (P4,000.00) PESOS.
The subject shabu (247.98 grams and 4.03 grams, respectively) are hereby forfeited in favor of
the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to deliver and/or cause the
delivery of the said shabu to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), upon the finality
of this Decision.48
The Judgment of the Court of Appeals
On appeal,49 the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the appellant. The appellate court
ruled that the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal
possession of shabu. The testimony of P/Insp. Fajardo on the conduct of the buy-bust operation
was found to be clear and categorical. As the appellant failed to adduce any evidence that tended
to prove any ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely charge the appellant, the Court
of Appeals held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the
part of the police officers had not been controverted in this case.
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision stated:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The August 6, 2009
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41 of the City of Manila in Criminal Cases No. 98164174-75, finding appellant Donald Vasquez y Sandigan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crimes of Violation of Section 15 and Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 98-164175, appellant is
hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional in its medium period, as
maximum.50
The Ruling of the Court
The appellant appealed his case to this Court to once again impugn his conviction on two
grounds: (1) the purported illegality of the search and the ensuing arrest done by the police
officers and (2) his supposed authority to possess the illegal drugs seized from him.51 He argues
that the police officers did not have a search warrant or a warrant of arrest at the time he was
arrested. This occurred despite the fact that the police officers allegedly had ample time to secure
a warrant of arrest against him. Inasmuch as his arrest was illegal, the appellant avers that the

evidence obtained as a result thereof was inadmissible in court. As the corpus delicti of the crime
was rendered inadmissible, the appellant posits that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Appellant further insists that he was able to prove that he was authorized to keep the drug
specimens in his custody, given that he was an employee of the NBI Forensic Chemistry
Laboratory who was tasked with the duty to bring drug specimens in court.
After an assiduous review of the evidence adduced by both parties to this case, we resolve to
deny this appeal.
At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of his arrest. We
reiterated in People v. Tampis52 that "[a]ny objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest
must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the
quashing of the information against them before their arraignment, appellants are now estopped
from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any irregularity was cured upon their voluntary
submission to the trial courts jurisdiction."53 Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the
appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer in
a buy-bust operation. His arrest, thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5(a), Rule 11354 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful.
Having established the validity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds that the
warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid. We held in People v.
Cabugatan55 that:
This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not absolute and such
warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in
instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4)
waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to
a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize
permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot
pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. (Citation omitted.)
Thus, the appellant cannot seek exculpation by invoking belatedly the invalidity of his arrest and
the subsequent search upon his person.
We now rule on the substantive matters.
To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following
elements should be satisfactorily proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and
the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.56 As held in
People v. Chua Tan Lee,57 in a prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, "what is material is proof that
the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti." On
the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.58
In the case at bar, the testimonies of P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo established that a buybust operation was legitimately carried out in the wee hours of April 3, 1998 to entrap the
appellant. P/Insp. Fajardo, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant as the one who
sold to her six plastic bags of shabu that were contained in a big brown envelope for the price of
P250,000.00. She likewise identified the six plastic bags of shabu, which contained the markings
she placed thereon after the same were seized from the appellant. When subjected to laboratory
examination, the white crystalline powder contained in the plastic bags tested positive for shabu.
We find that P/Insp. Fajardos testimony on the events that transpired during the conduct of the
buy-bust operation was detailed and straightforward. She was also consistent and unwavering in
her narration even in the face of the opposing counsels cross-examination.

Apart from her description of the events that led to the exchange of the drug specimens seized
and the buy-bust money, P/Insp. Fajardo further testified as to the recovery from the appellant of
another 12 pieces of plastic sachets of shabu. After the latter was arrested, P/Insp. Fajardo stated
that PO2 Trambulo conducted a body search on the appellant. This search resulted to the
confiscation of 12 more plastic sachets, the contents of which also tested positive for shabu. The
testimony of P/Insp. Fajardo was amply corroborated by PO2 Trambulo, whose own account
dovetailed the formers narration of events. Both police officers also identified in court the
twelve plastic sachets of shabu that were confiscated from the appellant.
In People v. Ting Uy,59 the Court explains that "credence shall be given to the narration of the
incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they are police officers who are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary." In
the instant case, the appellant failed to ascribe, much less satisfactorily prove, any improper
motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses as to why they would falsely incriminate him.
The appellant himself even testified that, not only did he not have any misunderstanding with
P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo prior to his arrest, he in fact did not know them at all.60 In
the absence of evidence of such ill motive, none is presumed to exist.61
The records of this case are also silent as to any measures undertaken by the appellant to
criminally or administratively charge the police officers herein for falsely framing him up for
selling and possessing illegal drugs. Such a move would not have been a daunting task for the
appellant under the circumstances. Being a regular employee of the NBI, the appellant could
have easily sought the help of his immediate supervisors and/or the chief of his office to extricate
him from his predicament. Instead, what the appellant offered in evidence were mere
photocopies of documents that supposedly showed that he was authorized to keep drug
specimens in his custody. That the original documents and the testimonies of the signatories
thereof were not at all presented in court did nothing to help the appellants case. To the mind of
the Court, the evidence offered by the appellant failed to persuade amid the positive and
categorical testimonies of the arresting officers that the appellant was caught red-handed selling
and possessing a considerable amount of prohibited drugs on the night of the buy-bust operation.
It is apropos to reiterate here that where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or
misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, the Court will not
disturb the trial courts assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses since the RTC
was in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial. Settled too is the
rule that the factual findings of the appellate court sustaining those of the trial court are binding
on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness,
capriciousness or palpable error.62
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the prosecution was able to establish
the guilt of the appellant of the crimes charged.
The Penalties
Anent the proper imposable penalties, Section 15 and Section 16, Article III, in relation to
Section 20(3) of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, state:
SEC. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the
offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the
proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed. SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed

upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license
or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
SEC. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of
the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections
14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is
in any of the following quantities:
1. 40 grams or more of opium;
2. 40 grams or more of morphine;
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana;
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrocholoride; or
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic
requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public
consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range
from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity. (Emphases
supplied.)
In Criminal Case No. 98-164174 involving the crime of illegal sale of regulated drugs, the
appellant was found to have sold to the poseur-buyer in this case a total of 247.98 grams of
shabu, which amount is more than the minimum of 200 grams required by the law for the
imposition of either reclusion perpetua or, if there be aggravating circumstances, the death
penalty.
Pertinently, Article 6363 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that when the law prescribes a
penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be applied.1wphi1 Thus,
in this case, considering that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended the appellants
violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the Court of Appeals
correctly affirmed the trial courts imposition of reclusion perpetua. The P5,000,000.00 fine
imposed by the RTC on the appellant is also in accord with Section 15, Article III of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended.
As to the charge of illegal possession of regulated drugs in Criminal Case No. 98-164175, the
Court of Appeals properly invoked our ruling in People v. Tira64 in determining the proper
imposable penalty. Indeed, we held in Tira that:
Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of
possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to
reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the
imposable penalty shall be as follows:
QUANTITY

IMPOSABLE PENALTY

Less than one (1) gram to 49.25 grams prision correccional

49.26 grams to 98.50 grams

prision mayor

98.51 grams to 147.75 grams

reclusion temporal

147.76 grams to 199 grams

reclusion
perpetua
(Emphases ours.)

Given that the additional 12 plastic sachets of shabu found in the possession of the appellant
amounted to 4.03 grams, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision correccional. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this
case, the imposable penalty on the appellant should be the indeterminate sentence of six months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as
maximum. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, thus, falls within the range of the
proper imposable penalty. In Criminal Case No. 98-164175, no fine is imposable considering that
in Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, a fine can be imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.65
Incidentally, the Court notes that both parties in this case admitted that the appellant was a
regular employee of the NBI Forensics Chemistry Division. Such fact, however, cannot be taken
into consideration to increase the penalties in this case to the maximum, in accordance with
Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.66 Such a special aggravating circumstance,
i.e., one that which arises under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its
maximum period,67 was not alleged and charged in the informations. Thus, the same was
properly disregarded by the lower courts.
All told, the Court finds no reason to overturn the conviction of the appellant.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 31, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
04201 is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEOARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO*

Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13 Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes

* Per Raffle dated December 5, 2012.

1 Rollo, pp. 2-23; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybanez with Associate Justices
Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a
member of this Court), concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 39-47; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Teresa P. Soriaso.
3 Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7659 (An
Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes), states:
"SEC. 15. Sale Administration Dispensation Delivery Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the
offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the
proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty therein provided shall be
imposed."
4 Records, p. 1.
5 Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides: "SEC.
16.
Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription,
subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof."
6 Records, p. 16.
7 Id. at 28-29.
8 Id. at 62.
9 Id. at 19, 52.
10 Id. at 69.
11 TSN, August 11, 1998; TSN, October 6, 1998.
12 TSN, September 15, 1998.
13 TSN, December 2, 1999.
14 TSN, September 20, 2001; TSN, August 10, 2006.
15 TSN, April 21, 2005.
16 TSN, March 9, 2006.
17 TSN, August 11, 1998, pp. 5-7.
18 Id. at 7-9.

19 Id. at 9-14.
20 Id. at 15-25.
21 Id. at 25-33.
22 TSN, October 6, 1998, pp. 4-19.
23 TSN, December 2, 1999, pp. 5-12.
24 Id. at 13-19.
25 Id. at 19-21, 27-29.
26 TSN, September 15, 1998, pp. 6-19.
27 Id. at 21-26.
28 Records, p. 177.
29 Id. at 178-179.
30 Id. at 180.
31 Id. at 79.
32 Id. at 181.
33 Id. at 182.
34 Id. at 4-6.
35 Id. at 8.
36 Id. at 9.
37 Id. at 10.
38 Id.
39 CA rollo, pp. 66-78.
40 Id. at 70-71.
41 Records, p. 402.
42 Id. at 403-405.
43 Id. at 406.
44 Id. at 407-411.
45 Id. at 412.
46 Id. at 413-420.

47 CA rollo, p. 46.
48 Id. at 47.
49 Id. at 50.
50 Rollo, p. 22.
51 Id. at 24-26.
52 455 Phil. 371 (2003).
53 Id. at 382.
54 Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provide:
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
55 544 Phil. 468, 485 (2007).
56 People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004).
57 457 Phil. 443, 449 (2003).
58 People v. Ting Uy, 430 Phil. 516, 530 (2002).
59 Id. at 526.
60 TSN, September 20, 2001, p. 53.
61 People v. Butch Bucao Lee, 407 Phil. 250, 260 (2001).
62 People v. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 622, 634.
63 Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states:
ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the
greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the
deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the
courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and
importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules,
according to the result of such compensation.
64 G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 155.
65 People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555, 573.
66 Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7659,
states:
SEC. 24. Penalties for Government Officials and Employees and Officers and Members of Police
Agencies and the Armed Forces; Planting of Evidence. The maximum penalties provided for in
Sections 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14,14-A, 15(1), 15-A(1),
16 and 19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those found guilty of any of the said offenses are
government officials, employees or officers including members of police agencies and the armed
forces.
Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of "planting" any
dangerous drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15
and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the immediate vicinity of another as evidence
to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same penalty as therein provided.
67 Palaganas v. People, 533 Phil. 169, 196 (2006).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 198452

February 19, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
VICENTE ROM, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 dated 9 August 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00579 affirming with modification the Decision2 dated 24 June 2002 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 10, in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062, CBU-55063 and
CBU-55067, finding herein appellant Vicente Rom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Sections 153 (illegal sale of shabu), 15-A4 (maintenance of a drug den) and 165 (illegal
possession of shabu), Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, also known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.6 In Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062 and
CBU-55063, for respectively violating Sections 15 and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended, the trial court imposed on the appellant the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period ranging between two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to
four (4) years and two (2) months, as maximum. While in Criminal Case No. CBU-55067, that is
for violating Section 15-A, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the trial court
sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua and he was likewise ordered to pay a fine of
P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals, however, modified and reduced the penalty in Criminal Case
Nos. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063 to an imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, after
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
In three separate Informations7 all dated 1 September 2000, the appellant was charged with
violation of Sections 15, 15-A and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The
three Informations read:
Criminal Case No. CBU-55062
That on or about the 31st day of August 2000, at about 10:30 P.M. in the City of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [herein appellant], with
deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver or give
away to a poseur buyer one (1) heat sealed plastic packet of white crystalline substance weighing
0.03 gram locally known as "shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated
drug.8 (Emphasis and italics supplied).
Criminal Case No. CBU-55063
That on or about the 31st day of August 2000, at about 10:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant], with deliberate
intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in [his] possession and
control or use the following:
Four (4) heat sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance weighing 0.15 gram locally
known as "shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription.9 (Emphasis and italics supplied).
Criminal Case No. CBU-55067

That on the 31s[t] day of August, 2000, at about 10:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant], with deliberate intent, did then and
there knowingly maintain a den for regulated users along the interior portion of Barangay T.
Padilla in violation to (sic) the provision of Sec. 15-A of Art. III of RA 6425.10 (Emphasis
supplied).
On arraignment, the appellant, with the assistance of counsel de parte, pleaded NOT GUILTY11
to all the charges. A pre-trial conference was conducted on 2 April 2001, but no stipulation or
agreement was arrived at.12 The pre-trial conference was then terminated and trial on the merits
thereafter ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer 2 Marvin Martinez (PO2 Martinez), the
designated poseur-buyer; PO3 Franco Mateo Yanson (PO3 Yanson); and Police Senior Inspector
Marvin Sanchez (P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez), the team leader of the buy-bust operation against the
appellant. They were all assigned at the Vice Control Section of the Cebu City Police Office
(VCS-CCPO). The testimony, however, of P/Sr. Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas (P/Sr. Insp. Salinas),
the forensic analyst, was dispensed13 with in view of the admission made by the defense as to
the authenticity and due existence of Chemistry Report No. D-1782-200014 dated 1 September
2000 and the expertise of the forensic analyst.
The prosecutions evidence established the following facts:
Two weeks prior to 31 August 2000, the VCS-CCPO received confidential information from
their informant that alias Dodong, who turned out later to be the appellant, whose real name is
Vicente Rom, was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu and also maintained a drug den at his
residence in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City. Thus, the VCS-CCPO, particularly PO2 Martinez,
conducted surveillance and monitoring operation.15
On 31 August 2000, at around 10:15 p.m., P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, Chief of VCS-CCPO, formed a
team to conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant. The buy-bust team was composed of
PO2 Martinez (poseur-buyer), Senior Police Officer 1 Jesus Elmer Fernandez (SPO1 Fernandez),
PO3 Yanson, PO3 Benicer Tamboboy (PO3 Tamboboy), PO3 Jaime Otadoy (PO3 Otadoy) and
P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez (team leader). Being the designated poseur-buyer, PO2 Martinez was
provided with a P100.00 peso bill and a P10.00 peso bill buy-bust money bearing Serial Nos.
AD336230 and AM740786, respectively, and both were marked with the initials of PO2
Martinez, i.e. "MM." The former amount would be used to buy shabu while the latter amount
would serve as payment for the use of the drug den.16
After the briefing, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area and upon arrival there at around
10:20 p.m., PO2 Martinez proceeded directly to the appellants house, which was earlier pointed
to by their informant, who was also with them during the buy-bust operation. The rest of the buybust team strategically positioned themselves nearby. Once PO2 Martinez reached the appellants
house, he knocked on the door, which the appellant opened. PO2 Martinez subsequently told the
appellant that he wanted to buy shabu worth P100.00. The appellant looked around to check if
PO2 Martinez had a companion. Seeing none, the appellant took out his wallet from his pocket
and got one heat-sealed plastic packet containing white crystalline substance, later confirmed to
be shabu, and gave it to PO2 Martinez. The latter, in turn, gave the P100.00 peso bill marked
money to the appellant. While this sale transaction was going on, PO3 Yanson and P/Sr. Insp.
Sanchez were only five to eight meters away from PO2 Martinez and the appellant. P/Sr. Insp.
Sanchez clearly witnessed the sale transaction as it happened right outside the door of the
appellants house.17
Afterwards, PO2 Martinez told the appellant that he wanted to sniff the shabu, so the latter
required the former to pay an additional amount of P10.00 as rental fee for the use of his place.
After paying the said amount, the appellant allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his house. Once
inside the house, PO2 Martinez was directed by the appellant to proceed to the room located at
the right side of the sala. Upon entering the said room, PO2 Martinez saw three persons, later

identified to be Jose Delloso (Delloso), Danilo Empuerto (Empuerto) and Arnie Ogong (Ogong),
already sniffing shabu.18
Thereupon, PO2 Martinez made a missed call to P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, which was their prearranged signal, to signify that the whole transaction was consummated. After the lapsed of about
10 to 15 seconds, the rest of the team, who were just few meters away from the appellants
house, barged in and identified themselves as police officers. PO2 Martinez then told PO3
Yanson to hold the appellant. PO3 Yanson grabbed the appellant and made a body search on the
latter that led to the recovery of four heat-sealed transparent plastic packets containing white
crystalline substance, which were inside the appellants brown wallet that was tucked in his
pocket; the buy-bust money consisting of P100.00 peso bill and P10.00 peso bill; and P280.00
consisting of two P100.00 peso bills, one P50.00 peso bill and three P10.00 peso bills believed to
be the proceeds of the appellants illegal activities. The one heat-sealed plastic packet of shabu
bought by PO2 Martinez from the appellant remained in the possession of the former.19
The appellant, Delloso, Empuerto and Ogong were informed of their constitutional rights and
were later brought by the buy-bust team to their office, together with the confiscated items, for
documentation. At the office of the buy-bust team, the confiscated items were given to their
investigator, SPO1 Fernandez, who marked the one heat-sealed plastic packet containing white
crystalline substance, which was the subject of the sale transaction, with VRR-8-31-2000-01
(buy-bust) while the other four heat-sealed plastic packets containing white crystalline substance,
which were recovered from the appellant, were similarly marked with VRR-8-31-2000-02 to
VRR-8-31-2000-05. The "VRR" in the markings are the initials of the appellant, i.e., Vicente
Ramonida Rom.20
Thereafter, all the five heat-sealed plastic packets containing white crystalline substance,
together with the Request for Laboratory Examination, were brought by PO3 Yanson to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis, which examination
yielded positive results for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu,"21 as
evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-1782-2000.22
For its part, the defense presented the appellant and Teresita Bitos, whose testimonies consist of
sheer denials. Their version of the 31 August 2000 incident is as follows:
At around 10:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. of 31 August 2000, the appellant was at the house of his
daughter, Lorena Cochera (Lorena), in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, as Lorena had asked her
father to get the monthly house rental fee from Teresita Bitos, whose nickname is "Nene." While
the appellant and Nene were talking, the police officers suddenly barged in. The appellant
noticed that PO2 Martinez proceeded to the inner portion of the house and opened the door of the
rooms. Nene stopped them but the police officers told her to just keep quiet. The police officers
went on opening the door of the two rooms, where they saw three male persons. The police
officers frisked the appellant and the three other men. The police officers likewise took
appellants wallet containing P360.00. The appellant then requested Nene to tell his daughter that
he was arrested. Thereafter, the police officers brought the appellant and the three other men to
the police station.23
The appellant denied that he sold shabu to PO2 Martinez. He also denied that he was maintaining
a drug den and that he allowed persons to sniff shabu inside the house in Barangay T. Padilla,
Cebu City, in exchange for a sum of money. The appellant likewise denied that he knew the three
other men who were arrested inside the room in the said house. The appellant claimed instead
that he knew PO2 Martinez prior to 31 August 2000 because the latter usually stayed at the house
to apprehend snatchers. Also, a week before 31 August 2000, he and PO2 Martinez had a
conversation and he was asked to pinpoint the "fat fish," which is the code for the big time
pusher. When he said that he does not know of such pusher, PO2 Martinez got angry. The
appellant maintained that on 31 August 2000, he was no longer living in the house in Barangay
T. Padilla, Cebu City, as his daughter had already brought him to Minglanilla, Cebu, as early as
July 1999. On the said date, Nene was already occupying the house and had subleased one of its

rooms as his daughter Maya told him so. The appellant admitted that a year prior to 31 August
2000, and before he transferred to Minglanilla, he was apprehended for illegal possession of
shabu.24
The narration of the appellant was corroborated by Nene on all material points.
Testifying on rebuttal, PO2 Martinez denied that he knew the appellant prior to 31 August 2000.
PO2 Martinez clarified that he came to know the appellant only on the night that they conducted
the buy-bust operation.25
Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible, competent and convincing as
they were able to satisfactorily prove all the elements of the offenses charged against the
appellant, the trial court, in its Decision dated 24 June 2002, held the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 15, 15-A and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended. The trial court disposed of the case as follows:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES, the Court finds the [herein
appellant] for
1) Criminal Case No. CBU-55062, for violating Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended, GUILTY. There being no mitigating nor any aggravating circumstance proven, the
Court hereby imposes the penalty of PRISION CORRECCIONAL in the MEDIUM PERIOD
ranging between TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum[,] to
FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS, as maximum;
2) Criminal Case No. CBU-55063, for violating Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended, GUILTY. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the Court
imposes the penalty of PRISION CORRECCIONAL in the MEDIUM PERIOD ranging between
TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS
and TWO (2) MONTHS, as maximum; and
3) Criminal Case No. CBU-55067, for violating Section 15-A, Article III, Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, GUILTY. The court hereby imposes upon the [appellant] the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00)
PESOS.
The five (5) heat-sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, are hereby CONFISCATED in favor
of the government and shall be destroyed in accordance with the law prohibiting said drug.26
(Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied).
The appellant appealed the trial courts Decision to this Court via Notice of Appeal.27 However,
pursuant to this Courts decision in People v. Mateo,28 the case was transferred to the Court of
Appeals for intermediate review.
On 9 August 2010, the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed Decision affirming with
modification the ruling of the trial court. Its decretal portion reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the RTC, Branch 10, Cebu City in
Criminal Cases No. CBU-55062, CBU-55063 and CBU-55067 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION concerning Criminal Cases No. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063, for which [the
herein appellant] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from six months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.29
The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the appellant on all the charges against him as the
prosecution was able to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt since all the essential

elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu were duly proven by the prosecution. As to the
charge of maintaining a drug den, the same was also established by the fact that PO2 Martinez
himself paid P10.00 to sniff the shabu in one of the rooms of the appellants house. The
appellants denial, therefore, cannot prevail over the evidence hurled against him.
The Court of Appeals, however, deemed it necessary to modify the penalty in Criminal Case
Nos. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063. It explained that the sale of less than 200 grams of shabu is
punishable with a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, depending on
the quantity. In this case, the quantity of shabu illegally sold to the poseur-buyer by the appellant
was 0.03 gram. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20,30 Article IV of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, the proper penalty to be imposed for the illegal sale of 0.03 gram of
shabu would be prision correccional. Also, in this case, the appellant had in his possession 0.15
gram of shabu, which is punishable also with imprisonment of prision correccional. Thus,
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant must be sentenced to an imprisonment of
six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional,
as maximum, in Criminal Case No. CBU-55062, as well as in Criminal Case No. CBU-55063.31
Still unsatisfied, the appellant appealed the Court of Appeals Decision to this Court via Notice
of Appeal.32
Both the appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General manifested33 that they would no
longer file their respective supplemental briefs as the issues have already been fully discussed in
their respective appeal briefs34 with the Court of Appeals.
The appellants assignment of errors as stated in his Appellants Brief are as follows:
I. The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the [herein appellant] notwithstanding the
inherent incredibility of evidence for the prosecution;
II. The Regional Trial Court gravely erred in allowing the evidence of the prosecution despite the
indubitable evidence that the [appellant] i[s] innocent of the crime[s] charged; [and]
III. The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the [appellant] in spite of the failure of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the [appellant] beyond reasonable doubt.35
The appellant avers that the testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to
reason and highly incredible for no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave
the door of the house open after such transaction. Moreover, no person would sell shabu to a
buyer when he knew all along that the said buyer was a police officer as it was ridiculous to
expose oneself to the danger of being caught and arrested.
The appellant similarly holds that the entry in the house was illegal and there was certainly no
transaction that took place therein. The search and the seizure made in connection thereto were
also invalid. Thus, the pieces of evidence allegedly obtained by the police officers were
inadmissible for being the "fruit of a poisonous tree." The same cannot be used against him in
violation of his rights.
The appellant believes that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as
their testimonies as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case were contrary to human
conduct, especially with regard to the allegation that he knowingly maintained a drug den, since
he was no longer the owner of the house, which was the subject of the search, and he did not live
there anymore.
The appellants contentions are devoid of merit.
In essence, the issues in this case hinge on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.

It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which
involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, more so, when no glaring errors,
gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be
gathered from such findings. The reason behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better
position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.36 The rule finds an even more stringent
application where the trial courts findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.37
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to overturn
the findings of both lower courts, which were adequately supported by the evidence on record.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following essential
elements must be duly established: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.38 Succinctly, the
delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer, as well as the receipt of the marked money by the
seller, successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. Hence, what is material is the proof
that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti
as evidence.39
In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish the above-enumerated elements
beyond moral certainty. The prosecution witnesses adequately proved that a buy-bust operation
actually took place on which occasion the appellant was caught red-handed giving one heatsealed plastic packet containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer,
in exchange for P100.00. PO2 Martinez, being the poseur-buyer, positively identified the
appellant in open court to be the same person who sold to him the said one-heat sealed plastic
packet of white crystalline substance for a consideration of P100.00,40 which when examined
was confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry Report No. D1782-2000 issued by P/Sr. Insp. Salinas, Head, Chemistry Branch, PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 7. Upon presentation thereof in open court, PO2 Martinez duly identified it to
be the same object sold to him by the appellant as it had the marking "VRR-8-31-2000 (buybust)," which SPO1 Fernandez had written thereon in their presence.41 This testimony of PO2
Martinez was corroborated by P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, who was just five to eight meters away from
the former and the appellant during the sale transaction.42
Evidently, the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the appellants guilt for the
offense of illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended.
We already had occasion to show the unacceptability of the contention of the appellant that the
testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason and highly incredible for
no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the house open after
such transaction. In case after case, we observed that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to
any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in
the daytime. Indeed, the drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse,
openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer
and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts
constituting the sale and the delivery of the prohibited drugs.43
With regard to the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following
elements must be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to
be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possesses the said drug.44 All these elements have been established in this case.
On the occasion of the appellants arrest for having been caught in flagrante delicto selling
shabu, PO3 Yanson conducted a body search on the former resulting to the recovery of four more
heat-sealed plastic packets containing white crystalline substance inside his wallet that was
tucked in his pocket with an aggregate weight of 0.15 gram, which were later confirmed to be

methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PO3 Yanson identified in open the court the said
four heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu with markings "VRR-8-31-2000-02" to "VRR-8-312000-05" written thereon by SPO1 Fernandez to be the same objects recovered from the
appellant.45 PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer, corroborated this testimony of PO3 Yanson.46
Definitely, the records do not show that the appellant has the legal authority to possess the four
heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu. Settled is the rule that possession of dangerous drugs
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an
accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. As such, the burden of
evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi,47
which the appellant in this case miserably failed to do.
There is also no truth on the appellants claim that the entry in the house was illegal making the
search and the seizure in connection thereto invalid, rendering the pieces of evidence obtained by
the police officers inadmissible for being the "fruit of a poisonous tree."
This Court in Dimacuha v. People48 clearly states:
The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose. To give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the
exclusionary principle that any evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.
In People v. Chua Ho San [citation omitted] we pointed out that the interdiction against
warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute and that warrantless searches and seizures have
long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in the following instances: (1) search of moving
vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5)
stop and frisk situations (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last
includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless arrest, for,
while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the
Rules of Court recognizes permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto;
(2) arrest effected in hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners.
Here, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto while in the act of delivering 1.15 grams and
in actual possession of another 10.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) as a
result of an entrapment operation conducted by the police on the basis of information received
from Benito Marcelo regarding petitioner's illegal drug trade. Petitioner's arrest, therefore, was
lawful and the subsequent seizure of a bag of shabu inserted inside the cover of her checkbook
was justified and legal in light of the prevailing rule that an officer making an arrest may take
from the person arrested any property found upon his person in order to find and seize things
connected with the crime. The seized regulated drug is, therefore, admissible in evidence, being
the fruit of the crime.49 (Emphasis supplied).
To repeat, the appellant, in this case, was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, thus, he was
lawfully arrested. Following Dimacuha, the subsequent seizure of four heat-sealed plastic
packets of shabu in the appellants wallet that was tucked in his pocket was justified and
admissible in evidence for being the fruit of the crime.
With the foregoing, this Court is fully convinced that the prosecution had likewise proved
beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offense of illegal
possession of shabu in violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
Going to the charge of maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the prosecution had also established appellants guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are
found. Its existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by
proof of facts and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its
general reputation among police officers.50 In this case, this fact was proven by none other than
the testimony of PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer, who after buying the shabu had told the
appellant that he wanted to sniff the same to which the latter responded by requiring the former
to pay a rental fee of P10.00. The appellant, thereafter, allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his house
and directed him to proceed to one of the rooms located at the right side of the sala. Upon
entering the said room, PO2 Martinez saw three other persons already sniffing shabu.51 This
testimony of PO2 Martinez was corroborated by PO3 Yanson and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez.52
Moreover, as aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, several peso bills were found in the
appellants wallet, including three P10.00 peso bills, which circumstances bolstered the
prosecutions assertion that the appellant has indeed allowed his house to be used as a drug den
for a fee of P10.00 per person.53
In his attempt to exonerate himself, the appellant vehemently asserts that he was no longer the
owner of the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, and he was no longer residing therein. The
defense also presented Teresita Bitos to corroborate this claim of the appellant.
The testimony of Teresita Bitos corroborating the appellants testimony was not
credible.1wphi1 She herself admitted that the appellant requested her to testify in his favor.54
Also, considering the seriousness of the charges against the appellant, he did not bother to
present his daughter, who is the alleged owner of the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, to
bolster his claim.
Time and again, this Court held that denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been
viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted.
Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the
appellant, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecutions
evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the case here.
Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving
evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the prosecution
witness who testified on affirmative matters.55 Moreover, there is a presumption that public
officers, including the arresting officers, regularly perform their official duties.56 In this case, the
defense failed to overcome this presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence.
Furthermore, this Court finds no ill motive that could be attributed to the police officers who had
conducted the buy-bust operation. Even the allegation of the appellant that PO2 Martinez got
angry with him when he failed to pinpoint the big time pusher cannot be considered as the ill
motive in implicating the appellant on all the three charges against him for this is self-serving
and uncorroborated.
Given all the foregoing, this Court sustains the appellant's conviction on all the charges against
him.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00579 dated 9 August 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES*
Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN**

Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1633 dated 17 February 2014.
** Per Special Order No. 1636 dated 17 February 2014.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos
Santos and Agnes Reyes Carpio, concurring. Rollo, pp. 4-14.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Soliver C. Peras. CA rollo, pp. 24-57.
3 Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.
4 Sec. 15-A. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for Regulated Drug Users. -The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or
resort where any regulated drugs is used in any form, or where such regulated drugs in quantities
specified in Section 20, paragraph 1 of this Act are found.
5 Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or
prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.

6 Also known as "An Act To Impose The Death Penalty On Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending
For That Purpose The Revised Penal Laws, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, And For
Other Purposes."
7 CA rollo, pp. 10-15.
8 Id. at 10.
9 Id. at 12.
10 Id. at 14.
11 As evidenced by the Certificate of Arraignment and RTC Order both dated 2 October 2000.
Records, pp. 31-32.
12 Id. at 43.
13 Id. at 48.
14 Id. at 46.
15 Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 29 November 2001, pp. 3 and 15; Testimony of PO3
Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, pp. 11-12; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, TSN, 7 February
2002, pp.
10-12.
16 Id. at 3-5; Id. at 3-4; Id. at 3-5.
17 Id. at 6-7 and 16; Id. at 4-5 and 12; Id. at 5-6 and 13-14.
18 Id. at 7-8; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, TSN, 7 February 2002, id. at 8 and 13-14.
19 Id. at 8-10 and 12; Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, pp. 5-8 and 18;
Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, id. at 6-7 and 15; Appellees Brief dated 5 January 2005, CA
rollo, p. 166.
20 Id. at 7 and 12-13; Id. at 6, 8-9 and 11; Id. at 8 and 10.
21 Id. at 13; Id. at 9-11; Id. at 10.
22 Records, p. 46.
23 Testimony of the Appellant, TSN, 11 April 2002, pp. 2-3; Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 7
February 2002, pp. 3-5; Testimony of Teresita Bitos, TSN, 7 March 2002, p. 4.
24 Id. at 4-9; Id. at 5 and 7.
25 Testimony of PO2 Martinez (on rebuttal), TSN, 18 April 2002, pp. 4-5.
26 Records, pp. 125-126.
27 CA rollo, p. 58.
28 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.

29 Rollo, p. 14.
30 Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments
of the Crime. The penalties for offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections
14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is
in any of the following quantities :
1. 40 grams or more of opium;
2. 40 grams or more of morphine;
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana;
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic
requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public
consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range
from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity. (Emphasis and
italics supplied).
31 CA rollo, pp. 10-14.
32 Id. at 222.
33 Rollo, pp. 21 and 28-30.
34 CA rollo, pp. 102-115 and 158-190.
35 Id. at 108.
36 People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 127-128.
37 People v. Veloso, G.R. No. 188849, 13 February 2013, 690 SCRA 586, 595; Quinicot v.
People, G.R. No. 179700, 22 June 2009, 590 SCRA 458, 469.
38 People v. Santiago, 564 Phil. 181, 193 (2007); People v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 89, 95 (1997).
39 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, 5 June 2013.
40 Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 29 November 2011, pp. 6-7 and 11.
41 Id. at 7; Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, p. 11; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp.
Sanchez, TSN, 7 February 2002, p. 8.
42 Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, id. at 13.
43 People v. Requiz, 376 Phil. 750, 759-760 (1999).

44 Quinitcot v. People, supra note 37 at 477.

45 Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, pp. 7-8.
46 Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 29 November 2011, pp. 9-10.
47 Abuan v. People, 536 Phil. 672, 695 (2006).
48 545 Phil. 406 (2007).
49 Id. at 420-421.
50 People v. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1, 19-20.
51 Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 29 November 2011, pp. 7- 8.
52 Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, pp. 6-8; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp.
Sanchez, TSN, 7 February 2002, pp. 7 and 10.
53 CA Decision dated 9 August 2010. Rollo, p. 12; Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN 29
November 2011, p. 10.
54 Testimony of Teresita Bitos, TSN, 7 March 2002, p. 7.
55 People v. Mabonga, G.R. No. 134773, 29 June 2004, 433 SCRA 51, 65-66.
56 People v. Chen Tiz Chang, 382 Phil. 669, 696 (2000).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 189833

February 5, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JAVIER MORILLA Y AVELLANO, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
PEREZ, J.:
Before us is an appeal filed by accused-appellant Javier Morilla y Avellano (Morilla) from the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction and that of his co-accused
Ronnie Mitra y Tena (Mayor Mitra) by the trial court, sentencing them2 to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10,000,000.00 each.
The Regional Trial Court Judgment
On 15 October 2001, Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang y Yao (Yang) and Ruel Dequilla y
Regodan (Dequilla) were charged in a criminal information as follows:
That on or about October 13, 2001, in Barangay Kiloloran, Municipality of Real, Province of
Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, one of them an incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province,
who all belong to an organized/syndicate crime group as they all help one another, for purposes
of gain in the transport of illegal drugs, and in fact, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually aiding and abetting one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
transport by means of two (2) motor vehicles, namely a Starex van bearing plate number RWT888 with commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal ambulance of Panukulan,
Quezon Province, methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug which is commonly known
as shabu, and with an approximate weight of five hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos,
without authority whatsoever.3
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City4 on 1 August 2007 convicted Morilla and his
co-accused Mayor Mitra, then incumbent Mayor of Panukulan, Quezon, of illegal transport5 of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, with an approximate weight of
five hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos. However, it absolved Dequilla and Yang due
to the prosecutions failure to present sufficient evidence to convict them of the offense charged.
The dispositive of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Ronnie Mitra
y Tena and Javier Morilla y Avellana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.
Accordingly, both accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P10,000,000.00 each. Accused Willie Yang y Yao and Ruel Dequilla y Regodan are
hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt
and are ordered immediately released from custody unless held for some other lawful cause.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride ordered retained by the Court as representative sample
which is still in the custody of the PNP Crime Laboratory is ordered turned over to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.6
The trial court found valid the search conducted by police officers on the vehicles driven by
Mayor Mitra and Morilla, one with control number 888 and the other an ambulance with plate
number SFK-372, as the police officers have already acquired prior knowledge that the said
vehicles were suspected to be used for transportation of dangerous drugs. During the checkpoint
in Real, Quezon, the information turned out to be accurate and indeed, the two accused had in
their motor vehicles more than five hundred kilos of methamphetamine hydrochloride.7

The trial court dismissed the arguments of Mayor Mitra that he was without any knowledge of
the contents of the sacks and that he was merely requested to transport them to Manila on board
his Starex van. He explained that he only accommodated the request of a certain Ben Tan
because the latter bought his fishing boat. It likewise dismissed the defense of ambulance driver
Morilla of lack of knowledge of the illegality of the contents. Morilla insisted that he thought
that he was just transporting wooden tiles and electronic spare parts together with Dequilla. The
other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his defense, did not bother to inquire about the
contents of the vehicle as he was merely an accommodated passenger of the ambulance.
The court rejected the defenses presented by Morilla and Mayor Mitra as they were caught in
flagrante delicto of transporting dangerous drugs in two vehicles driven by each of them. Absent
any convincing circumstance to corroborate their explanations, the validity of their apprehension
was sustained.8
The ruling of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla was based on the testimonies of the
four accused themselves. It was found by the trial court that the two vehicles, the Starex van
driven by Mayor Mitra and the ambulance van driven by Morilla, left Infanta, Quezon en route to
Manila. The Starex van which was ahead of the ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint set
up by the police officers. However, the ambulance driven by Morilla was stopped by police
officers. Through the untinted window, one of the police officers noticed several sacks inside the
van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla replied that the sacks contained narra wooden tiles.
Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla to open the rear door of the car for further
inspection. When it was opened, the operatives noticed that white crystalline granules were
scattered on the floor, prompting them to request Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment,
Morilla told the police officers that he was with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade them to
let him pass.9 His request was rejected by the police officers and upon inspection, the contents of
the sacks turned out to be sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride.10 This discovery prompted
the operatives to chase the Starex van of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able to overtake
the van and Mayor Mitra was asked to stop. They then inquired if the mayor knew Morilla. On
plain view, the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded with sacks like the ones found in
the ambulance. Thus, Mayor Mitra was also requested to open the door of the vehicle for
inspection. At this instance, Mayor Mitra offered to settle the matter but the same was rejected.
Upon examination, the contents of the sacks were likewise found to contain sacks of
methamphetamine hydrochloride.11
The two other accused in this case, Dequilla and Yang, were acquitted by the trial court for
failure on the part of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court
ruled that Dequillas and Yangs mere presence inside the vehicle as passengers was inadequate
to prove that they were also conspirators of Mayor Mitra and Morilla.12
The Court of Appeals Decision
On 13 July 2009, the appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It upheld the finding of
conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla in their common intent to transport several sacks
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride on board their respective vehicles. The singularity
of their intent to illegally transport methamphetamine hydrochloride was readily shown when
Morilla agreed to drive the ambulance van from Infanta, Quezon to Manila together with Mayor
Mitra, who drove the lead vehicle, the Starex van.13
The appellate court likewise dismissed the argument of lack of knowledge of the illegal contents
of the sacks. The claim that the sacks were loaded with wooden tiles was implausible due to the
obvious disparity of texture and volume.14
Courts Ruling
We affirm the ruling but modify the penalty imposed.

In his supplemental brief, Morilla raised the issues: (1) whether he may be convicted for
conspiracy to commit the offense charged sans allegation of conspiracy in the Information, and
(2) whether the prosecution was able to prove his culpability as alleged in the Information.15
We dismiss his arguments.
Morilla primarily cites the provision on Sec. 1(b), Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure16 to substantiate his argument that he should have been informed first of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him. He pointed out that the Information itself failed to state
the word conspiracy but instead, the statement "the above-named accused, one of them an
incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province, who all belong to an
organized/syndicated crime group as they all help one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously transport x x x." He argued that conspiracy was only inferred from
the words used in the Information.17
Even assuming that his assertion is correct, the issue of defect in the information, at this point, is
deemed to have been waived due to Morillas failure to assert it as a ground in a motion to quash
before entering his plea.18
Further, it must be noted that accused Morilla participated and presented his defenses to
contradict the allegation of conspiracy before the trial and appellate courts. His failure or neglect
to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it
either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.19
The finding of conspiracy by both courts is correct.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.20 To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design
to commit a felony.21
Morilla argues that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended is not
sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the illegal transportation of
dangerous drugs.
This argument is misplaced.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express
terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the
secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken
together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole.22 In this case, the totality of the
factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a
common desire to transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of
dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. Mayor Mitra was able to drive
through the checkpoint set up by the police operatives. When it was Morillas turn to pass
through the checkpoint, he was requested to open the rear door for a routinary check. Noticing
white granules scattered on the floor, the police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If
indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police
officers that he was with the mayor.
His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and he just obeyed
the instruction of his immediate superior Mayor Mitra in driving the said vehicle likewise bears
no merit.
Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the
dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act
means "to carry or convey from one place to another."23 It was well established during trial that
Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex

van going to Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum
prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the
sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive
or knowledge.24
In a similar case of People v. Libnao,25 this Court upheld the conviction for illegal transportation
of marijuana of Libnao and Nunga, who were caught carrying a bag full of marijuana leaves
when they were flagged down on board a passing tricycle at a checkpoint.
However, we modify the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Originally, under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425,26 the penalty for illegal transportation of
methamphetamine hydrochloride was imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to
twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. Pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1683,27 the penalty was amended to life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from twenty to thirty thousand pesos. The penalty was further amended in Republic
Act No. 7659,28 where the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.
From the foregoing, we sustain the imposed penalty of fine of P10,000,00.00 to be paid by each
of the accused but amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua following the provisions of Republic
Act No. 7659 and the principle of retroactive application of lighter penalty. Reclusion perpetua
entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for
pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special disqualification, etc.
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, does not appear to have any definite extent or duration and
carries no accessory penalties.29
The full particulars are in Ho Wai Pang v. People,30 thus:
As to the penalties imposed by the trial court and as affirmed by the appellate court, we find the
same in accord with law and jurisprudence. It should be recalled that at the time of the
commission of the crime on September 6, 1991, Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425 was already
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1683. The decree provided that for violation of said Section
15, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00
shall be imposed. Subsequently, however, R.A. No. 7659 further introduced new amendments to
Section 15, Article III and Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. Under the new
amendments, the penalty prescribed in Section 15 was changed from "life imprisonment to death
and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00" to "reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million." On the other hand, Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659
amended Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No. 6425 in that the new penalty provided by the
amendatory law shall be applied depending on the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved.
The trial court, in this case, imposed on petitioner the penalty of reclusion perpetua under R.A.
No. 7659 rather than life imprisonment ratiocinating that R.A. No. 7659 could be given
retroactive application, it being more favorable to the petitioner in view of its having a less
stricter punishment.1wphi1
We agree. In People v. Doroja, we held:
"In People v. Martin Simon (G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994) this Court ruled (a) that the
amendatory law, being more lenient and favorable to the accused than the original provisions of
the Dangerous Drugs Act, should be accorded retroactive application, x x x."
And, since "reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment, and considering the
rule that criminal statutes with a favorable effect to the accused, have, as to him, a retroactive
effect," the penalty imposed by the trial court upon petitioner is proper. Consequently, the Court

sustains the penalty of imprisonment, which is reclusion perpetua, as well as the amount of fine
imposed by the trial court upon petitioner, the same being more favorable to him.31
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed 13 July 2009
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02967 is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION with respect to the penalty to be imposed as Reclusion Perpetua instead of
Life Imprisonment and payment of fine of P10,000,000.00 by each of the accused.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division Chairperson
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Rosmari D.
Carandang and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-24.
2 From the Records of the case, no appeal was timely made by the other accused, Mayor Mitra.
3 Records, Vol. I, p. 2.
4 In a Letter dated 23 October 2001, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuo of the Department
of Justice requested then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, through Court Administrator (now
Associate Justice of this Court) Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. for a transfer of venue of the case from

Real, Quezon to any Regional Trial Court in Metro Manila, preferably in Quezon City, due to the
large quantity of the confiscated drugs and difficulty on the part of the Government to prosecute
the case in Quezon from Metro Manila. (Records, pp. 49-50). The said request was granted by
this Court in a Resolution dated 6 March 2002. (Id. at 97).
5 Republic Act No. 6425 or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Art. III, Section 15. Sale,
Administration, Dispension, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. The
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging
from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. In case
of a practitioner, the maximum of the penalty herein prescribed and the additional penalty of the
revocation of his license to practice his profession shall be imposed.
6 CA rollo, pp. 66-67.
7 Id. at 57.
8 Id. at 61-62.
9 Id. at 63-65.
10 Id. at 46-47.
11 Id. at 44-45.
12 Id. at 65.
13 Rollo, pp. 21-22.
14 Id. at 22-23.
15 Supplemental Brief. Id. at 52-53.
16 Rule 115, Section 1(b). To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
17 Supplemental Brief. Rollo, pp. 53-54.
18 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Section 9 stating that:
Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. The failure of the accused to assert
any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because
he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a
waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b),
(g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.
19 Figueroa v. People, 580 Phil. 58, 73-74 (2008).
20 Revised Penal Code, Article 8.
21 Ho Wai Pang v. People, G.R. No. 176229, 19 October 2011, 659 SCRA 624, 637 citing
People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 92369, 10 August 1994, 235 SCRA 202, 214.
22 Id. citing People v. Ponce, 395 Phil. 563, 572 (2000); People v. Mateo, Jr., 258-A Phil. 886,
904 (1989).
23 People v. Baludda, 376 Phil. 614, 626 (1999).

24 People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740, 754-755 (2001).

25 443 Phil. 506 (2003).
26 Supra note 5.
27 Presidential Decree No. 1683. Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 6425, As
Amended, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and for Other Purposes.
SECTION 5. Section 15 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated Drugs. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty to
thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any persons who, unless authorized by law, shall
sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. If the victim of the offense is a
minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate
cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed.
28 An Act To Impose The Death Penalty On Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending For That
Purpose The Revised Penal Laws, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, And For Other
Purposes.
Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows:
xxxx
Section 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the
offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the
proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed.
29 Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 6-A-92, 21 June 1993 Re: The Correct
Application of the Penalties of Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment; Potenciano v.
Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 409 (2003).
30 Supra note 21.
31 Id. at 640-641.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205610

July 30, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

RAMONITO VILLARTA y RIVERA and ALLAN ARMENTA y CABILES, AccusedAppellants.

DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision1 dated 20 July 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 04953 affirming the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) Joint Decision3 dated 26 October 2010 in
Criminal Case Nos. 14948-D, 14949-D, 14950-D, 14951-D and 14952-D, convicting herein
appellant Ramonita Villarta y Rivera alias Monet (Villarta) for Violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002,'' and herein appellant Allan Armenta yCabiles alias Ambo (Armenta) for Violation
of Section 11 of the same law.
Appellant Villarta was charged in three (3) separate Informations,4 all dated 24 April 2006, for
Violation of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs) and 15 (Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the
accusatory portions of which read:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14948-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the [herein appellant Villarta], not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to [Police Officer 2 (PO2) Ronald R.
Caparas], a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02
gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for ephedrine, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.5 (Emphasis supplied).
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14949-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the [appellant Villarta], not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and
control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance, which was found positive to the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of
the said law.6 (Emphasis supplied).
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14950-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the [appellant Villarta], not being lawfully authorized by law to use any dangerous drug, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body a
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and, that this is the first offense of the
[appellant Villarta] under Section 15, of the abovecited law, who after a confirmatory urine test,
was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.7 (Emphasis supplied).
Appellant Armenta was charged in two (2) separate Informations,8 all dated 24 April 2006, for
Violation of Sections 11 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions of
which read:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14951-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
[the herein appellant Armenta], not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody

and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white
crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in
violation of the said law.9 (Emphasis supplied).
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14952-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the [appellant Armenta], not being lawfully authorized by law to use any dangerous drug, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body a THCmetabolites, a dangerous drug, and, that this is the first offense of the [appellant Armenta] under
Section 15, of the above-cited law, who after a confirmatory urine test, was found positive tothe
test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited
law.10 (Emphasis supplied).
Upon arraignment,11 both appellants pleaded NOT GUILTY to the respective charges against
them. Thereafter, joint trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented PO2 Ronald R. Caparas (PO2 Caparas), who acted as the poseurbuyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against appellant Villarta;12 PO2 Jesus Cambronero
(PO2 Cambronero), who acted as the immediate back-up of PO2 Caparas;13 and Police Senior
Inspector Sandra Decena Go (P/Sr. Insp. Go), the forensic chemical officer who conducted
physical, chemical and confirmatory tests on the items seized from the appellants.14 The
testimony, however, of the other prosecution witness PO1 Allan Mapula (PO1 Mapula) was
dispensed with per stipulation of the parties that: (1) he is the investigating officer in these cases;
and (2) he was the one who prepared the Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 Caparas and the Request for
Laboratory Examination, aswell as the Request for Drug Test.15
On the side of the defense, both appellants were presented to contradict all the allegations of the
prosecution.16
The respective versions of the prosecution and the defense, as accurately summarized by the
Court of Appeals, are as follows:
On 19 April 2006 at around 9:30 oclock in the evening, PO2 [Caparas] was at the Station AntiIllegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) office in Pasig City. A confidential
informant arrived and spoke with Police Inspector Ronaldo Pamor [P/Insp. Pamor]. The
informant gave the tip that a certain MONET was selling shabualong Urbano Velasco Avenue,
Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. As a result, [P/Insp. Pamor] conducted a short briefing attended by
[Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1)] Baltazar, PO2 Camb[r]onero, PO2 Monte, [Police Officer 1
(PO1)] Caridad, PO1 Mapula and PO2 Caparas. [P/Insp.] Pamor instructed PO1 Mapula to
prepare a pre-operational report17 to be submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), and directed PO1 Caparas to act as the poseur-buyer while PO2 Camb[r]onera was to
serve as his back-up.
In preparation for their operation, PO2 Caparas marked two pieces of the One-Hundred Peso
(P100.00) bill with his initials "RRC" on the lower right portion. Tout de suite, the team, together
with the confidential informant proceeded to Velasco Avenue. There, they went inside an alley
located at the Cupa Compound. However, they learned from the two persons standing along the
alley that MONET had already left. [P/Insp.] Pamor instructed the informant to inform them
whenever MONET would return.
The following day, at about 5:00 oclock in the afternoon, the confidential informant called and
tolda member of the SAID-SOTF that MONET was already in the target place.Subsequently, the
buy-bust team met with the former at the market terminal. PO2 Caparas and the informant again
proceeded to Velasco Avenue. When they reached Cupa Compound, the latter secretly told PO2
Caparas that MONET was standing at the alley. They approached MONET. The informant then
told him: "Pare iiscore to" referring to PO2 Caparas. He told MONET that he would buy P200.00

worth of shabuafter which, he handed MONET the money. At this point, a male person arrived
and asked MONET: "Pare, meron pa ba?" MONET retorted: "Dalawang piraso na lang ito." The
male person then gave MONET P100.00. Immediately thereafter, MONET handed one sachet to
PO2 Caparas and the other one to the male person. PO2 Caparas examined the sachet and gave
the pre-arranged signal by wearing his cap. He then introduced himself as a police officer, and
arrested MONET who was identified as [herein appellant] Ramonito Villarta [y Rivera]. When
the other members of the team arrived, PO2 Caparas told PO2 Camb[r]oner[o] thatthe other male
person was also possessing shabu. In a bit, he was also apprehended and identified later on as
[herein appellant] Allan Armenta [y Cabiles] @ AMBO. PO2 Caparas recovered from MONET
the marked money and one plastic sachet while PO2 Camb[r]onero recovered from AMBO the
other plastic sachet. Both PO2 Caparas and PO2 Camb[r]onero marked the items they had
seized.
At the police station, PO1 Mapula prepared the requests for drug test and laboratory
examination. Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory. Forensic Chemical Officer [P/Sr. Insp. Go] received the above-mentioned requests
and conducted laboratory tests on the subject specimens. The seized drugs gave positive result
for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Likewise, the drug tests showed that the respective urine
samples of MONET and AMBO were positive for methamphetamine and THC metabolites, both
of which are dangerous drugs.
The defense proffered a divergent version of the facts.
Both MONET and AMBO denied the charges. MONET asseverated that between 3:00 oclock
and 4:00 oclock inthe afternoon of 19 April 2006, he was resting in the room he was renting.
Suddenly, four armed male persons entered looking for a certain "Jay Jay." When he replied that
he did not know such person, he was brought and detained in Pariancillo. It was there where he
first met AMBO.
On the other hand, AMBO maintained that between 1:00 oclock and 2:00 oclock in the
afternoon on evendate while waiting for a tricycle in front of the 7-11 Store, three armed persons
approached him. One of them placed his arm around his shoulder, the other one handcuffed him,
while the third called for a tricycle. Subsequently, he was brought to the Pariancillo
Headquarters. When heasked why he was arrested, the aforesaid men did not answer him. At the
headquarters, he was frisked since they were looking for a cellular phone which he had allegedly
snatched. When nothing was found with him, he was mauled and forced to confess where he
brought the phone. It was there where he got to know MONET.18
On 26 October 2010, the RTC, after considering the testimonies of both parties, rendered its Joint
Decision,the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. 14948-D, this Court finds the [herein appellant] Ramonito Villarta
yRivera aliasMonet, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002,
and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of
P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2) In Criminal Case No. 14949-D and Criminal Case No. 14951-D, this Court finds the
[appellants] Ramonito Villarta yRivera aliasMonetand Allan Armenta yCabiles alias Ambo,
guiltybeyond reasonable of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 and they are each sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and

3) Criminal Case No. 14950-D and Criminal Case No. 14952-Dfor Violation of Section 15,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002
against [appellants] Ramonito Villarta y Rivera alias Monetand Allan Armenta y Cabiles
aliasAmbo are ordered DISMISSED.
In the meantime, the Branch Clerk ofCourt is directed to transmit the dangerous drugs,
"ephedrine," subject of these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its disposition
in accordance with law.19 (Emphasis supplied).
The RTC elucidated that the prosecution has sufficiently established all the elements for a
successful prosecution of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, which is in violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. PO2 Caparas, who acted as the poseur-buyer, specifically
stated that appellant Villarta sold tohim one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02
gram of white crystalline substance worth P200.00. It was seized and later on found positive to
the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Their transaction was proven bythe actual exchange of
the marked money consisting of two P100.00-pesobills, and the drug sold. PO2 Caparas
positively identified appellant Villarta as the seller of the said oneheat sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance, which was later on confirmed as ephedrine, a
dangerous drug, by P/Sr. Insp. Go, the Forensic Chemist, who performed laboratory examination
on all the seized items.20
As for the charge of illegal possession of prohibited drugs, which is in violation of Section 11,
Article II ofRepublic Act No. 9165, against both appellants, the RTC also found that all the
elements thereof were completely satisfied. When the appellants werearrested by PO2 Caparas
and PO2 Cambronero, they were both found in possession of dangerousdrugs. Both of them
could not present any proof orjustification that they were fully authorized by law to possess the
same. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facieevidence of animus
possidendior intent to possess.21
In dismissing the charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 15, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, against both appellants, the RTC applied the provisoof the afore-stated
Section 15. The RTC, thus, held that when a person is found tohave possessed and used
dangerous drugs at the same time, Section 15 shall not be applicable in which case the provisions
of Section 11 shall apply.22
The RTC likewise held that despite the non-compliance with the requirements of physical
inventory and photograph of the seized items, the integrity and evidentiary value of the same
were properly preserved because the chain of custody appears not to havebeen broken. Thus, in
its entirety, there was substantial compliance with the law.23
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Joint Decision dated 26 October 2010.24
Hence, the present appeal raising the same assignment of errors in their Appellants Brief filed
before the Court of Appeals, towit: (a) the trial court gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the
[appellants] despite the obvious non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of
seized dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165; and (b) the trial court gravely erred in
pronouncing the guilt of the [appellants] notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized dangerous drugs.25
This Court sustains appellants conviction.
Essentially, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should
not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since the trial court is in a better position to
examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.26 This rule finds aneven more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals27 as in this case.

After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the
lower courts findings that, indeed, the appellants guilt on the respective charges against them
were sufficiently proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like ephedrinein this case, the following
elementsmust be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer,
as well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor.What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. The
commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation
of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.
Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his
offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is
considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.28
In the present case, this Court totallyagrees with the lower courts that the aforesaid elements of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs were adequately and satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
To note, appellant Villarta, who was caught in flagrante delicto, was positively identified by PO2
Caparas, who acted as the poseur-buyer, as the same person who sold the one heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, later confirmed as
ephedrine, for a consideration of P200.00.The said one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of
ephedrinewas presented in court, which PO2 Caparas identified to be the same object sold to him
by appellant Villarta. Moreover, the same bears the markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06, which he had
written at the scene of the crime. "RRV" represents the initials of appellant Villarta while "RRC"
represents the initials of PO2 Caparas. The marking "04-20-06" represents the date the said drug
was seized. PO2 Caparas similarly identified in court the recovered marked money from
appellant Villarta consisting of two P100.00-peso bills in the total amount of P200.00 with
markings "RRC" on the lower right portion thereof.29
Likewise, the testimony of PO2 Caparasclearly established in detail how his transaction with
appellant Villarta happened starting from the moment their informant introduced him to appellant
Villarta as someone interested in buying his stuff, up to the time he handed to appellant Villarta
two P100.00 peso bills marked money amounting to P200.00and, in turn, appellant Villarta
handed him the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of ephedrinethus consummating the
sale transaction between them. PO2 Caparas caused the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
of ephedrineto be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The item weighing 0.02 gram was
tested positive for ephedrineas evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-355-0630 prepared by
P/Sr. Insp. Go, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon
City.31
From the foregoing, it is already beyond question that appellant Villartas guilt for illegal sale of
ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RepublicAct No. 9165 was
proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to the prosecution ofillegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must
be proved: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not
authorized by law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciouslyaware of being in possession of
dangerous drugs.32
In the case under consideration, this Court also conforms to the lower courts findings that all the
elementsof illegal possession of dangerous drugs were adequately proven by the prosecution.
It bears emphasis that when the sale transaction between PO2 Caparas and appellant Villarta was
on-going, another male person, who was later on identified to be appellant Armenta, came in and
also bought one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance later on confirmed to be ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Upon the consummation of the

sale transaction,between PO2 Caparas and appellant Villarta, the former gave the pre-arranged
signal by wearing his cap. PO2 Caparas then introduced himself as the police officer and arrested
appellant Villarta. PO2 Caparas then recovered from appellant Villarta the marked money and
another one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance later on confirmed as ephedrine, a dangerous drug. When the immediate back-up
officer, PO2 Cambronero, arrived, PO2 Caparas informed him that appellant Armenta was in
possession of one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance,which the latter just bought from appellant Villarta. Thus, appellant Armenta was also
apprehended and PO2 Cambronero recovered from him one heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance confirmed to be ephedrine, a
dangerous drug.33 Clearly, both appellants were found in possession of dangerous drugs. As
observed by the RTC, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, both appellants could not present
any proof or justification that they were fully authorized by law to possess the same. Having
been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facieevidence of animus possidendior intent to
possess.
Now, going to the issue raised by the appellants on the failure of the prosecution to comply with
Section 21,Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, this Court similarly affirms the findings of both
lower courts that such failure will not render the appellants arrestillegal or the items
seized/confiscated from them inadmissible.
In People v. Ventura,34 this Court held that:
The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:
(1) 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.
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165,
which implements said provision, stipulates:
(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: x x x 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.
Under the same proviso, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable
grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over saiditems, for as
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers.
Clearly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is centered on the
preservationof the integrityand evidentiary valueof the seized items.35 (Emphasis supplied). The
chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of
the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony,

the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the
police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time
it was offered in evidence.36
In the case at bench, after PO2 Caparas seized and confiscated the one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of ephedrine, which was the subject of the sale transaction,
as well as the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine,
which was recovered from appellant Villarta after he was arrested and ordered to empty his
pocket, and the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, the former immediately marked
the seized drugs atthe place of arrest. He put the markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06 on the seizeddrug
subject of the sale and the markings RRV/RRC on the seized drug recovered from appellant
Villarta. PO2 Cambronero, the immediate back-up of PO2 Caparas, also recovered from
appellant Armenta one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine.
PO2 Cambronero, who was then beside PO2 Caparas, similarly marked the seized drug from
appellant Armenta at the place of arrest. They then brought the appellants, together with the
seized items at their station. Where PO1 Mapula, the investigating officer, prepared the Request
for Laboratory Examination,37 the Request for Drug Test38 and the Affidavit of Arrest of PO2
Caparas.39 Thereafter, PO2 Caparas personally brought all the seized items to the crime
laboratory for examination. The seized items were examined by P/Sr. Insp. Go and they all
yielded positive results for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. When the seized items were offered in
court, they were all properly identified by the prosecution witnesses. These facts persuasively
proved that the three plastic sachets of ephedrine presented in court were the same items seized
from the appellants during the buy-bust operation.The integrity and evidentiary value thereof
were duly preserved.
It has been judicially settled that in buy-bust operations, the testimony of the police officers who
apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that
they have performed their duties regularly. This presumption is overturned only if there is clear
and convincing evidence that they were not properly performing their duty or that they were
inspired by improper motive.40 In this case, there was none.
In comparison to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, all that the appellants could
muster is the defense of denial and frame-up. Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed
with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in
most prosecutions for violation of DangerousDrugs Act. The defense of frameup or denial in
drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law
enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.41 In the present
case, the bare denial of the appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the
prosecution witnesses.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 July 2012 in CAG.R. CR-HC No. 04953 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybanez and
Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-23.
2 Pasig City, Branch 151.
3 Penned by Presiding Judge Maria Teresa Cruz-San Gabriel. CA rollo, pp. 22-42.
4 Records, pp. 1-2 and 14-17.
5 Id. at 1.
6 Id. at 14.
7 Id. at 16.
8 Id. at 18-21.
9 Id. at 18.
10 Id. at 20.
11 Per RTC Order dated 25 September 2006. Id. at 38.
12 TSN, 7 February 2007, pp. 2-21.
13 TSN, 23 April 2007, pp. 2-12.
14 TSN, 4 March 2009, pp. 3-18.
15 TSN, 4 March 2009, pp. 2 and 18-19; Per RTC Order dated 4 March 2009, Records, pp. 118119.
16 TSN, 10 June 2009, pp. 2-6; TSN, 2 September 2009, pp. 2-12.

17 Records, p. 11.
18 CA Decision dated 20 July 2012. Rollo, pp. 5-7.
19 CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
20 Id. at 29-33.
21 Id. at 40.
22 Id. at 40-41.
23 Id. at 39-40.
24 CA Decision dated 20 July 2012. Rollo, p. 22.
25 CA rollo, p. 58.
26 People v. Apattad, G.R. No. 193188, 10 August 2011, 655 SCRA 335, 349.
27 People v. Campomanes,G.R. No. 187741, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 504.
28 People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 646-647.
29 TSN, 7 February 2007, pp. 5 and 9-13.
30 Records, p. 141.
31 TSN, 7 February 2007, pp. 8-10, 12 and 14-15.
32 People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 322, 332.
33 TSN, 7 February 2007, pp. 9-13; TSN, 23 April 2007, pp. 4-6.
34 G.R. No. 184957, 27 October 2009, 604 SCRA 543.
35 Id. at 558-559.
36 People v. Dela Rosa, supra note 28 at 653.
37 Records, p. 8.
38 Id. at 10.
39 Id. at 5-6.
40 People v. Dela Rosa, supra note 28 at 654.
41 Id. at 656.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205741

July 23, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appeliee,

vs.
REYMAN ENDAYAy LAIG, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
For review of this Court is the 11 May 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 04872. The CA affirmed the conviction of Reyman Endaya y Laig (appellant) for
the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of the prohibited drug methamphetamine
hyd.rochloride or shabu, respectively punishable under Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Antecedents
Appellant was charged under two separate informations filed before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Lipa City, Branch 12, with violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II ofR.A. No.
9165, committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 0098-2003
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2002, at about 7:00 oclock in the evening, at
Barangay 2-A, Municipality of Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized
by law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control
eight (8) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu", having a total weight of 0.32 gram, a dangerous
drug.2
Criminal Case No. 0099-2003
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2002, at about 7:00 oclock in the evening, at
Barangay 2-A, Municipality of Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized
by law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, deliver and give away one (1) small
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly
known as "shabu", weighing 0.04 gram, a dangerous drug.3
Prosecutions Version of the Events
On 11 November 2002, police operatives of Mataasnakahoy Police Station, acting on a report
from a barangay official that appellant is involved in illegal drug activities,conducted
surveillance operations on appellant. A week of surveillance confirmed the veracity of the
report4 hence, on 20 November 2002, a team, composedof SPO4 Moriel Benedicto (SPO4
Benedicto), SPO3 Nestor Babadilla(SPO3 Babadilla) and PO2 Edwin Chavez (PO2 Chavez),
was formed to perform a buy-bust operation against appellant.5 A civilian asset, armed with
five(5) pieces of P100.00 bills as marked money, acted as poseur-buyer.6
On board a car from Mataasnakahoy Police Station, the police operatives and the civilian asset
proceeded to the place of operation: the Golden Luck Beer Garden located at Barangay2-A,
Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. At a distance of about ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters from the beer
house, the civilian asset alighted from the vehicle and proceeded on foot to the establishment
where appellant was a regular customer. In the meantime, the buy-bust team positioned
themselves ata place outside the restaurant not far from where the civilian asset was. Appellant
subsequently arrived and approached the civilian asset, who was standing in front of the beer
house. The two talked for a while,7 after which, the police operatives saw the civilian asset hand

the marked money to appellant who, in turn, handed something to the former which later turned
out to be a plastic sachet containing shabu.8
After receiving the plastic sachet from appellant, the civilian asset made the pre-arranged signal
of touching his head to signify that the transaction had been completed. The police officers then
immediately approached appellant, introduced themselves as police officers and informed him
that he is under arrest for selling shabu.9 Appellant was informed of his constitutional rights in
Tagalog10 and then frisked by SPO3 Babadilla and PO2 Chavez for any deadly weapon. During
this body search, SPO3 Babadilla recovered the marked money from appellant.11 Meanwhile,
the shabu subject of the sale between appellant and the civilian asset was handed by the latter to
PO2 Chavez.12
Appellant was forthwith brought tothe Mataasnakahoy Police Station where police officers again
searched his body to look for an identification card.13 This body search yielded another eight (8)
plastic sachets of shabu, found in his wallet by PO2 Chavez, who then marked them by writing a
figure "8" on each plastic sachet.14 The shabusubject of the buy-bust operation, on the other
hand, was marked by PO2 Chavez by writing the same figure "8" on the sachet but he added a
distinctive mark by burning the edges of the plastic sachet to distinguish it from the other eight
sachets confiscated from appellant.15 The team thereafter conducted an inventory of the items
seized from appellant in the presence of appellant, Clerk of Court Rogelio Binay of the
Mataasnakahoy Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Counselor Renato Tiquiz, BarangayCaptain
Victorina Orosco, NGO representative Olivia Macariola, Sangguniang Bayanmembers Romeo
Laqui and Osea and media representative Virgo Santiago, who all signed the receipt of property
seized.16 A photograph of appellant and the seized items, together with the aforementioned
witnesses was taken at the police station.17 Finally, a letterrequest for laboratory examination,
together with the marked sachets, was transmitted to the Philippine National Police crime
laboratory.18 The qualitative examination conducted on the specimens yielded positive results
for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.19
Version of the Defense
Appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that at around 7:00 in the evening of 20
November 2002, he was at home in Barangay Nangkaan, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas, watching
TV with his family. At around 9:00 in the evening, he left the house to go with a friend to the bus
station in Lipa City to fetch his friends sister. From the bus station, they proceeded to the
GoldenLuck Beer Garden.20 While drinking beer inside the establishment, two police officers,
one of whom was SPO4 Benedicto, approached appellant and invited him togo out with them to
the police car.21 Appellant obliged, but as he was about to get into the car, SPO4 Benedicto
punched him in the stomach and pushed him inside the car. SPO3 Babadilla and PO2 Chavez
then joined them. It was then, according to appellant, when the police officers started their
threats to kill him unless he reveals to them the name of the drug pusher in the area. In reply to
their threats, appellant told them that he did not know anyone selling drugs.22
Appellant alleged that they drove around the municipality of Mataasnakahoy, circling it three
times before the police officers brought him to the police station. Before he was allowed to get
off the car, SPO3 Babadilla took his wallet and left it in the car. At the police station, he was
immediately put in jail but he was unable to ask the reason for his imprisonment because one of
the police officers punched him again.23 When he was subsequently taken out of his cell, the
police officers led him to a table where they showed him plastic sachets containing
shabuallegedly found in his wallet.24 Thereafter, the police officers took photographs of him and
the items supposedly seized from him, although he refused to be photographed. He was also
made to signa document, which later turned out to be the inventory of property seized, without
allowing him to read the contents thereof and without the assistance of a counsel. Neither did the
police officers inform him of his constitutional rights.25
Appellant claimed that he did not file a case against the police officers because he was already
incarcerated and, besides, he is ignorant of the procedure in the filing of cases.26

The Ruling of the Trial Court

Finding that the prosecution was able to successfully prove the existence of the essential
elements ofillegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the trial court rendered a
Decision27 dated 22 October 2010, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, accused Reyman Endaya y Laig is convicted of the
offenses charged in these cases for violation of Section 5 (paragraph 1) and Section 11
(paragraph 3), both of Article II of Republic Act 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer:
a) Section 11 Imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to
twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 and;
b.) Section 5 Life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.28
xxx
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court upon a finding that the prosecution was able to
establish, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crimes with which appellant was
charged,and consequently, his guilt.
The CA brushed aside the attempt ofappellant to assail the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution, declaring that the inconsistencies in their respective testimonies, which appellant
tried to amplify, are too minor to adversely affect their credibility. More importantly, the identity
of the corpus delictiin this case was properly preserved and established by the prosecution,
thereby ascertaining the guilt of appellant. The CA, thus, held:
The inconsistencies allegedly committed by [SPO4] Benedicto and [PO2] Chavez will not save
[appellant] from conviction. To secure a reversal of the lower courts findings, the
inconsistencies should have pertained to the actual buy-bust itself, that crucial moment when
[appellant] was caught selling or in possession of shabu, not to peripheral matters. x x x
xxxx
To be sure, the discrepant statements alluded to by [appellant] were too minor to adversely affect
the credibility of the witnesses. Those discrepancies did not detract from the established fact of
the crimes charged against him. As the High Court held, inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the
crime, do not impair their credibility.
In view of all the foregoing, this [c]ourt finds that [appellant] failed to overthrow the
presumption of regularity accorded the police officers in the performance of their official duty.
He utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, these witnesses were motivated by
reasons other than the duty to curb the sale and possession of prohibited drugs and possession of
drug paraphernalia. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police
authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to [appellant]. Thus, the [c]ourt will not allow
the formers testimony to be overcome by self-serving defenses.
xxxx
This Court likewise finds no merit in [appellants] contention that the prosecution failed to
establish the corpus delictiof the offense. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses convincingly
stated that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by
them. [SPO4] Benedicto testified that he witnessed when their asset handed the shabu (which he
bought from appellant) to [PO2] Chavez. Thereafter, he saw [PO2] Chavez putmarkings on them.

[PO2] Chavez also attested that he marked the 1 sachet of shabu sold by [appellant] to their asset
as well as the 8 sachets ofshabu confiscated from [appellant]. They eventually prepared a request
for laboratory examination. The Chemistry Report stated that all the specimens submitted by the
apprehending officers which bore the same markings gave positive result to the tests for the
presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
It is thus evident that the identities of the corpus delictiwere properly preserved and established
by the prosecution. Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless
there is a showing of bad faith, ill-will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.
[Appellant], in this case, has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with
to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a
presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. Needless to say, [appellant]
failed to muster out such burden.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed October 22, 2010 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Lipa City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 0098-2003 and 0099-2003
convicting Reyman Endaya y Laig for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.29
In separate Manifestations dated 21 May 201330 and 13 June 2013,31 respectively, appellant and
appellee manifested their intention not to file a supplemental brief before this Court and to adopt
the respective briefs they filed before the CA.
The Issues
Appellant raised the following errors in his brief:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 11 AND 5 OF R.A. NO. 9165
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY
SEIZED WHICH THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SIGN IN VIOLATION
OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE SACHETS OF SHABU
ASEVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit; hence, we sustain the judgment of conviction.
I
Appellants guilt for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu was proven beyond reasonable
doubt

The illegal sale of dangerous drugs is punishable under the first paragraph of Section 5 of R.A.
No. 9165 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 of such transactions.
(Emphasis supplied)
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be
established: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration for the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What
is material in the prosecution of an illegal sale of dangerousdrugs is proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delictiin court as
evidence.32 The commission of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling
transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Aslong as a
police officer or civilian asset went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted
by the appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is
already consummated. In the case at bar, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of
the drug sale with moral certainty.33
The records show that appellant was arrested in a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted after a
week of surveillance. The police officers comprising the buy-bust team positivelyidentified
appellant as the one who sold the plastic sachet of shabuto their civilian asset who, in turn,
handed the marked money to appellant. Both the sachet of shabuand the marked money were
presented as evidence in court. SPO4 Benedicto narrated in detail the transaction during his
testimony before the court. Thus:
xxxx
[PROSECUTOR] How was that preparation made to conduct a buybust operation?
[SPO4 BENEDICTO] We contacted our asset or informant so that he will be the one who will
act as the buyer from Reyman Endaya.
Q: What will be used by your asset in buying shabu from Reyman Endaya?
A: We gave him marked money, sir.
Q: How much was the marked money given to your asset to be used in the buy-bust operation?
A: P500.00, sir.
Q: In what denomination?
A: Five (5) pieces of P100.00 bills.
xxxx
Q: And in that buy-bust operation that you conducted x x x, you said that it was conducted
around 6:00 oclock in the evening x x x. Who were involved in this buy-bust operation?
A: SPO4 Moriel Benedicto, SPO2 Nestor Babadilla, and PO2 Edwin Chavez.

Q: What will be your participation, the three of you?

A: We stood as the back-up of the poseur-buyer, sir.
Q: And your poseur-buyer, what will be his participation?
A: He will be the one to act as the buyer of shabu to [sic] Reyman Endaya, sir.
xxxx
Q: And after your asset proceeded to that place, where did you position yourselves?
A: We hid in a place not far from the place where the asset was positioned.
xxxx
Q: And when [appellant] approachedyour asset, what transpired between your asset and Reyman
Endaya if anything happened that time?
A: They talked for a while and as we could see it, they exchanged something, sir.
Q: Do you know what was given by your asset to Reyman Andaya?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was handed by your asset to Reyman Andaya?
A: He gave the money, sir.
Q: What money?
A: The marked money that we gave him, sir.
Q: How about Reyman Endaya? Do you know or do you have any inkling as to what he gave to
your asset?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was your inkling about what Reyman Endaya gave to your asset?
A: The shabu which our asset bought from him, sir.
Q: And after this exchange of marked money and the suspected shabu happened between your
asset and Reyman Endaya, what was done by your asset if anything was done by him?
A: As we have previously arranged, heheld his head as a sign that he has already purchased
shabu, sir.
Q: And after getting or seeing this pre-arranged signal to signify that your asset had already
bought shabu from Reyman Endaya, what action did you take?
A: We approached them and we introduced ourselves as policemen and we arrested him.34
xxxx
The foregoing testimony was corroborated by PO2 Chavez on the witness stand:

[PROSECUTOR] What happened on that buy-bust operation that you conducted?

[SPO2 CHAVEZ] At 7:00 o clock in the evening, Reyman Endaya arrived and during that time,
our poseur buyer was already positioned and we did not hear their actual conversation but we
saw when the poseur buyer handed the marked money to Reyman Endaya and Reyman Endaya
in turn handed to our poseur buyer something and on [sic] that point, we saw our poseur buyer
giving a signal to us which means that he had already bought the shabu from Reyman Endaya.
Q: Where were you when your asset who acted as poseur buyer and Reyman Endaya were
[doing] this transaction?
A: We were hiding on [sic] a place which was near from [sic] the two, sir.
Q: How far were you actually from the two?
A: More or less five (5) meters, sir.
xxxx
Q: And when you saw your asset giving that signal, what did you do?
A: We ran towards them and we arrested Reyman Endaya for selling that shabu, sir.35
On the other hand, the pertinent provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 on illegal possession
of dangerous drugs state that:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fineranging 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:
xxxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be
graduated as follows:
xxxx
(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 cocainehydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited
to, MDMA or "ecstasy", 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.
For the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following requisites must concur: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object thatis
identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law;
and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.36
The foregoing elements were likewise convincingly established herein. When the police
operatives bodily searched appellant for his wallet at the police station, they found eight(8)
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which, upon laboratory examination,

turned out to be shabu.The respective testimonies of SPO4 Benedicto and PO2 Chavez on the
matter provide:
[PROSECUTOR] And after putting the person of Reyman Endaya under arrest and informing
him of the cause of his arrest and his constitutional rights, what else did you do in [sic] the
person of Reyman Endaya?
[SPO4 BENEDICTO] He was searched by our two companions, sir.
xxxx
Q: And did you come to know the result of this body search conducted by SPO3 Nestor
Babadilla and PO2 Edwin Chavez?
A: My companion SPO3 Nestor Babadilla was able to recover the marked money worth
P5,000.00 (sic) which Reyman was still holding.
Q: What else was recovered from the person of Reyman Endaya if anything else was recovered
from him in the course of his body search?
A: In the place where we arrestedhim, those were the only items which we were able to recover
from him, sir.
Q: Why? After that body searchwas conducted, did you recover anything else from Reyman
Endaya in any other place?
A: When we brought him to the office, we recovered eight (8) plastic sachets of shabu in his
wallet, sir.37
[PROSECUTOR] How did it come about that you were able to recover eight (8) separate sachets
of shabu from the wallet of Reyman Andaya when you were already at the police station?
[PO2 CHAVEZ] Upon arrival at the police station, we turned him over to the police investigator
and we again searched his body and on [sic] his wallet, we found the eight (8) sachets of shabu,
sir.38
Chain of custody unbroken;
identity of corpus delicti established
with moral certainty
Appellant argues that the arresting officers failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21,
paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 on the inventory of the items seized from
him.According to him, the inventory of the plastic sachet taken from him at the Golden Luck
Beer Garden was not completed immediately after his arrest and at the place where he was
arrested; the same sachet of shabusubject of the illegal sale was not marked at the time and place
of his arrest, but only at the police station; and there was no representative from the Department
of Justice as the government official present during the inventory was the Clerk of Court, who is
a representative of the Supreme Court and not of the Department of Justice. He insists that no
less than strict compliance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 is mandated by the law.
To ascertain that the illegal drugs presented in court are the ones actually seized from the
accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and
(b) there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items.39

Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 embodies the procedural safeguards intended to counter or
prevent possible police abuses in cases of buy-bust operations. The provision provides, in part:
Section 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, PlantSources 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;
Compliance with the foregoing provisions, "especially the required physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, the media, and responsible
government functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police had carried out a legitimate
buy-bust operation."40
The records of this case clearly showthat the foregoing requirements were complied with.
As mandated by the above-quoted provision of law, the apprehending team conducted a physical
inventory of the drugs confiscated from appellant, as evidenced by the "Receipt for Property
Seized"41 which was signed by representatives from the municipal trial court, a nongovernmental organization, the media, and three locally elected public officials, as proof that
they were present when the inventory was carried out. Likewise, a photograph42 of the accused,
together with the items seized from him, and with the aforementioned representativesfrom the
public and private sector as witnesses, was taken at the police station. The physical inventory and
taking of the photograph weredone after the confiscated items were marked by PO2 Chavez.
Finally, within 24 hours from the time the plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
were taken from appellant, the same were forwarded to the regional crime laboratory office for
qualitative examination where the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.43
In view of the foregoing, the allegation of appellant that the apprehending officers failed to
complywith the mandates of Section 21, particularly paragraph 1, of R.A. No. 9165 has no basis.
In addition to this, jurisprudence states that "the phrase marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team."44
Hence, the fact that the seized plastic sachets were marked at the police station only does not
deviate from the elements required in the preservation of the integrity of the seized drugs.
In any case, contrary to appellants claim, strict compliance with Section 21, Article II ofRA
9165 is not necessary45 "as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seizeditems are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team." Elaborating on the provisions of R.A. No.
9165, Section 21 (a) of its IRR states:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant isserved; 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 noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, this Court has, in many casesheld that "while the chain of custody should ideally be
perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.The
most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused."46
In People v. Salonga,47 we held that "it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the
prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in
court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to leadto a
finding of guilt."48 That the substances which were sent to the crime laboratory and examined by
the forensic chemical officer and found to be shabuwere the very same substances which the
police officers seized from appellant is proven by the following excerpts from the testimony of
SPO4 Benedicto:
[PROS. SANDOVAL] Mr[.] witness you said that aside from the one heat sealed transparent
plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya y Laig sold to your poseur buyer in the evening of
November 20, 2002 you also recovered eight (8) other sachets of shabu from him after his arrest
if you will be shown these nine (9) plastic sachets of shabu can you identify the same? [SPO4
BENEDICTO] Yes sir.
Q: Can you distinguish in [sic] these nine (9) plastic sachets which one was the subject matter
ofthe buy bust operation and which of those was taken from the possession of the accused after
his arrest?
A: Yes sir
Q: How would you distinguish these specimens from each other?
A: My companion placed his markings on all the sachets sir.
Q: How about the one (1) plastic sachet which your poseur buyer was able to buy from Reyman
Endaya has it any distinguishing mark also after his arrest?
A: There is a distinguishing mark sir.
Q: What was the distinguishing mark?
A: The sachet of shabu which was confiscated in [sic] the buy bust operation was marked by
burning two ends of the plastic sachet, sir.
Q: If you will be shown this [sic] specimen[s] can you identify them?
A: Yes sir.
Q: x x x will you please look at these specimens Mr. Witness and tell this Honorable Court what
relation has the specimens to the eight (8) plastic sachets that were confiscated from accused
Reyman Endaya after his arrest?
A: These eight (8) sachets of shabu were confiscated when we searched him sir.
xxxx

Q: How about the plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya sold to your buyer in the buy
bust operation?
A: This sachet which was burned on both two (2) corners sir.49 (Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing narration was again supported by the statements of PO2 Chavez in his testimony
dated 1 September 2004. Thus:
[PROSECUTOR] When you returnedto the police station after conducting the buy-bust
operation, do you know the whereabouts of that thing which was handed by Reyman Endaya to
your poseur buyer?
[PO2 CHAVEZ] Yes, sir.
Q: Where was it?
A: It is in my possession, sir.
Q: When did you take custody of that?
A: When we arrested Reyman Endayaat the place of the incident, he handed it to me, sir.
Q: Who handed that thing to you?
A: The poseur buyer, sir.
Q: What is that thing?
A: The item which he was able to buy, the shabu, sir.
xxxx
Q: How about the sachet of shabu which your asset was able to buy from Reyman Endaya and
this sachet of shabu which was handed to you at the place of the buy-bust operation. Can you
identify that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How about the other eight (8) sachets which you recovered from the wallet of Reyman
Endaya at the police station. Can you identify those eight (8) sachets?
A: Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q: Can you tell the Court which one of these nine (9) sachets was the one bought by the poseur
buyer from Reyman Endaya?
A: This one, sir. (Witness pointing to the sachet of shabu which was previously marked as
Exhibit H.)
Q; Why are you sure that this is the one that was bought by your poseur buyer from Reyman
Endaya?
A: I marked it and I burned a portion of the plastic sachet to distinguish this specimen fromthe
other sachets of shabu which were confiscated from them [sic], sir.

Q: Which is the burned portion in this sachet, Mr. Witness?

A: Here, sir. (Witness pointing tothe burned corner of the plastic sachet.)
xxxx
Q: How about the eight (8) sachets of shabu that were recovered by you from the wallet of
Reyman Endaya when you were already at the police station. Can you recognize those eight (8)
sachets of shabu?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I am showing to you these eight (8) sachets of shabu previously marked as Exhibits "I," "J,"
"K," "L," "M," "N," "O" and "P" during the testimony of SPO4 Muriel Benedicto. What relation
has those eight (8) sachets of shabu to those that you recovered from the wallet of Reyman
Endaya?
A: Those are the shabu which I was able to confiscate from his wallet.
Q: Why do you say so?
A: Because of my initials, sir. (Witness pointing to the initials which appear to be a figure "8"on
the eight (8) sachets of shabu.
Q: In this sachet of shabu which your asset was able to buy from Reyman Endaya, do you have
any marking also here aside from the burned corner of the plastic sachet?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is that?
A: Here, sir. (Witness pointing to the marking which appears to be a figure "8".)50
(Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing testimonies categorically demonstrate that the evidence seized from appellant
were the same ones tested, introduced, and testified to in open court. Both SPO4 Benedicto and
PO2 Chavez were able to identify the drugs with certainty when these were presented in court. In
short, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence.51
Finally, in order to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the prohibited drugs confiscated from
appellant, the respective testimonies of SPO4 Benedicto and PO2 Chavez establish that the
plastic sachet subject of the illegal sale was handed over by the civilian asset acting as poseur
buyer to PO2 Chavez while still at the crime scene. PO2 Chavez continued to be in possession of
the same until they reached the police station where he accomplished the marking thereof. The
eight sachets of shabu in the wallet of appellant, on the other hand, which were found by PO2
Chavez after bodily searching the former at the police station, were likewise marked by PO2
Chavez. Once marked, the itemswere turned over to the police investigator and thereafter, a
letter-request together with the marked sachets was forwarded to the crime laboratory for
examination where the substances inside the plastic sachets tested positive for shabu. These
sachets, with their identifying marks still intact, were then presented in court.
Based on the foregoing, the CA correctly ruled that the chain of custody was unbroken, thereby
ensuring the integrity of the corpus delicti. Unless appellant can show that there was bad faith, ill
will, or tampering with the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been
preserved will be upheld. It is incumbent upon appellant to show that the foregoing
circumstances are attendant in this case to overcome the presumption that the police officers

handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly performed their duties.52 As the
CA correctly found, appellant failed to discharge this burden.
II
Signature of appellant on "Receipt for Property Seized"
inadmissible in evidence
Appellant contends thathe was not assisted by a lawyer when he signed the "Receipt for Property
Seized;"therefore, the document cannot be admitted in evidence against him as his act of signing
the same is a form of confession or admission.
We find merit in appellants contention. There is no showing in the records of this case that
appellant was assisted by a counsel when he signed the "Receipt for Property Seized."
It is settled that the signature of an accused in the receipt of property seized is inadmissible in
evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The signature of the accused on
such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged;53
hence, the constitutional safeguard must be observed.
Nevertheless, as aptly found by the CA, while it is true that appellant signed the receipt of
property seized without the assistance of a counsel, the same only renders inadmissible the
receipt itself.54 Thus, according to the CA:
x x x the evidentiary value of the "Receipt of Property Seized" in the present circumstances is
irrelevant in light of the ample evidence proving [appellants] guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As
[w]e have earlier stated, the prosecution was able to prove that a valid buy-bust operation was
conducted to entrap [appellant]. The testimonies of the arresting police officers clearly
established [the illegal possession] and that the sale of shabu by [appellant] was consummated.
The corpus delicti, which is the shabu, [were] presented in court and confirmed by the other
members of the buy-bust team and they have acknowledged that they were the same drugs
subject of that particular buy-bust operation [and subsequent body search on [appellant].55
III
Sachets of shabu not fruits of poisonous tree; hence,
admissible in evidence against appellant
Appellant continued to crave for acquittal claiming that, assuming without conceding that he had
in factsold and possessed the plastic sachets of shabu, they cannot be admitted in evidence for
being fruits of a poisonous tree, having been obtained after an unlawful arrest and search.
Appellants insistence on the illegalityof his warrantless arrest lacks merit. Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Rules of Court allows a warrantless arrest under any of the following circumstances:
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In this case, the arrest of appellantwas effected under paragraph (a) or what is termed "in
flagrante delicto."56 For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delictounder
paragraph (a) of the afore-quoted Rule, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
of the arresting officer.57
Here, SPO4 Benedicto, SPO2 Babadilla, and PO2 Chavez personally witnessed the exchange
between appellant and the poseur-buyer of the marked money and the plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance which subsequently tested positive for shabu.At the time he was
arrested, therefore, appellant was clearly committing a crime in full view of the buy-bust team.
As held by the CA:
Because [appellant] had been caught in flagrante delictoby the apprehending police officers,
they, as the arresting officers were duty- bound to apprehend the culprit immediately and to
search him for anything that may be used as proof of the commission of the crime. The search,
being an incident of a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for its validity.58
IV
Penalties
Pursuant to Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is
punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity or purity of the
drug involved.
However, since the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by R.A. No. 9346,59
only the penalties of life imprisonment and fine may be imposed.60 The RTC and the CA,
therefore, correctly imposed the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine in the amount of
P500,000.00 on appellant in Criminal Case No. 0099-2003.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, is penalized under Section 11(3),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty(20)
years, plus a fine ranging from three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) if the quantity involved is less than five grams.
Herein appellant was charged withand found to be guilty of illegal possession of eight (8) plastic
sachets of shabu having a total weight of 0.32 gram in Criminal Case No. 0098-2003. Following
the provisions of R.A. No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended, "if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same."61
Hence, the RTC and the CA properly sentenced appellant to suffer imprisonment of 12 years and
one day, as minimum, to 20 years, asmaximum, and fined him P300,000.00, since the said
penalties are within the range of penalties prescribed by the law.62
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 04872 dated 11 May 2012 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-23; Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate
Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Rodi I V. Zalameda concurring.
2 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 1.
3 Records of Criminal Case No. 0099-2003, p. 1.
4 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 5-6; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
5 Id. at 8.
6 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 301; Decision of the RTC.
7 Id.
8 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 10-11; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto and TSN, 1
September 2004, p. 7; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
9 Id. at 11-12.

10 TSN, 1 September 2004, p. 8; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.

11 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 12-13; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto and TSN, 1
September 2004, p. 9; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
12 Id. at 14.
13 Id. at 13.
14 Id. at 14. See also TSN, 1 September 2004, pp. 9-10 and 19; Testimony of PO2
Chavez. 15 TSN, 1 September 2004, pp. 17-20; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
16 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 14-17; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
17 TSN, 14 January 2004, pp. 2-4; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto, pp. 2-4. See also
Exhibits "Q" and "R,"; Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, pp. 245 and 246.
18 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 249; Exhibit "T-1."
19 Id. at 248; Exhibit "T."
20 Id. at 303; Decision of the RTC.
21 TSN, 27, July 2009, pp. 13-14; Testimony of Appellant.
22 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 303; Decision of the RTC.
23 Id.
24 TSN, 27, July 2009, p. 18; Testimony of Appellant.
25 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 304, Decision of the RTC.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 298-306.
28 Id. at 305.
29 Rollo, pp. 11-22; Decision of the CA.
30 Id. at 32-34.
31 Id. at 36-39.
32 People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529-530
citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449; People v.
Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637-638; and People v.
Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, 28 November 2007, 539 SCRA 198, 212.
33 People v. Llanita, G.R. No. 189817, 3 October 2012, 682 SCRA 288, 299 citing
People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 324-325 further
citing People v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, 6 July 2011, 653 SCRA 673, 686.
34 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 6-11; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
35 TSN, 1 September 2004, pp. 7-8; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.

36 People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 189843, 20 March 2013, 694 SCRA 168, 177 citing
People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529.
37 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 12-13; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
38 TSN, 1 September 2004, p. 10; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
39 People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, 19 September 2012, 681 SCRA 414, 424 citing
People v. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 318, 330.
40 People v. Oniza, G.R. No. 202709, 3 July 2013.
41 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 8; Exhibit "A."
42 Id. at 245; Exhibit "R."
43 Id. at 248; Exhibit "T."
44 Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 197207, 13 March 2013, 693 SCRA 468, 475.
45 People v. Bara, G.R. No. 184808, 14 November 2011, 660 SCRA 38, 45 citing People
v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 85 and People v. Teodoro,
G.R. No. 185164, 22 June 2009, 590 SCRA 494, 507 further citing People v. Naquita,
G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 445-446, People v. Del Monte, G.R. No.
179940, 23 April 2008, 552 SCRA, 627, 636, and People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, 31
August 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843.
46 People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, 29 February 2012, 667 SCRA 357, 368 citing
Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, 12 September 2011, 657 SCRA 443, People v.
Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 507, and People v.
Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436.
47 G.R. No. 186390, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783, 795.
48 People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, 21 March 2012, 668 SCRA 827, 835 citing
People v. Salonga, id.
49 TSN, 12 November 2003, pp. 2-4; Additional direct testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
50 TSN, 1 September 2004, pp. 15-20; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
51People v. Cardenas, supra note 48, p. 842.
52 People v. Mendoza, supra, note 46, p. 369 citing People v. Hernandez, G.R. No.
184804, 18 June 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 647.
53 People v. Macabalang, 538 Phil. 136, 162 (2006) citing Juarez v. People, 390 Phil.
805, 813 (2000) further citing People v. Lacbanes, 336 Phil. 933, 942 (1997); People v.
Bandin, G.R. No. 104494, 10 September 1993, 226 SCRA 299, 303; People v. Mirantes,
G.R. No. 92706, 21 May 1992, 209 SCRA 179, 186; People v. Mauyao, G.R. No. 84525,
6 Aril 1992, 207 SCRA 732, 740; People v. De Las Marinas, G.R. No. 87215, 30 April
1991, 196 SCRA 504, 510; People. De Guzman, G.R. No. 86172, 4 March 1991, 194
SCRA 601, 605; People v. Castro, G.R. No. 106583, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 115, 122;
and People v. Morico, 316 Phil. 270, 277 (1995).
54 Id.

55 Rollo, pp. 18-19; Decision of the CA.

56 People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012, 685 SCRA 592, 606.
57 Ambre v. People, G.R. No. 191532, 15 August 2012, 678 SCRA 552, 562 citing
People v. Chua, 444 Phil. 757, 770 (2003).
58 Rollo, p. 20; Decision of the CA.
59 "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines," approved
by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on 24 June 2006.
60 People v. Padua, G.R. No. 174097, 21 July 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 239.
61 Section 1, R.A. No. 4103.
62 People v. Padua, supra note 60 at 239-240.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 203434

July 23, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
MARCELINO VITERBO y REALUBIT and RONALD VITERBO y REALUBIT,
Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision1 dated February 29, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03409 finding accused-appellants Marcelino Viterbo y
Realubit (Marcelino) and Ronald Viterbo y Realubit (Ronald) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,2 otherwise known
as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
On March 4, 2003, a confidential informant (CI) reported to the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Regional Office V that there
were persons peddling illegal drugs in Barangay Tinago, City ofLigao, Albay. Immediately,
Police Senior Inspector Dennis Vargas (PS/Insp. Vargas), a member of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), formed a team composed of six (6) police officers to conduct a
buy-bust operation.3 Senior Police Officer 4 Fernando Cardona (SPO4 Cardona) of the CIDG4
was designated as the poseur-buyer, while Police Officer 2 Leonardo Garcia (PO2 Garcia) and
Police Officer 25 Emerito Zamora (PO2 Zamora) were assigned as arresting officers.6 A 500peso bill was marked with the initials "NL" which was then given to SPO4 Cardona.7
Together with the CI, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area (near the house of the
accused-appellants along Mabini St., Barangay Tinago), and arrived thereat at around 5 oclock
in the afternoon of the same day. SPO4 Cardona and the CI were tasked to negotiate with them,8
while the rest of the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves nearby to observe the
transaction.9
Upon meeting the accused-appellants, the CI introduced SPO4 Cardona, who expressed interest
in buying shabuworth 500.00. As SPO4 Cardona handed the marked money to Marcelino, the
latter told his brother, Ronald, who was standing beside him, to give the shabuto SPO4 Cardona.
Ronald then reached inside his pocket and produced two (2) transparent plastic sachets allegedly
containing shabuwhich he gave to SPO4 Cardona who, upon receipt thereof, executed the prearranged signal by scratching his head. Thereupon, PO2 Garcia and PO2 Zamora immediately
rushed in, apprehended accused-appellants and apprised them of their constitutional rights. SPO4
Cardona kept the two (2) sachets in his possession and, together with the rest of the buy-bust
team, brought accused-appellants, the marked money, and the plastic sachets to the PDEA Office
at Camp General Simeon A. Ola, Legazpi City.10
At the PDEA Office, SPO4 Cardona marked the plastic sachets with "FTC-1" and "FTC-2,"11
respectively, while PS/Insp. Vargas prepared the request for laboratory examination12
(laboratory request) of the substances found in the plastic sachets.13 SPO4 Cardona and another
policeman brought the laboratory request and the plastic sachets to the PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 5, but since no chemist was available that evening, they returned to the PDEA
Office. The following day, or on March 5, 2003, the plastic sachets together with the laboratory
request were brought by another policeman to the same crime laboratory for examination.14
Upon qualitative examination, Police Inspector Josephine Macura Clemen (P/Insp. Clemen), a
forensic chemist, found that the contents of the two (2) plastic sachets submitted for analysis,
which weighed 0.0932 gram and 0.0869 gram, respectively, yielded positive results for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. Her findings were contained in
Chemistry Report No. D-089-0315 dated March 5, 2003.

Subsequently, accused-appellants were charged in an Information16 dated April 10, 2003 for
violation of Section 5, in relation to paragraph (b) of Section 26, Article II of RA 9165, as
follows: That at or about five oclock inthe afternoon of March 4, 2003 at Mabini Street,
Barangay Tinago, City ofLigao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, having in their
possession, custody and control methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu",
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell two heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets with a total weight of 0.1801 gram of shabu, a prohibited drug, to a poseur-buyer in
consideration of the amount ofFIVE HUNDRED PESOS (500.00) without any authority or
permit from the concerned government agency to possess and sell the same.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, accused-appellants, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to the crime
charged.17
In defense, accused-appellants denied the charges against them and claimed that on March 4,
2003, at around 2 oclock in the afternoon, four (4) armed men entered their house in Mabini St.,
Barangay Tinago and introduced themselves as members of the CIDG.18 The CIDG members
then asked Ronald, who had just arrived from Manila early that morning and was then preparing
to return that same afternoon,19 where his brother Marcelino was. When Ronald answered that
hewas Marcelinos brother, he was slapped, mauled, and handcuffed. Thereafter, the men
searched the area and took some of his personal belongings.20 As the group of men dragged
Ronald outside the house, Marcelino arrived. The men asked the latter if he was Marcelino, and
when he answered in the affirmative, they mauled him as well.21 They brought the accusedappellants to Camp General Simeon A. Ola, Legazpi City and, the following day, to the Office of
the City Prosecutor.22
The RTC Ruling
In a Judgment23 dated March 24, 2008, the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, Branch 14
(RTC), in Crim. Case. No. 4591, convicted accusedappellants as charged and sentenced each of
them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered them to pay a fine in the amount of
P500,000.00.
In convicting accused-appellants, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish the
elements of "drug-pushing," namely: (a) the act of selling, trading, administering, dispensing,
delivering, giving away to another, distributing, dispatching in transit or transporting; (b) any
dangerous drug; and (c) without authority of law. It held that the fact of sale or delivery of the
dangerous drug in two (2) plastic sachets was established through the testimonies of SPO4
Cardona, the poseur-buyer, and PO2 Garcia and PO2 Zamora, the arresting officers.24 Moreover,
the RTC found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were clear and substantially
straightforward, bereft of any evidence of improper or corrupt motives.25 Corollarily, the lack of
a written physical inventory, as required under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, did not affect
the prosecutions case, as it is a formal requirement intended merelyto ensure the regularity of
the buybust operation. Its absence alone cannot impede the case considering that the essential
elements of the crime had been established.26
On the other hand, the RTC refused to give credence to the defense offered by accusedappellants, findingtheir testimonies regarding their alleged mauling and unlawful arrest to be
highly doubtful. It pointed out that no complaint had been filed nor did the accused-appellants
family seek the help of the police authorities, which runs counter to the reaction of "persons
whose loved-ones have been recent victims of a brutal police frame-up or illegal arrest."27
Aggrieved, accused-appellants elevatedthe case to the CA, asserting that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses contained material inconsistencies with respect to the specific moment
when SPO4 Cardona made the pre-arranged signal to indicate that the transaction had been
consummated, and that the prosecution failed to present the original money bill used for the sale,

presenting only the photocopy instead.28 Likewise, they argued that the identity of the illegal
drugs allegedly confiscated from them was not established with moral certainty, in the absence of
a physical inventory or photographs thereof. They insisted that the drugs were not marked at the
place where they were supposedly seized; hence, the chain of custody thereof was not clearly
established. They therefore concluded that these circumstances cast serious doubt that a sale of
illegal drugs transpired.29
The CA Ruling
In a Decision30 dated February 29, 2012, the CA affirmed accusedappellants conviction, finding
that SPO4 Cardonas positive identification of them as the sellers of shabuduring the conduct of
the buy-bust operation prevails over their defense of denial, which was inherently weak.31
Debunking accused-appellants argument that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, the CA held that the purported inconsistencies even strengthened rather
than diminished the prosecutions case as they erased suspicions of a rehearsed testimony.32
Neither did the failure of the prosecution to present the original money bill used in the
transaction affectits case, considering that the illegal drugs subject of the buy-bust operation
were duly presented and identified in court.33
Finally, the CA held that the failure of the buy-bust team to conduct a physical inventory as well
as take photographs of the confiscated items, as required under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165,
was not fatal for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items were properly
preserved, which it found to be so in this case. Likewise, the marking of the items at the PDEA
Office instead of the place of confiscation is of no moment, as "marking" also contemplates one
made atthe nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. The CA also found that
there was no break in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs.34
Dissatisfied, accused-appellants are now before the Court praying for their acquittal through the
instant appeal.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue to be resolved bythe Court is whether or not accusedappellants are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
The Courts Ruling
The appeal has merit.
In every prosecution for illegal saleof dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165,
the following elements must concur: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.35 As the dangerous
drug itself forms an integral and key part of the corpus delictiof the crime, it is therefore essential
that the identity ofthe prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt.36 Thus, the
prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous
drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court as
proof of the corpus delicti.37 Elucidating on the custodial chain process, the Court, in the case of
People v. Cervantes,38 held:
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
the proponent claims it to be. In context,this would ideally include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in
such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in

which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. x
x x.39
The chain of custody requirement"ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the
evidence are minimized ifnot altogether removed."40
In relation thereto, Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure on the chain of
custody ofconfiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, viz.:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
PlantSources 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.
xxxx
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations state:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative orcounsel, 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
properlypreserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render
the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when (a) there is a
justifiable ground for such noncompliance, and(b) the integrity and evidentiaryvalue of the
seized items are properly preserved.41 Hence, any divergence from the prescribed procedure
must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
items.

A punctilious examination of the records in this case shows that the prosecution failed to
establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from the accused-appellants,
militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
SPO4 Cardona, the poseur-buyer who transacted with accused- appellants, testified that he kept
inhis possession and custody the two (2) plastic sachets containing the illegal substance from the
time they were confiscated up to the time that he marked them in the PDEA Office. Together
with a companion, he brought the confiscated itemsas well as the laboratory request to the PNP
Regional Crime Laboratory Office 5 in Camp General Simeon A. Ola, Legazpi Cityon the
evening of March 4, 2003. However, he was unable todeliver the confiscated items and the
laboratory request because he was informed thatthere was no chemist to conduct the examination
at the time. As such, he decided to return to the PDEA Office, bringing with him the items and
the laboratory request. The following day, someone else delivered the confiscateditems and the
laboratory request to the crime laboratory. On direct examination, SPO4 Cardona testified:42
PROSECUTOR VASQUEZ:
xxxx
Q: Now, who brought that request to the PNP Crime Laboratory together with the alleged shabu?
SPO4 CARDONA:
A: At that time when we brought that request together with the item, I was with another person
but I could not remember anymore the said person because during that time I was already tired.
Q: What time did you go to the Crime Laboratory, what time?
A: Around 7:30.
Q: Were you able to deliver the request as well as the suspected methamphetamine
hydrochloride?
A: We were not able to give the item together with the request letter because no one was there
anymore although there were people there but the chemist was no longer there. So, we have to
return back the following morning.
Q: You mean, the persons who were inside the Crime Laboratory were not authorized to receive
the request?
A: They were authorized to do that however, during that time the chemist was not there.
Q: You said that the following morning you returned back to the PNP Crime Laboratory, that was
already March 5 because you conducted the buy-bust operation March 4, is it not?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: What time did you go back to the Crime Laboratory?
A: More or less 9:00 oclock in the morning.
Q: And who was the person who delivered the request as well as the substance to be examined?
A: The following day, I did not have any participation in the handing over of the request as well
as the alleged shabu. It was member of the PDEA and CIDG who brought said request and
alleged shabuto the Crime Laboratory.
Q: Now, you were not one of those who brought the request as well as the suspected drug?

A: Yes. That night when we went there, I was there together with another person but the
following day, I was not with them anymore.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Hence, while SPO4 Cardona initially had custody of the seized items prior to its turnover to the
crime laboratory, it is clear that he had already relinquished possession thereof to another person
and thathe was not the person who successfully delivered them to the crime laboratory. His
testimony on cross-examination is revelatory:43
ATTY. BARREDA:
xxxx
Q: From the Crime Laboratory, you were still in possession of the specimens, is that correct?
SPO4 CARDONA:
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Then you went back to the PDEA Office at Camp Ola, is that correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: When you arrived at the PDEA Office at Camp Ola, you were still in possession of the two
(2) plastic sachets, is that correct?
A: Yes, Sir after that I turned it over to the PDEA member.
Q: To whom did you turn over that particular specimens?
A: Captain Vargas.
Q: So, Captain Vargas was in possession of the two (2) plastic sachets after you turned it over to
him?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Did Captain Vargas issue any receipt to you acknowledging receipt of those two specimens?
A: No, Sir.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing testimony, it is clear that the confiscated items changed hands before they
were delivered to the crime laboratory, i.e., from SPO4 Cardona to "Captain Vargas" who,
unfortunately, did not testify in this case in order to shed light onwhat happened to the seized
items when they were turned over to his possession, or at the very least, to clarify if he was the
person who successfully delivered the plastic sachets together with the laboratoryrequest to the
crime laboratory. His testimony in this regard is significant, considering that the laboratory
request,44 on its lower left portion, reflects that it was delivered by a certain "PO2 Zamora" who,
the Court notes, was likewise not presented in court to explain his role in the chain of custody of
the seized items. What was established, instead, was that the seized items and the laboratory
request were received by the clerk of the crime laboratory, who turned them over to P/Insp.
Clemen, the forensic chemist who performed the qualitative examination on the substances. Part
ofP/Insp. Clemens testimony on direct examination reads:45

PROSECUTOR VASQUEZ:
Q: Now, can you tell this Honorable Court how it came about that you were, that you came in
possession of these two (2) specimens submitted to you for chemical examination?
P/INSP. CLEMEN:
A: It was given to me by the duty receiving clerk on that day in the person of Ofelia Garcia, Sir.
Q: When you said receiving clerk, which office are you referring to?
A: Receiving clerk of our office, Regional Crime Laboratory, Region V.
xxxx
Q: All right. Now, was there any information relayed to you by the receiving clerk regarding
these two (2) plastic sachets, these specimens?
A: Yes, Sir. She told me that she received the specimens and she turned it over to me together
with the letter request coming from the PDEA of Region V, Sir.
Q: Why, what do you mean by PDEA?
A: Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Q: All right. Who was the signatory of that letter requesting you for chemical examination?
A: It was Dennis Vargas.
xxxx
Likewise, the following transpired during P/Insp. Clemens crossexamination:46
ATTY. BARREDA: Now, again Madam Witness, the specimens, specimen A as well as B were
turned over toyour office not directly, rather were turned over to you by the requesting party, am
I right?
P/INSP. CLEMEN:
A: By the receiving clerk, Sir.
Q: No, I mean the specimens A and B were turned over to you by the requesting party?
PROSECUTOR VASQUEZ: Whatdo you mean by requesting party?
P/INSP. CLEMEN:
A: But not directly turned over to me by the
PROSECUTOR VASQUEZ: What do you mean by requesting party? The one requested for the
chemical examination?
ATTY. BARREDA: The party who requested for the chemical examination of the specimens.
PROSECUTOR VASQUEZ: Well, according to the witness from the PDEA.
ATTY. BARREDA: Precisely, Your Honor I am asking the witness whether her office received
the specimens from the requesting party.
PROSECUTOR VASQUEZ: Obviously there was already an answer. The specimen was turned

over by the PDEA to the receiving clerk. The receiving clerk gave it to her for examination.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing testimonies, therefore, it has been established that P/Insp. Clemen
received the plastic sachets from their clerk, Ofelia Garcia (Garcia), who, in turn, accepted it
together with the laboratory request from a representative of the PDEA. However, the records are
devoid of evidence to indicate the PDEA member/agent who specifically delivered the items to
her.
Clearly, while the custodial link began and ended with SPO4 Cardona, there were substantial
gaps in the chain of custody of the seized items, particularly the events that transpired from the
time the items left the hands of SPO4 Cardona on the night of March 4, 2003 and turned over to
the possession of "Captain Vargas," as well as the identity of the PDEA agent who brought them
together with the laboratory request to Garcia, the receiving clerk of the crime laboratory, in the
morning of the following day. While the laboratory request was prepared and signed by PS/Insp.
Vargas, whom the Court reasonably presumes to be the same "Captain Vargas" referred to in
SPO4 Cardonas testimony, there is dearth of evidence showing that he was the same person who
brought the items to Garcia, taking into consideration the fact that the laboratory request
accompanying the items was signed/delivered by "PO2 Zamora." These are crucial missing links
in this case which should have been clearly accounted for in order to establish the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items.
The prosecutions case is further weakened by the fact that the seized items were delivered not
on the same day of the buy-bust operation, but only the following day. To the Courts mind, the
considerable amount of time that had transpired from the conduct of the buy-bust operation until
the same were brought for laboratory examination, especially when viewed together with the
above-mentioned considerations, figures into a gaping hiatus in the chain of custody of the said
items, which is extremely fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
Thus, in the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there exists reasonable doubt on the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items, necessitating therefor strict compliance
with the provisions of Section 21, Article II ofRA 9165. As it has been established that there was
non-compliance with its provisions, i.e.,that there was no physical inventory or photographs of
the seized evidence, nor was there any representative from the media, or the Department of
Justice, or any elected public official present during the subject seizure and confiscation, it is
therefore clear that the identity of the prohibited drugs had not been established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt, hence, rendering improper accused-appellants conviction. Verily, the
presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of
proving with moral certainty that they are the same seized items.47 Failing in which, the
acquittal of the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right.48
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. Accused-appellants Marcelino Viterbo y Realubit and
Ronald Viterbo yRealubit are hereby ACQUITTEDof the crime of violation of Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause their
immediate release, unless they are being lawfully held for any other cause. Accordingly, the
Decision dated February 29, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03409 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate
Justices Japar 8. Dimaampao and Agnes Reyes-Carpio, concurring.
2 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
3 Rollo, p. 3.
4 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), November 27, 2003, p. 7.
5 "Police Officer 3" in some parts of the records.
6 Id. at 8-10.
7 TSN, November 27, 2003, p. 22; TSN, August 17, 2005, pp. 6-7.
8 TSN, November 27, 2003, p. 12.
9 Id. at 16.
10 Id. at 14-17, 24-25, and 36-37; rollo, p. 4.

11 Id. at 31.
12 Records, p. 7.
13 Rollo, p. 4.
14 See CA rollo, p. 86.
15 Records, p. 9.
16 Id. at 50-51.
17 Id. at 70.
18 See TSN, January 17, 2007, pp. 8-10.
19 See id. at 6-8.
20 See id. at 10-12.
21 See id. at 13-15.
22 See id. at 15-18.
23 CA rollo, pp. 29-46. Penned by Presiding Judge Edwin C. Ma-alat.
24 Id. at 42.
25 Id. at 43.
26 Id.
27 See id. at 44-45.
28 Brief for the Accused-Appellant; id. at 73-75.
29 See id. at 75-78.
30 Rollo, pp. 2-13.
31 Id. at 7.
32 Id. at 8.
33 See id. at 9.
34 See id. at 10-11.
35 People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 683, 697.
36 Id.
37 See People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 188107, December 5,2012, 687 SCRA 318, 329.
38 600 Phil. 819 (2009).

39 Id. at 836.
40 People v. Adrid, supra note 35, at 697.
41 People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 791, 813.
42 TSN, November 27, 2003, pp. 18-20.
43 Id. at 30-31.
44 Records, p. 7.
45 TSN, September 18, 2003, pp. 13-14.
46 TSN, September 18, 2003, pp. 21-22.
47 See People v. Almorfe, G.R No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 61.
48 See Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 207664

June 25, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
GIL SALVIDAR y GARLAN, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
For review1 is the Decision2 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 31, 2012 in CAG.R. CR-HC No. 04989 affirming, albeit with modification as to the wordings of one of the
penalties imposed, the Decision3 dated April 11, 2011 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Case Nos. C-78532-33, convicting Gil Salvidar y Garlan
(accused-appellant) for violation of Sections 54 and 11,5 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165.6
Factual Antecedents
The informations filed before the RTC against the accused-appellant partially read as follows:
CRIM
CASE
Violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165

NO.

78532

"That on or about the 12th day of November 2007 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 PO3 RAMON GALVEZ,
who posed, as buyer, ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing dried
MARIJUANA fruiting tops weighing 0.37 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.40 gram, 0.28 gram, 0.35 gram,
0.36 gram, 0.32 gram, 0.36 gram, 0.67 gram & 0.57 gram, a dangerous drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription therefore, knowing the same to be such.
Contrary to law."
CRIM
CASE
Violation of Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165

NO.

78533

"That on or about the 12th day of November 2007, 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 one (1) transparent plastic box containing dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops weighing
29.01 grams, when subjected for laboratory examination gave positive result to the tests of
Marijuana, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law."7
During arraignment, the accused-appellant entered a "not guilty" plea. Pre-trial then ensued.
Since the two cases were filed against the same accused and revolve around the same facts and
evidence, they were consolidated and tried jointly.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution offered the following as witnesses: (a) Police Officer 3 Ramon Galvez (PO3
Galvez), the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against the accused-appellant; (b)
PO2 Randulfo Hipolito (PO2 Hipolito), likewise a member of the buy-bust operation; (c) Senior

Police Officer 1 Fernando Moran (SPO1 Moran), then the investigator-on-duty to whom the
accused-appellant and the seized evidence were turned over at the police station; and (d) Police
Chief Inspector Albert S. Arturo (PCI Arturo), Forensic Chemical Officer of the Northern Police
District Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City, who conducted the examination on the
evidence seized from the accused-appellant.
PO3 Galvez testified that on November 12, 2007, he was ordered by their chief to conduct a
surveillance operation to verify reported illegal drug selling activities in Don Antonio Street,
Barangay19, Caloocan City. A confidential informant told the police that a certain "Keempee,"
who would later on be identified as the herein accused-appellant, was notoriously selling
marijuanain the area. A buy-bust team was thereafter formed. PO3 Galvez was designated as the
poseur-buyer, PO3 Fernando Modina (PO3 Modina) as team leader, and PO2 Hipolito as back-up
member. A hundred peso bill, marked with PO3 Galvezs initials, was prepared. To send a signal
to the other members of the buy-bust team of the consummation of the transaction with the
accused-appellant, PO3 Galvez was instructed to throw a lit cigarette.8
The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. PO3 Galvez and the informant saw the accusedappellant near the front door of his house, stripping marijuana leaves. The rest of the team
remained in the perimeter. PO3 Galvez approached the house, uttered "Keempee, pakuha nga ng
damo, halagang isang daan," and gave the latter the 100.00 marked money. The accusedappellant then held ten (10) pieces of plastic, which appeared to contain marijuana and white
pieces of paper, placed them inside a Marlboro pack, and handed them all to PO3 Galvez. When
PO3 Galvez threw a lit cigarette, PO2 Hipolito joined him in arresting the accused-appellant,
who was apprised of his constitutional rights. After a further search, one transparent plastic box
containing what likewise appeared to be dried marijuana leaves, one plastic sachet with white
pieces of paper, and a few empty transparent plastic sachets were also seized from the accusedappellant.9
PO3 Galvez marked the ten (10) plastic sachets with "GSG/RG 11/12/07" representing his and
the accused-appellants initials and the date the imprint was made. The rest of the items seized
were marked with "GSG/RH," the last two letters representing PO2 Hipolitos initials. The
accused-appellant and the seized items were thereafter taken to the police station and turned over
to SPO1 Moran, who prepared the letter request for laboratory examination. The crime
laboratory tested the seized items and found the same to be marijuana.10
PO2 Hipolito corroborated PO3 Galvezs testimony about the conduct of a buy-bust operation
and the turnover of the accused-appellant and the seized items to the investigator at the police
station. Additionally, PO2 Hipolito stated that he held the accused-appellant whilePO3 Galvez
was marking some of the seized items. The accused-appellant was turned over to PO3 Modina
upon the latters arrival, while PO2 Hipolito marked the rest of the seized items.11
The prosecution and the defense entered into stipulations and admissions of facts anent:
(a) SPO1 Morans (1) having caused the buy-bust money to be photographed; (2) receipt,
while at the police station, of the person of the accused-appellant and the items allegedly
seized from him; (3) preparation of the evidence acknowledgment receipt, affidavit of
arrest of the police officers, and referral slip to the inquest prosecutor; (4) preparation of a
letter request for laboratory examination of the seized items; and (5) receipt of the result
of the laboratory examination, which yielded positive for marijuana;12 and
(b) PCI Arturos (1) receipt of a letter request for laboratory examination of ten (10) heatsealed transparent plastic sachets containing white pieces of paper and dried marijuana
fruiting/flowering tops; (2) conduct of a laboratory examination Science Report No. D382-07 stating therein the result of the laboratory examination.13
The testimonies of SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo were thus dispensed with.

Version of the Defense

The defense, on its part, offered the testimonies of the accused-appellant and his son, Guillar
Salvidar (Guillar).
The accused-appellant claimed that contrary to the prosecutions statements, he was instead
arrested at around 4:00 p.m. of November 11, 2007. While playing a video game with Guillar, he
stood up to get snacks for the latter. Several men arrived, brought him to their vehicle, and
handcuffed him. He was subsequently asked to reveal the identities of big time drug pushers in
the area. The accused-appellant was unable to comply with the order and was brought to the
Sangandaan precinct. The men, who seized the accused-appellant, turned out to be police
officers. PO3 Galvez and SPO1 Moran belonged to the group. They inquired from him about his
and his wifes employment. The men then asked him to settle the case for 30,000.00. He told
them that he did not have money. When his wife arrived, she argued with the police officers. The
officers got angry and informed him that he would be indicted.14
Guillar corroborated the accused-appellants testimony about the date of the arrest and their
whereabouts at that time. He added that three policemen arrived. They dragged his father out of
the video game shop and the latter, in turn, resisted. Guillar cried while he chased his father who
was taken away, but the formers attempt was futile. Guillar went home to inform his mother
about the incident.15
Ruling of the RTC
On April 11, 2011, the RTC rendered a decision,16 the dispositive portion of which reads:
Premises considered, this court finds and so holds the accused Gil Salvidar y Garlan GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of [R.A. No. 9165], x x x
and imposes upon him the following:
(1) In Crim. Case No. C-78532, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]500,000.00); and
(2) In Crim. Case No. C-78533, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
([P]300,000.00).
The drugs subject matter of these cases consisting of ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets each containing dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops weighing 0.37 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.40
gram, 0.28 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.36 gram, 0.32 gram, 0.36 gram, 0.67 gram & 0.57 gram[,] as well
as the one (1) transparent plastic box containing dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops weighing
29.01 grams[,] are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in
accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.17
The RTC found the accused-appellants defense of denial and claim of attempted police extortion
as bare, hence, unmeritorious. The trial court declared that the testimonies of the members of the
buy-bust team deserve full faith and credit, unless it can be shown that they did not properly
perform their duties, or that they were inspired by ill motives. The accused-appellant, in this
case, did not personally know the policemen and had no previous altercation with any of them,
which could have otherwise prompted the filing of fabricated charges against him. Besides, the
police officers could not have been oblivious of the fact that Section 29 of R.A. No. 9165
imposes the penalty of death upon persons found guilty of planting dangerous drugs as
evidence.18

Citing People v. Cueno19 and People v. Rigodon,20 the RTC emphasized that only two basic
elements must be present for the charge of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, namely: (a) the
determination of the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and
(b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In the case at bar, PO3 Galvez gave a
detailed account of how the sale involving the accused-appellant was consummated and his
testimony was corroborated by PO2 Hipolito. The seized items were also positively identified
and the unbroken chain of custody over the same was established.21
The Parties Arguments Before the CA and its Ruling
The accused-appellant challenged the above ruling before the CA claiming that the prosecutions
version of what transpired was highly incredible. The members of the buy-bust team narrated
that the accused-appellant was packing and selling his illegal merchandise in public view. This,
however, is improbable and contrary to common experience.22
The accused-appellant also alleged that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of
custody over the evidence. There was no explicit testimony that the specimens were marked in
the presence of the accused-appellant. There was likewise no proof that the items were
photographed and inventoried in the presence of a member of the media, a Department of Justice
(DOJ) representative, and an elective government official.23
Further, not all who had custody of the specimens testified on the condition of the same upon
receipt and the precautions they took to preserve their integrity. It is perplexing as well why
SPO1 Moran delivered the seized items twice to the crime laboratory at first to a certain PO1
Bolora at 9:40 p.m. of November 12, 2007, and subsequently to PCI Arturo at 9:45 p.m. of the
same date. While PO1 Boloras custody over the seized items merely lasted for a few minutes,
still, he should have testified because that short span of time was more than sufficient to destroy
the integrity of the evidence.24
Admittedly, there are exceptions to the strict implementation of the rules and procedures
mandated by R.A. No. 9165. However, the prosecution should have, at the outset, recognized the
procedural lapses and cite justifiable grounds for the omissions, failing at which, a taint of doubt
is cast upon the presumption that official duties have been performed with regularity.25 The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the appeal arguing that drug pushers have become
more daring in selling their wares without regard for place and time.26
The prosecution had likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal sale of ten (10)
plastic sachets containing marijuana was consummated and the accused-appellant was the
vendor. The same ten (10) plastic sachets were seized from the accused-appellant, then later on,
identified and offered as evidence during the trial. PO3 Galvez and PO2 Hipolito had testified in
detail about the conduct of the buy-bust operation, including the markings done on the plastic
sachets and transparent box seized from the accused-appellant in the place where he was
arrested, and no irregularity can be ascribed as to the concerned police officers performance of
duties.27
On October 31, 2012, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision, the dispositive portion of
which states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan
City, Br. 120 in 1) Crim. Case No. C-78532 sentencing the Accused-Appellant to suffer life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos(PhP500,000.00) is
AFFIRMED; and, 2) Crim. Case No. C-78533 is likewise AFFIRMED but with
MODIFICATION as to the penalty imposed in that the Accused-Appellant is sentenced to suffer
an indeterminate penalty of Twelve(12) years and One(1) day, as minimum, to Fourteen(14)
years, as maximum. Costs against the Accused-Appellant.
SO ORDERED.28

In affirming the accused-appellants conviction, the CA cited the following grounds:

Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs, it is material to prove that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the evidence of
corpus delicti. Said otherwise, the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs are: 1)the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and 2) he knew that
what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.
In the instant case, PO3 Galvez[s] testimony proves that the sale of illegal drugs actually took
place. x x x [T]he Accused-Appellant was caught in a buy-bust operation freely and knowingly
selling and delivering prohibited drugs. x x x.
x x x The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused-Appellant
committed the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It was able to prove the following
elements: 1) the accused is in possession of an object identified as a prohibited drug; 2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and, 3) he freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
The records manifestly show that, after the buy-bust team arrested the Accused-Appellant, the
procedural body search was conducted on his person. The search led to the discovery of one (1)
transparent plastic box containing an undetermined amount of suspected dried marijuana
leaves(later weighed at 29.01 grams), which he freely possessed knowing the same to be
prohibited drugs. After the conduct of laboratory examinations, the same yielded positive for
marijuana. Further, he failed to present any document authorizing him by law to possess the
same. x x x.
The Accused-Appellants allegation that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and prove
the identity of the seized drugs, holds no water.
In all cases involving the handling and custody of dangerous drugs, the police officers are guided
by Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165. The language of the
foregoing provision shows that the failure of the police officers to strictly comply with it is not
fatal and does not render the evidence adduced against the Accused-Appellant void and
inadmissible. What is important 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.
At bench, there was compliance with the said provision and the integrity of the drugs confiscated
from the Accused-Appellant remained intact. The chain of custody of the seized drugs, later on
determined to be marijuana, was not shown to have been broken. The records show that, after
PO3 Galvez bought ten(10) pieces of plastic sachets suspected of containing marijuana, the
Accused-Appellant was bodily searched and found to be in possession of one(1) transparent
plastic box containing an undetermined amount of suspected dried marijuana leaves.
Immediately thereafter, the confiscated drugs were marked with the initials "GSG/RG 11/12/07"
and "GSG/RH" and inventoried at the place of arrest and in the presence of the AccusedAppellant. PO3 Galvez and PO2 Hipolito then brought the Accused-Appellant to the Sangandaan
police station where the same were turned over to SPO1 Moran. Thereafter, the latter prepared
the Evidence Acknowledgment Receipt and the letter-request for laboratory examination of the
seized substances for determination of the presence of any dangerous drugs. PCI Arturo
conducted the laboratory test and found them positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug.
What is more, during the trial, PO3 Galvez and PO2 Hipolito were able to positively identify all
the plastic sachets containing marijuana with markings "GSG/RG 11/12/07" and "GSG/RH" as
the same ones that they confiscated from the Accused-Appellant. x x x.
In comparison to the prosecutions evidence, all that the Accused- Appellant could raise is the
defense of denial.1wphi1 x x x The defense of denial in drug cases requires strong and
convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the

regular performance of their official duties. Bare denial of the Accused-Appellant cannot prevail
over the positive testimony of the prosecution witness. x x x.
The Accused-Appellants allegation that the police officers were exacting Thirty Thousand
Pesos(PhP30,000.00) from him has no basis. Other than his bare allegations, unsupported by
concrete proof, We cannot give such imputation a second look.29 (Citations omitted)
The CA modified the wordings of the penalty imposed by the RTC on the accused-appellant for
violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165. The CA emphasized that the Indeterminate Sentence
Law should be applied. Consequently, the proper penalty should be "expressed at a range whose
maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the special law, and the minimum term
shall not be less than the minimum prescribed."30
Issues
The accused-appellant and the OSG both manifested that they no longer intended to file
supplemental briefs.31
Hence, the issues before this Court are the same ones raised before and disposed of by the CA.
Essentially then, the Court is once again asked to determine whether or not: (a) the testimonies of
the members of the buy-bust team about the accused-appellants illegal selling activities and
possession of marijuana while the latter was at the front door of his house and within public view
are credible; and (b) the prosecution had complied with the procedural requirements mandated
by Section 2132 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 as regards
the chain of custody over the evidence seized from the accused-appellant.
Ruling of the Court
The instant appeal lacks merit.
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to rely heavily
on the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses, because the latter had the unique
opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. Hence, its factual findings are
accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and
substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or
misapplied.33
In the instant appeal, the RTC and CA uniformly found that PO3 Galvezs and PO2 Hipolitos
testimonies anent the conduct of the buy-bust operation were categorical, detailed, and
credible.34 Moreover, the accused-appellant had not ascribed any ill motive against the two
police officers which could have otherwise induced them to fabricate the charges.
As the first issue, the accused-appellant claimed that it was highly improbable for him to peddle
and possess marijuana right in front of his house and within public view. This allegation fails to
persuade especially in the light of the courts observation that of late, drug pushers have turned
more daring and defiant in the conduct of their illegal activities.35
Anent the second issue, the Court finds the chain of custody over the evidence seized from the
accused-appellant as unbroken and that there was sufficient compliance with Section 21 of the
IRR of R.A. No. 9165.
PO3 Galvez positively testified that he marked the ten (10) plastic sachets containing marijuana
and the pieces of white paper while still in the place where the accused-appellant was arrested,
and in the presence of the latter.36 PO2 Hipolito did the same relative to the plastic container
with marijuana likewise found in the accused-appellants possession.37 When the members of
the buy-bust team arrived in the police station, they turned-over the person of the accused-

appellant and the items seized from him to SPO1 Moran, who in turn, prepared the Evidence
Acknowledgment Receipt and letter request for laboratory examination.38 Thereafter, PCI
Arturo conducted the laboratory examinations and found the specimens to be marijuana.39 These
were the same items identified by the prosecution witnesses and presented to the trial court as
evidence.
The accused-appellant lamented that the evidence seized were not photographed and inventoried
in the presence of a member of the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elective
government official. While this factual allegation is admitted, the Court stresses that what
Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 requires is "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect
adherence,"40 as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.41
The accused-appellant attempted to establish that there was a breach in the chain of custody over
the evidence seized from him by pointing out that SPO1 Moran twice delivered the items to the
crime laboratory at first to a certain PO1 Bolora and later, to PCI Arturo.42 The Court notes
that despite the foregoing allegation, the defense agreed with the prosecution to dispense with the
testimonies of SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo. The parties entered into stipulations and admissions
of facts as regards the participation of the aforementioned two. This is no less than an admission
on the part of the defense that there was nothing irregular in SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturos
performance of their duties relative to preserving the integrity of the evidence which fell in their
custody. Had the accused-appellant sincerely believed that there was indeed a breach in the chain
of custody over the seized items, he would have insisted on putting SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo
on the witness stand for cross-examination.1wphi1
In sum, the Court finds the herein assailed decision affirming the RTCs conviction of the
accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 as amply
supported by both evidence and jurisprudence. The Court agrees as well with the CA in its
modification of the wordings of the penalty imposed on the accused-appellant for violation of the
above-mentioned Section 11, as the same is mandated by Section 1 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 31, 2012
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04989 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Please see the Notice of Appeal filed with the Court of Appeals by the Public Attorney's
Office, rollo, pp. 20-21.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Remedios
A. Salazar-Fernando and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 115-132.
3 Issued by Presiding Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.; id. at 18-28.
4 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 ([P]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos ([P]10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
5xxxx
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos ([P]500,000.00) to
Ten million pesos ([P]10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
x x x x (7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
xxxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
x x x x (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos ([P]300,000.00) to
Four hundred thousand pesos ([P]400,000.00), 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 "ecstasy", 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.
6 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

7 CA rollo, pp. 18-19.

8 Id. at 20, 118-119.
9 Id. at 20-21, 119-120.
10 Id. at 120.
11 Id. at 21, 120.
12 Id. at 21-22.
13 Id. at 19-20.
14 Id. at 22-23, 120-121.
15 Id. at 23, 121.
16 Id. at 18-28.
17 Id. at 27-28.
18 Id. at 24-26.
19 359 Phil. 151 (1998).
20 G.R. No. 111888, November 8, 1994, 238 SCRA 27.
21 CA rollo, pp. 26-27.
22 Id. at 43-44.
23 Id. at 45.
24 Id. at 47-48.
25 Id. at 51-52.
26 Id. at 79.
27 Id. at 79-103.
28 Id. at 131.
29 Id. at 124-129.
30 Id. at 130-131, citing Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides:
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the
Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view
of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the
said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished
by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by

said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by
the same.
31 Rollo, pp. 31-32, 26-28.
32 SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that
noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items[.]
33 People v. De Mesa, G.R. No. 188570, July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 248, 255.
34 Please see PO3 Galvezs testimony, as quoted in the Brief for the Appellee, CA rollo,
pp. 80-90; PO2 Hipolitos testimony, CA rollo, pp. 90-102.
35 Id. at 79.
36 Please seePO3 Galvezs testimony, as quoted in the Brief for the Appellee, id. at 8688.
37 Please seePO2 Hipolitos testimony, as quoted in the Brief for the Appellee, id. at 96100.
38 Id. at 89-90, 101; please also see pp. 21-22.
39 Id. at 19-20.
40 Please see People v. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 433, 440.
41 Please see People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 202,
218.
42 CA rollo, pp. 47-48.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 200915

February 12, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
MERLITA PALOMARES y COSTUNA, Appellant.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the need for police officers involved in buy-bust operations to mark the items
they seize (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon seizure.
The Facts and the Case
On March 21, 2007 the City Public Prosecutor charged the accused-appellant Merlita Palomares
y Costuna (Merlita) with selling prohibited drugs in violation of Section 5,1 Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 before the Regional Trial Court (R TC) of Manila in Criminal Case 07251767.2
PO2 Reynaldo Mallari and PO2 Marvin Flores testified that at around 4:00 p.m. on March 16,
2007 an informant came to their station with the report that a certain Inday Kirat, later identified
as accused Merlita, was selling shabu at Paradise Heights, Balut, Tondo, Manila. PO2 Mallari
relayed this information to their chief who then formed a team composed of PO2 Mallari, PO2
Flores, and PO2 Dranreb Cipriano that would undertake a buy-bust operation with Mallari as
poseur buyer.3 With the marked money ready, the team proceeded to the target place: Unit 52,
Building 8, of Paradise Heights.
After the team deployed, PO2 Mallari and the informant found Merlita outside Unit 52 and in
conversation with a certain Teresa Ortega (Ortega). Mallari approached Merlita who asked him,
"Iskor ka ba friend?"4 Mallari replied, "Dalawang piso lang friend."5 He then handed over the
money to Merlita who pocketed it, went inside the unit, and returned with a white plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance. She handed this over to Mallari. Mallari scratched his
head as a pre-arranged signal to his companions, introduced himself as a policeman, took back
the marked money, and arrested Merlita.
PO2 Flores and PO2 Cipriano came out of hiding and approached Ortega while PO2 Mallari
took accused Merlita downstairs to the police service vehicle and waited for the others to come
down. Mallari retained custody of the plastic sachet he bought from Merlita as well as the buybust money he seized from her. He placed the marking MCP on the sachet and turned it over at
the police station to P/Insp. John Guiagui. The latter in turn prepared the report for laboratory
examination and forwarded the seized items to the crime laboratory on the same day. The
laboratory examination showed that the plastic sachet from Merlita tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Accused Merlita testified that at about 5:00 a.m. on March 16, 2007 she was at her shanty
located at Pier 18, Dumpsite, Vitas, Tondo, with her live-in partner Rolando Palomares when
PO2 Mallari and his companions roused her from sleep. They told her to go with them, she
having been pinpointed by a certain Teresa as selling illegal drugs. Merlita denied the accusation
but went with the police officers to avoid harm. As she came out of her shanty, she saw her
mother-in-law, Teresa Ortega, with other policemen. The police brought the two women to the

police station where they were told to pay P100,000.00 or face an illegal drugs case.6 Rolando
Palomares corroborated Merlitas testimony. Barangay kagawad Louie Lizano testified that he
saw the police officers on the day in question enter Merlitas shanty and arrest her.7
On March 18, 2008, the trial court found Merlita guilty as charged and sentenced her to life
imprisonment with a fine of P500,000.00 and liability for the cost of suit.8 Upon review in CAG.R. CR-HC 03373, the CA rendered judgment9 on June 23, 2011, affirming in full the RTC
Decision, hence, the present appeal to this Court.10
The Issue Presented
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding, like the RTC before it, that the
prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that accused Merlita sold dangerous
drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The Courts Rulings
To secure conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug seized
from the accused must be proved with moral certainty. The prosecution must establish with such
measure of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the
same substance offered as evidence in court.11 Proof of the chain of custody from the time of
seizure to the time such evidence is presented in court ensures the absence of doubt concerning
the integrity of such vital evidence.12 This requires as a minimum that the police mark the seized
item (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation.13
Of course, the Court has ruled that immediate marking could be made at the nearest police
station or office of the apprehending team.14 Here, however, the evidence is unclear as to where
the responsible police officer marked the seized substance and whether it was done in Merlitas
presence.
In fact, it is also not clear from the evidence which police officer did the marking since P02
Mallari and P02 Flores gave conflicting testimonies on this point.15 This uncertainty concerning
a vital element of the crime warrants overturning the judgment of conviction.16
Besides, neither P02 Mallari nor P02 Flores testified that they conducted a physical inventory
and took photos of the article that was seized from Merlita. In fact, their joint affidavit of arrest
made no mention of any inventory taking or photographing of the same.1wphi1 And they did
not bother at all to offer some justification for the omission.17
Parenthetically, barangay kagawad Lizano, an elected public official, testified that he saw the
police officers enter Merlita's shanty and arrest her on the date in question. This testimony from a
neutral party strikes at the heart of the prosecution's theory that they arrested Merlita at Unit 52,
Building 8, of Paradise Heights in Balut, Tondo. Though Merlita's denial and alibi as a defense
are weak, such cannot relieve the prosecution the burden of presenting proof beyond reasonable
doubt that an illegal transaction actually took place.18
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the appeal, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the judgments of
conviction of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03373 dated June 23, 2011 and the
Regional Trial Court of Manila in Criminal Case 07-251767, and ACQUITS accused-appellant
Merlita Palomares y Costuna of the charge of violation of Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act 9165 against her.
The Court ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to immediately RELEASE
accused-appellant from custody, unless she is detained for some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 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 of such transactions.
2 Records, p. 1.
3 TSN, August 29, 2007, p. 4.
4 Id. at 10.
5 Id. at 11.
6 TSN, October 10, 2007, pp. 3-5, 10.
7 TSN, September 17, 2007, pp. 27-31.

8 CA rollo, pp. 56-60.

9 Rollo, pp. 2-9.
10 Id. at 10-11.
11 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013.
12 See Zafra v. People, G.R. No. 190749, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 396, 405.
13 People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013.
14 People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 414, 426.
15 TSN, August 6, 2007, p. 7; TSN, August 29, 2007, p. 14.
16 People v. Clara, G.R. No. 195528, July 4, 2013.
17 People v. Oniza, G.R. No. 202709, July 3, 2013.
18 Id.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 205202

June 9, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
NENITA GAMATA y VALDEZ, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 11, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CR-HC No. 04839 which affirmed the Decision2 dated September 15, 2010 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64 in Criminal Case Nos. 06-1344 to 1345 finding
Nenita Gamata y Valdez (accused-appellant) guilty in Criminal Case 'No. 06-1344 for violating
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The Information in Criminal Case No. 06-1344 to which the accused-appellant pleaded "Not
Guilty" contained the following accusations:
That on or about the 25TH day of July 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and
deliver to another, zero point zero three [0.03] gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
which is a dangerous drug, in exchange of Php.500.00 pesos.3 [sic]
Meanwhile, the information in Criminal Case No. 06-1345 indicted the accused-appellant for
illegal possession of 0.14 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, an act punishable under
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.4 Considering, however, that the accused-appellant was
acquitted by the RTC of such criminal charge, the present discussion shall concern only Criminal
Case No. 06-1344.
During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Police Officer 2 Renie Aseboque (PO2
Aseboque), Noel Pulido (Pulido) and Juan Siborboro, Jr., both operatives of the Makati AntiDrug Abuse Council (MADAC), and Police Inspector May Andrea Bonifacio (P/Insp.
Bonifacio), Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. Their
declarations depicted the following events:
On July 25, 2006, an information was received by Senior Inspector Joefel Felongco Siason
(S/Insp. Siason) of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (SAIDSOTF),
Makati City, from a confidential asset of the MADAC that rampant illegal drug peddling in
Laperal Compound, Barangay Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City was being carried out by the
accused-appellant, Jun Gamata (Jun), Toto Madera and Totoy Pajayjay. Apparently, their names
are also included in the watch list of the MADAC.
Forthwith, a team composed of SAIDSOTF police officers and MADAC operatives was formed
to conduct a buy-bust operation against the said subjects. During the briefing,PO2 Aseboque was
designated as the poseur-buyer while the rest of the team members were assigned to be his backup. The operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) under
Pre-Coordination Sheet Control Number MMRO-072506-0212 duly acknowledged to have been
received by PO1 Nemencio V. Domingo of the PDEA.5 One piece of a 500.00 bill was also
marked for use in the operation.6

At around 4:30 p.m., the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to the subject
area.1wphi1 The team members positioned themselves in spots where they can monitor the
possible transaction. Meanwhile, PO2 Aseboque and the informant walked towards Laperal
Compound and thereupon noticed a woman clad in white t-shirt and maong pants. The informant
identified her to PO2 Aseboque as the accused-appellant.
The two of them then approached the accused-appellant whom PO2 Aseboque queried as to the
whereabouts of Jun. In response, the accused-appellant said that Jun was not around and that
"kami nandito lang, bakit kukuha ba kayo?" PO2 Aseboque comprehended her response as the
street language used in the dealing ofdangerous drugs and that she actually meant that she was
selling shabu if they wanted to buy one. PO2 Aseboque repeated his query to which the accusedappellant replied, "Wag niyo ng hintayin si Jun, ako meron." PO2 Aseboque took her response as
a confirmation that she was indeed selling shabu. He then asked her if she had 500.00 worth of
shabu. The accused-appellant took out one plastic sachet from her right pocket and handed it
over to PO2 Aseboque who in turn examined its contents and thereafter handed the buy-bust
money to the accused-appellant. As she was placing the money inside her pocket, PO2 Aseboque
made the pre-arranged signal to his buy-bust team mates by lighting a cigarette.
Upon seeing MADAC operative Pulido rushing towards the scene, PO2 Aseboque held the
accused-appellant and introduced himself as a police officer. He directed her to empty the
contents of her pockets but she refused. This prompted PO2 Aseboque to order Pulido to dig into
the accused-appellants pockets. Pulido complied and discovered three more pieces of
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu along with
the buy-bust money and 120.00 of the accused-appellants personal money.
The accused-appellant was then informed of her constitutional rights while the sachet she sold to
PO2 Aseboque was immediately marked by the latter with his initials "REA" while those
recovered by Pulido were marked with "REA-1", "REA-2", and "REA-3". At the crime scene,
PO2 Aseboque also prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt7 which he and the arresting team
signed.
The accused-appellant and the seized evidence were subsequently brought to the Makati
SAIDSOTF office where they were turned over to PO2 Rafael Castillo (PO2 Castillo) for
investigation, interrogation and proper disposition. At the same office, PO2 Aseboque executed
an Affidavit of Arrest8 and a Supplemental Affidavit.
Along with a Request for Laboratory Examination9 prepared by S/Insp. Siason, Pulido brought
the seized specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The same were received by a certain Relos,
officer of the day, in the presence of Crime Laboratory Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Bonifacio.
P/Insp. Bonifacio conducted the necessary tests on the subject specimens and the results thereof
yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Thereafter, she tagged
each item with tape markings and reduced her findings in Physical Science Report Number D506-06S.10 She then turned over the specimens to the evidence custodian from whom she later
on retrieved them upon the instructions of the prosecutor after the filing of criminal informations
against the accused-appellant.11
The defense refuted all of the above occurrences and claimed, through the testimony of the
accused-appellant, that at around 3:00 p.m. of July 25, 2006, she had just finished taking a bath
when she heard someone banging the door of her house in Laperal Compound. When she opened
the door, five armed men in civilian clothing greeted her and asked for Jun, her brother-in-law.
When she answered them that she did not know Juns whereabouts, they began searching her
house. Since Jun actually resides at about five houses away from hers, the armed men were
unable to locate him at the accused-appellants house. They then handcuffed the accusedappellant and loaded her in a van where she saw her neighbor, Alaw, and a certain Jonalyn
Silvano. The three of them were brought to the SAIDSOTF office where the accused-appellant
was shown items that will be used as evidence against her.12

In a Decision13 dated September 15, 2010,the RTC sustained the prosecutions version and held
that the pieces of evidence submitted established the presence of the elements of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, object and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Both elements were found present in
the poseur-buyers positive identification of the accused-appellant as the person from whom he
was able to purchase P500.00 worth of shabu.
The accused-appellants denial and alibi were rejected for being unsubstantiated. Her imputations
of frame-up to the police officers were likewise found uncorroborated by convincing proof and
thus overthrown by the presumption of regularity attached to the performance of the police
officers official duties.
The RTC disposed thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, [judgment] is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Finding the accused NENITA GAMATA y VALDEZ, GUILTY in Criminal Case No.
06-1344 of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing her
to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(Php500,000.00);
2. ACQUITTING the accused NENITA GAMATA y VALDEZ in Criminal Case No. 061345 of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
SO ORDERED.14 (Emphasis ours)
On appeal, the accused-appellant argued for her acquittal on the ground that the identity of the
drugs seized from her was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to
supply all the links in the chain of their custody. She further pointed out the inconsistent
testimonial and documentary evidence on the markings placed on the seized items. The accusedappellant also questioned the failure of the police officers to comply with the procedure laid
down in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 particularly, the preparation of the inventory and
taking of photographs of the seized items.15
In a Decision16 dated May 11, 2012, the CA denied the appeal and concurred with the findings
and conclusions of the RTC that the identities of the buyer and seller as well as the
consummation of the sale of illegal drugs was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution through the straightforward testimony of the poseur-buyer himself, PO2 Aseboque,
as believably corroborated by two other members of the buy-bust team and by extensive
documentary evidence. The CA rejected the accused-appellants arguments and held that the
same were disproved by the evidence on record, thus:
Accused-appellant contends that while[PO2] Aseboque maintains that he had custody of the
items seized from her, Pulido testified that he was the one who held the items recovered from
accused-appellant. A careful perusal of the transcript of stenographic notes, however, reveals that
there was actually no inconsistency as what Pulido testified to as the items that was with him
were the ones he recovered from the pocket of the accused-appellant and not the one that was
subject of the sale. x x x
xxxx
x x x [W]hen Pulido testified as to the seized items, he was referring to those sachets that he was
able to fish out of the pocket of accused-appellant and he held on to the same as [PO2] Aseboque
had his hands full trying to restrain accused-appellant. x x x Pulido corroborated [PO2]
Aseboques statement that it was the latter who prepared the inventory of the items seized from
the accused-appellant. x x x

xxxx
It is noted that the four sachets were already marked with the initial of the apprehending officer
at the scene of the crime. The act was attested to by the rest of the arresting team and the
markings were reflected in the acknowledgement report. Even if [PO2] Castillo failed to note in
his spot report that the items were marked with the initial of [PO2] Aseboque, it could not be
discounted that the items were the ones seized from the person of accused-appellant because if
the same were different, the items that were turned over to the forensic chemist P/Insp. Bonifacio
would not have borne the initial of [PO2] Aseboque considering that from the hands of [PO2]
Castillo, the seized items were personally handed by him to Relos, who in turn gave the same to
P/Insp. Bonifacio who was, likewise, present when [PO2] Castillo handed the items to Relos.
Moreover, [P/Insp.] Bonifacio explained that there is actually no difference between the marking
"REA" and "R.E.A." x x x
xxxx
In addition, an examination of the letter request (Request for Laboratory Examination) shows
that while the signatory mentioned that the item subject of the sale was marked as "REA", when
he attached the sachet to the request, the signatory made a handwritten reference to the attached
specimen as "R.E.A." To Our mind, the presence or absence of the punctuation marks is of no
moment as the request was precisely clear that the items to be examined were the ones attached
to the request itself.17 (Citation omitted)
The CA also dismissed the accused-appellants contentions that the statutory procedure for the
inventory and photograph of the seized items was not observed. The CA held that the absence of
a media representative or an elected public official during the inventory was not material to
overturn a conviction as it did not pertain to the elements of the crime charged. The CA further
stressed that non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements will not render
void and invalid the seizure and custody over the items.
Accordingly, the decision disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED and the appealed Decision
dated September 15, 2010 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Makati City, in
Criminal Case No. 06-1344 for Violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.18
The accused-appellant is now before the Court pleading for her acquittal based on the same
arguments raised in her Appellants Brief before the CA.19
Ruling of the Court
The Court denies the appeal.
The arguments proffered in support of the accused-appellants plea for acquittal has already been
exhaustively traversed by the CA and based on evidence on record, the Court finds no reversible
error imputable to the appellate court and the trial court in finding her guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of illegal sale of shabu defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Illegal sale of prohibited drugs is consummated at the moment the buyer receives the drug from
the seller. In a buy-bust operation, the crime is consummated when the police officer makes an
offer to buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between them
involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer.20 In order to successfully
prosecute the offense, proof beyond reasonable doubt of two elements must be satisfied by the

prosecution, viz: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the
consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing.
As correctly ruled by the courts a quo, the presence of both requisites was clearly established by
the testimony of the poseur-buyer himself, PO2 Aseboque, who positively testified that the
illegal sale took place when he gave the P500.00 marked money to the accused-appellant in
exchange for the shabu, thus:
WITNESS [PO2 Aseboque]: After I asked her if where is Jun, she told me that Jun is not around,
sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: What did you do next?
WITNESS: She said: Kami nandito lang, bakit kukuha ba kayo?
PROS. PAGGAO: What did you understand by that?
WITNESS: It is a street language that they are using with dangerous drugs, so it is understood
that we are going to buy shabu, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: What did you reply, if any?
WITNESS: I asked her, "Si Jun wala ba?"
PROS. PAGGAO: Any answer from the woman?
WITNESS: She said, "Wag nyo ng hintayin si Jun, ako meron."
PROS. PAGGAO: What did you do?
WITNESS: I asked her if she has worth Five Hundred Pesos, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: What was her reply, if any?
WITNESS: She told me that she has worth Five Hundred Pesos, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: And, after that, what did you do, if any?
WITNESS: She took one plastic sachet from her right pocket, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: What did she do with that?
WITNESS: She handed that to me, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: And, upon receiving the sachet of shabu, what did you do?
WITNESS: I checked it first if it has contents, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: After checking, what did you do?
WITNESS: I then handed the buy bust money worth Five Hundred Pesos, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: And, after she received the Five Hundred Pesos, what happened next?
WITNESS: While she is putting the buy bust money inside her pocket, I made the pre-arranged
signal by lighting a cigarette, sir.

xxxx
PROS. PAGGAO: Now, you have been mentioning of Nenita against [sic] whom you were able
to buy shabu and the one you arrested, is she in the courtroom?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO: Will you kindly step down and tap her shoulder? (The witness tapped the right
shoulder of a female person and that woman upon being asked of her name answered: Nenita
Gamata)21
The CA was also correct in ruling that the failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with
paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 916522 mandating the procedure for the inventory
and photograph of seized illegal drugs did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized
from the accused-appellant. As held in People v. Cardenas:23
[N]on-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in
evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or
rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it
by the courts. x x x
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the nonadmissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not
of admissibilitybut of weightevidentiary merit or probative valueto be given the evidence.
The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in
each case.24 (Emphasis supplied)
This is especially true when the chain of custody of the corpus delicti or the illegal drug itself
was shown to be unbroken,25 as in this case. Testimonial and documentary evidence show that
the poseur-buyer, PO2 Aseboque, marked the seized illegal drug at the crime scene with his
initials "REA". At the same place, he also prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt of the items
seized from the accused-appellant whose refusal to sign was duly noted in the same document.26
The seized item was then immediately turned over by PO2 Aseboque to SAIDSOTF
investigating officer PO2 Castillo.27 On the same day, PO2 Castillo brought the seized illegal
drug, together with the Request for Laboratory Examination,28 to the PNP Crime Laboratory
where it was received by a certain Relos in the presence of Forensic Chemist, P/Insp.
Bonifacio.29 In her Physical Science Report No. D-506-06S,30 the contents of the seized item
marked REA weighed 0.03 gram tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
After her examination, P/Insp. Bonifacio turned over the seized item to the evidence custodian
from whom she later retrieved them upon the instructions of and for submission to the
prosecutor. On the witness stand, P/Insp. Bonifacio categorically identified the specimen
presented as evidence as the very same specimen which she tested based on the marking she
placed thereon: "D-506-06S".31
Indeed, the following links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug were duly accounted
for, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.32
The alleged discrepancy between the testimony of P02 Aseboque that he placed the marking
REA on the seized item, the forensic chemist's report stating that the specimen was marked

"R.E.A." and the absence of any such , description in the Spot Report33 of P02 Castillo did not
cause a gap in the chain of custody. As exhaustively discussed by the CA, the identity and
integrity of the seized item was preserved because, despite lack of accurate description in the
Spot Report, P/Insp. Bonifacio testified that the item she received for laboratory examination
bore the markings "REA" placed by P02 Aseboque at the crime scene. It is for this same reason
that the punctuation marks after the letters R, E and A in her Physical Science Report No. D-506068 did not alter the identity and integrity of the actual specimen marked as "REA." The
specimen marked at the crime scene, turned over to P02 Castillo and then received by P/Insp.
Bonifacio were one and the same.
Further, the failure of the evidence custodian to take the witness stand did not weaken the case
for the prosecution because P/Insp. Bonifacio was able to positively identify that the evidence
submitted in court was the very same specimen which she subjected to laboratory examination
and its contents tested positive for shabu.34
In sum, the Court finds no reversible error in the conviction meted the accused-appellant.1awp+
+i1 The penalty of life imprisonment and P500,000.00 fine imposed upon her were in accord
with Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.35
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated May 11,
2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04839 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Michael P.

Elbinias and Rodi! V. Zalameda, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 139-157.
2 Issued by Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos; id. at 22-26.
3 Records, p. 2.
4 Id. at 4.
5 Id. at 13-14.
6 Id. at 15.
7 Id. at 17.
8 Id. at 19-20.
9 Id. at 9.
10 Id. at 10.
11 CA rollo, pp. 99-100.
12 Id. at 44-45.
13 Id. at 22-26.
14 Id. at 26.
15 Id. at 45-55.
16 Id. at 139-157.
17 Id. at 147-154.
18 Id. at 156.
19 Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) of the accused-appellant dated June 20,
2013, rollo, pp. 31-32.
20 People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Mali y Quimno a.k.a. "Linda", G.R. No. 206738,
December 11, 2013.
21 TSN, August 6, 2008, pp. 12-14, 19.
22 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;
xxxx
23 G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827.
24 Id. at 843-844, citing Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 741-742 (2009).
25 Id. at 843.
26 TSN, August 6, 2008, pp. 15-18; records, p. 17.
27 Records, pp. 7-8, 19-20.
28 Id. at 9.
29 TSN, June 2, 2010, pp. 4-5.
30 Records, p. 10.
31 TSN, June 2, 2010, pp. 4-7.
32 People v. Arriola, G.R. No. 187736, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 581, 598.
33 Records, p. 16.
34 People v. Cardenas, supra note 23, at 837.
35 Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million pesos (PI0,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 200598

June 18, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
DENNIS E. TANCINCO, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before us is an appeal via a Notice of Appeal of the Court of Appeals Decision1 in CA-G.R.
CEB-CR-HC No. 00807 affirming the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58,
Cebu City which, in turn, convicted accused-appellant Dennis Tancinco (Tancinco) of violation
of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
Tancinco was charged in an Information for illegal possession of shabu, a dangerous drug:
That on or about the 5th day of March 2006, at about 4:35 oclock in the afternoon, in the City of
Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without
authority of law, with deliberate intent, did then and there have in his possession, use and control
three (3) heat sealed transparent plastic packet of white crystalline substance with a total weight
of 5.36 grams locally known as "Shabu" containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.3
Upon arraignment, Tancinco pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution presented in evidence the testimonies of: (1) Jude Daniel Mendoza (Mendoza), a
Medical Technologist who conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens found in the
possession of Tancinco during his arrest on 5 March 2006; (2) and the team of police officers
who arrested Tancinco consisting of PO2 Melbert Dio (PO2 Dio); (3) SPO1 Filomeno Mendaros
(SPO1 Mendaros) and PO2 Edward Abatayo (PO2 Abatayo).
The prosecutions story narrates that in the afternoon of 5 March 2006, a team of police officers,
led by SPO1 Mendaros and composed of PO2 Dio, PO2 Abatayo, a certain PO Cunan and PO
Banson, was on roving patrol along M.J. Cuenco Avenue, Cebu City, when SPO1 Mendaros
received a call from a member of the Barangay Intelligence Network (BIN) who gave
information of an on-going pot session in Sitio Sampaguita, Villagonzalo I, Barangay Tejero,
Cebu City by an unidentified alleged armed man and his companions.
To investigate further, the police officers met with the BIN informant at a designated place and
thereafter proceeded to the location of where the armed person and his companions were
supposedly holding their pot session. Thereat, they did not find the alleged armed man. Instead,
the police officers caught two (2) other persons for violation of Republic Act No. 9165.
A few minutes later, the BIN informant approached SPO1 Mendaros and told him that the
alleged armed man had been spotted playing a bingo machine at a nearby house.
The BIN informant guided the team of police officers to an area which looked like an extension
of a house. The door of this house extension was open allowing SPO1 Mendaros to view the
inside thereof which had five (5) bingo machines in use by people. One of these persons playing

the bingo machines was the alleged armed man, who turned out to be herein accused-appellant,
Tancinco.
With the preliminary information that Tancinco was carrying a firearm, the policemen cautiously
approached Tancinco who attempted to dispose of the firearm from his person and conceal its
possession thereof by placing it at the side of the bingo machine. Before Tancinco actually
relieved himself of the firearm, PO2 Abatayo apprehended him and asked for his license to carry
such. Since Tancinco was unable to produce a license to carry the firearm, PO2 Abatayo
confiscated the firearm and arrested Tancinco without a warrant.
Incident to the warrantless arrest, SPO1 Mendaros instructed PO2 Dio to make a body search of
Tancinco. PO2 Dios body search of Tancinco produced three (3) medium plastic sachets, all of
which contained a white substance suspected to be shabu, placed in the right front pocket of
Tancincos short pants. These three (3) sachets of white substance suspected to be shabu were
likewise confiscated by the police. At which point of Tancincos arrest and the body search
conducted on him, the police apprised him of his constitutional rights.
Immediately thereafter, Tancinco, together with the confiscated items, the firearm and the three
(3) sachets of white substance suspected to be shabu, were brought by the police officers to
Camp Sotero Cabahug Police Station in Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City for further investigation.
The details of Tancincos arrest were entered in the police blotter; PO2 Dio prepared the request
for the laboratory examination of the confiscated specimens.
These same specimens of the three sachets of white substance suspected to be shabu were
forwarded and turned over to the Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory Office 7
in Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, where Forensic Chemical
Officer/Medical Technologist II, Mendoza, conducted a qualitative examination thereon.
Mendoza issued Chemistry Report No. D-428-2006 dated 5 March 2006 finding the specimens
to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Subsequently, separate Informations for violation of Republic Act No. 9165, specifically illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, and for illegal possession of firearm were filed by the arresting
police officers against Tancinco. The Information for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 was
raffled to the court a quo, RTC, Branch 58, Cebu City and docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU76305, while that charging illegal possession of firearm was raffled to the RTC, Branch 10
thereof.
Not surprisingly, Tancinco counters the charges and account of the prosecution, completely
denying the story and decrying frame-up.
On the fateful day of 5 March 2006 at around 8:30 p.m., Tancinco was at a friends house in
Villagonzalo I playing a bingo machine when three (3) police officers wearing CIIB shirts barged
into the premises. One of the police officers grabbed his shirt, dragged him outside while
simultaneously demanding for a gun which was supposedly in his possession but which he did
not actually have. Another policeman conducted a search within the premises for this firearm.
The policemen then stepped out of the premises now carrying a 45-caliber gun which they now
claimed was his. A little later, Tancinco was brought to the CIIB in Camp Sotero Cabahug for
illegal possession of firearms and two days thereafter, he was transferred to BBRC purportedly
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
At which point he finally learned of the actual charges against him.
Tancinco bewails that he had been set-up with fake charges of illegal possession of firearm and
illegal possession of shabu because he had previously refused to turn state witness against a
certain Joel Nodalo alias Tungol (Nodalo), who was then accused by some policemen of robbery.
Tancincos story is that he had been previously charged for two counts of robbery and in
connection therewith was detained in a police station in Gorordo Avenue for a period of one year
and eleven months. Eventually, he was acquitted of those charges. Presumably, Tancinco came in

contact with Nodalo, hence the policemens pursuit for Tancinco to turn state witness against
Nodalo.
The trial court found Tancinco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165, specifically illegal possession of a dangerous drug:
Accordingly, this court finds the accused GUILTY as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of from twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twentythree (23) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of 400,000.00.
The full period of preventive detention shall be credited in the service of this sentence.
Finally, the 3 packs of shabu, Exhibit B are confiscated in favor of the state for proper
disposition.4
On appeal, the appellate court rejected Tancincos claim of frame-up as against the
straightforward, direct and positive testimony of the police officers who arrested Tancinco in the
regular performance of their official duties.
In this appeal before us, Tancinco maintains his innocence; he was merely framed-up. He then
points to inconsistencies in the police officers accounting of his arrest that supposedly make up
reasonable doubt for his acquittal. Obviously, Tancinco relies on the presumption of innocence
and contends that the prosecution did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As the lower courts were, we are not convinced. We find no cause to disturb their factual
findings that Tancinco was lawfully arrested without a warrant after information of his being
armed and engaging in a pot session with other persons was given to the police officers who then
investigated and pursued the lead of the BIN informant. Incident to the lawful warrantless arrest
of Tancinco is a search on his person made by the police officers which then yielded his illegal
possession of shabu.
On more than one occasion, we have ruled that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly
when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight. This is because the trial judge
has the distinct advantage of closely observing the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the
manner in which they testify, and is in a better position to determine whether or not they are
telling the truth.5 On that score alone, Tancincos appeal ought to have been dismissed outright.
We affirm the lower courts uniform rulings that Tancinco was searched as an incident to a lawful
warrantless arrest.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
Tancinco claims that he was not lawfully arrested and consequent thereto, the search on him
which produced the three (3) sachets of shabu was likewise illegal. He insinuates that the firearm
allegedly seized from him was planted by the policemen who had an ax to grind against him for
refusing to be a state witness against Nodalo aliasTungol in a robbery case.
In contrast to the presentation of evidence of the prosecution, Tancincos roughly drawn scene is
that of a frame-up, and that he was eventually charged with illegal possession of shabu because
he did not turn state witness against Nodalo. Tancinco cites the testimony of PO2 Dio as flawed
for declaring that he did not clearly see Tancinco holding the firearm. He further avers that if he
did own the firearm seized, as alleged by the prosecution, he would not have tried to conceal it
beside a bingo machine which can easily be spotted by people as their location at that time was a
public place. To do so was contrary to human nature.
To begin with, the testimony of the police officers, including PO2 Dio, as to what went down
when they arrested Tancinco was direct, straightforward and positive. PO2 Dios statement that
he did not clearly see Tancinco holding the firearm does not detract from the prosecutions
evidence and story that Tancinco was arrested while attempting to conceal a firearm and could
not produce a license to carry thereof when asked by the police officers. Immediately thereafter,
as an incident to a lawful warrantless arrest, Tancinco was searched and found to have three (3)
sachets of shabu in his possession.
SPO1 Mendaros:
Q: After that incident, what happened next?
A: Five minutes after we arrived at the place, my informant told me that he spotted the armed
person playing [at the] bingo machine[s].
Q: What did you do then after that?
A: My informant guided us to the place where this armed person was.
Q: Then?
A: Considering that he was reportedly armed, we cautiously approached him and one after the
other we surrounded [him].
Q: Considering that you were five and you said that you were very cautious [in] approaching the
accused, how did you go to the said place then?
A: We went to the place one after the other.
Q: Could you describe the place where the said suspect was playing bingo machine?
A: The place had five bingo machines.
Q: Was it inside the house?
A; It was at the extension of the house.
Q: Was it covered?
A: There was a door but it was opened (sic).

Q: How many were playing at that time?

A: I cannot recall the exact number of persons playing, but [there] were people playing.
Q: As you cautiously went to the place where the accused was at that time, what happened next?
A: As I observed him, he looked surprised. We saw him carrying a handgun and attempted to
conceal it at the side of the bingo machine.
Q: Then?
A: PO2 Abatayo quickly confiscated the gun from him.
Q: Then?
A: For failure to present a document allowing him to carry a firearm, we placed him under arrest.
Q: Then?
A: He was brought outside already handcuffed and as a matter of procedure, I instructed PO2
Dio to frisk him for any illegal item.
Q: What happened next?
A: Incidental to his lawful arrest, PO2 Dio was able to recover three
(3) medium plastic pack of suspected shabu from his right front pocket of his maong short pants.
Q: After that, what happened?
A: He was arrested for possession of shabu.
Q: You have said that you ordered Dio to conduct the frisking, how far were you then?
A: An arm[s] length distance from him.
Q: How about your other companions then?
A: My other companions were also near.
Q: What happened next?
A: As a matter of procedure, we apprised him of his constitutional rights.
Q; After that, what happened.
A: We brought him to our office for proper disposition.6
(Emphasis supplied).
PO2 Abatayo:
Q: What did you do then after receiving the information?
A: We immediately proceeded to the place then I saw the accused drew (sic)his firearm from his
waistline.

Q: How far were you from the accused?

A: Closed (sic) distance.
Q: You mean to say he did not notice your presence?
A: He noticed us that is why he immediately drew his firearm and tried to conceal [it] at the side
of the bingo machine.
Q: What did you do then?
A: I placed him under arrest because of his violation. PO2 Cunan conducted body search and he
recovered 3 big packs of white crystalline substance.
Q: Where did he recover the same?
A: From the possession of the accused.7
(Emphasis supplied).
PO2 Dio
Q: After the informant pinpointed the said person, what happened next?
A: We approached him.
Q: And then?
A: We saw him placed his handgun beside the bingo machine and attempt to conceal it.
Q: How far were you when you saw this act of that person?
A: 2 meters.
Q: Were you in uniform at that time?
A: No, sir. We were in civilian attire.
Q: After that what did you do next?
A: We arrested the person.
Q: And then?
A: We handcuffed him and conducted the body search.
Q: Who conducted the body search?
A: I.
Q: What did you recover?
A: 3 plastic medium packs suspected to be shabu.
Q: Where did you recover the same?
A: Right front pocket of his short pants.

Q: After that, what happened next?

A: We arrested him.
Q: For what?
A: For violation of RA 9165.
Q: You have said you recovered 3 plastic packs from his right pocket.
What did you do with [these] then?
A: We used it as evidence against him.
Q: In that precise moment, what did you do with the said specimen?
A: After we reached the office, we entered it into the police blotter and after that we brought the
specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory.8 (Emphasis supplied).
Moreover, Tancincos very argument ensnares him. It reveals his actual shrewdness in attempting
to dispose of the firearm from his person, his immediate possession thereof, surreptitiously
placing it behind the bingo machine which he was playing at the time. It is precisely because the
firearm was found in Tancincos possession without license to carry such that he was then
lawfully arrested. Immediately thereafter, he was searched and found to be in possession of three
(3) sachets of shabu, a dangerous drug.
For good measure, Tancinco argues that the police operatives did not perform their duties
regularly.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and the corresponding
testimony of the arresting officers on the buy-bust transaction, can only be overcome through
clear and convincing evidence showing either of two things: (1) that they were not properly
performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. In the face of the
straightforward and direct testimony of the police officers, and absent any improper motive on
their part to frame up Tancinco, stacked against the bare and thin self-serving testimony of
Tancinco, we find no reason to overturn the lower courts findings.9
We agree with the lower courts respective disquisitions on the evidence presented by Tancinco:
The testimony of [Tancinco] confirms that he was playing a bingo machine in a friends house
and that there were many people playing thereat indicating that the place was open to anybody
interested to play.
He also confirmed that he was bodily searched.
However, [Tancinco] denied that a gun and 3 packs of shabu were recovered from him. He wants
this court to believe that he was framed by the police because he refused to testify against Joel
Noda[l]o after he was discharged to be a state witness.
But the problem with said evidence for the defense is that it is uncorroborated or unsupported.
Moreover, [Tancinco] himself admitted that he was sent here by his grandparents, who reside in
the U.S. and who adopted him after his parents died, "to become good but it did not work." In
other words, even his character is questionable.
Further, [Tancinco] also said that he had undergone a drug rehabilitation here before.

Thus, between his testimony and those of the police officers, the latter would [carry more
weight].10
xxxx
At any rate, we find the version of[Tancinco] that he was merely framed up by the apprehending
officers too incredulous vis--vis the positive evidence for the [prosecution]. [Tancinco] merely
offered the defenses of denial and frame [up]which were uncorroborated by any positive
testimony of the people who were allegedly with him during the incident. We find it incredible
that the policemen planted said evidence in full view of the people, who, like [Tancinco], were
also playing the bingo machines. This is so because the policemen could be prosecuted for
planting evidence under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7659. If he were truly aggrieved, it is quite
surprising why [Tancinco] did not even attempt to file a criminal or an administrative complaint,
e.g., for planting drugs, against the arresting police officers. Such inaction runs counter to the
normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.
Thus, between the positive assertions of the witnesses for the [prosecution] and the negative
averments of [Tancinco], the former undisputedly deserves more credence and are entitled to
greater evidentiary value. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with
disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Denial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is
not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence just like in the case before us.11
As found by the lower courts, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as
a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
Tancinco does not even attempt to explain his possession of the three (3) sachets of shabu, only
that such were not validly obtained and resulted from his unlawful arrest. Clearly, given the
foregoing explication, Tancinco was in possession of three (3) sachets of shabu in the total
quantity of 5.36 grams, which possession conscious knew these to be shabu, a dangerous drug.
Turning now to the imposable penalty on Tancinco, we modify the penalty imposed by the RTC,
and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.1wphi1 Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for
the penalty for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs:
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:
xxxx
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
xxxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be
graduated as follows:
xxxx
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging
from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten

(10) 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 "ecstasy", 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 three hundred (300) grams
or more but less than five (hundred) (500) grams of marijuana; x x x. (Emphasis supplied).
For the illegal possession of shabu in the amount of 5.36 grams, as in this case, violation of
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 is penalized by imprisonment of twenty years (20) and one
day (1) to life imprisonment.
Thus, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is inapplicable.12 The correct imposable and imposed
penalty is imprisonment of twenty years (20) and one day (1) to life imprisonment and a fine of
Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEBCR-HC No. 00807 and the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. CBU-76305 are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused Dennis E. Tancinco is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of twenty years (20) and one day (1) to life imprisonment and to pay a
FINE of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). No costs.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTURO D. BRION*
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA**

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1699 dated 13 June 2014.
** Per Special Order No. 1696 dated 13 June 2014.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. lnting with Associate .Justices Portia A.
Hormachuelos and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring. Rollo. pp. 2-12.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Gabriel T. Ingles. CA rollo, pp. 49-58.
3 Id. at 13.
4 Id. at 58.
5 People v. Diwa, G.R. No. 194253, 27 February 2013, 692 SCRA 260, 268-269.
6 TSN, 15 August 2006, pp. 4-6.
7 TSN, 13 February 2007, p. 4.
8 TSN, 26 June 2006, pp. 4-6.
9 Miclat, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 176077, 31 August 2011, 656 SCRA 539, 556; People v.
Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 219-220.
10 CA rollo,p. 23.
11 Rollo, p. 10.
12 Section 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with
death penalty or 1 ife-irnprisonrnent[.]

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 203984

June 18, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
MEDARIO CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal from the January 1 7, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.H.C. No. 04069, affirming in toto the July 23, 2009 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Caloocan City, Branch 127, finding accused-appellant Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta
(Calantiao) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On November 13, 2003, Calantiao was charged before the RTC of violation of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in an Information,3 the pertinent portion of which reads:
That on or about the 11th day of November, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any
authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control two (2) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops with a total weight of 997 .9
grams, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
The facts, as synthesized by the RTC and adopted by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
On November 13, 2003[,] at around 5:30 x x x in the afternoon, while PO1 NELSON
MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ were on duty, a certain EDWIN LOJERA arrived
at their office and asked for police assistance regarding a shooting incident. Per report of the
latter, it appears that while driving a towing truck and traversing along EDSA, Balintawak,
Quezon City, he had a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a white taxi cab prompting him to follow
said vehicle until they reached along 8th Avenue Street corner C-3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat,
the passengers of said taxi cab, one of them was accused Calantiao, alighted and fired their guns.
Surprised, Lojera could not do anything but continued his driving until he reached a police
station nearby where he reported the incident.
The police officers on duty then were PO1 NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO
RAMIREZ. PO1 Mariano testified that they immediately responded to said complaint by
proceeding to 5th Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where they found the white taxi.
While approaching said vehicle, two armed men alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards
them (police officers) and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were
subdued. PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag containing two (2) bricks of dried
marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3 Ramirez
recovered from Calantiaos companion [a] .38 revolver.
The suspects and the confiscated items were then turned over to SPO3 PABLO TEMENA, police
investigator at Bagong Barrio Police Station for investigation. Thereat, PO1 Mariano marked the
bricks of marijuana contained in a black bag with his initials, "NM". Thereafter, said specimen
were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. The result of the

examination conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA revealed that the same was positive
for marijuana, a dangerous drug.
The foregoing testimony of PO1 MARIANO was corroborated by PO3 RAMIREZ who testified
that he personally saw those bricks of marijuana confiscated from the accused. He confirmed that
he was with PO1 Mariano when they apprehended said accused and his companion and testified
that while PO1 Mariano recovered from the accused a black bag containing marijuana, on his
part, he confiscated from accuseds companion a .38 revolver.
MR. CRISENDO AMANSEC, the driver of the taxi where the suspects boarded was also
presented in open court and testified as to what he knows about the incident. He confirmed that
on that date, two (2) persons boarded on his taxi and upon reaching C-3 Road, they alighted and
fired three (3) shots and ran away.
Aside from the oral testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution also offered the following
documentary evidence to boost their charge against the accused:
Exh. "A" Request for Laboratory Examination dated November 12, 2003
Exh. "B" Physical Sciences Report No. D-1423-03 dated November 12, 2003
Exh. "C-1" Picture of First brick of marijuana fruiting tops
Exh. "C-2" Picture of Second brick of marijuana fruiting tops
Exh. "D" Referral Slip dated November 12, 2003
Exh. "E" Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated November 12, 2003 of PO3
Eduardo Ramirez and PO1 Nelson Mariano
Exh. "E-1" Their respective signatures
Exh. "F" Sinumpaang Salaysay of Crisendo Amansec (Erroneously marked as Exh.
"E")
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE
The accused offered a different version of the story. According to his testimony, this instant case
originated from a traffic mishap where the taxi he and his companion Rommel Reyes were riding
almost collided with another car. Reyes then opened the window and made a "fuck you" sign
against the persons on board of that car. That prompted the latter to chase them and when they
were caught in a traffic jam, PO1 Nelson Mariano, one of the persons on board of that other car
alighted and kicked their taxi. Calantiao and Reyes alighted and PO1 Mariano slapped the latter
and uttered, "Putang ina mo bakit mo ako pinakyu hindi mo ba ako kilala?" Said police officer
poked his gun again[st] Reyes and when Calantiao tried to grab it, the gun fired. Calantiao and
Reyes were then handcuffed and were brought to the police station. Thereat, they were subjected
to body frisking and their wallets and money were taken. PO1 Mariano then prepared some
documents and informed them that they will be charged for drugs. A newspaper containing
marijuana was shown to them and said police officer told them that it would be sufficient
evidence against them. They were detained and subjected to medical examination before they
were submitted for inquest at the prosecutors office.4
Ruling of the RTC
On July 23, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision giving credence to the prosecutions case. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring accused MEDARIO

CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense of
Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165, for illegally possessing997.9 grams of marijuana
fruiting tops. Henceforth, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).5
In convicting Calantiao, the RTC held that the illegal drug seized was admissible in evidence as
it was discovered during a body search after Calantiao was caught in flagrante delicto of
possessing a gun and firing at the police officers. Moreover, the RTC found all the elements of
the offense to have been duly established by the prosecution.6
Aggrieved, Calantiao appealed7 his conviction to the Court of Appeals, assigning the following
errors:
I
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,
ARTICLE II, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ITEMS ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
II
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS PATENT NONCOMPLIANCE WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF
SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.
III
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE THE PROPER
CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.8
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn Calantiaos conviction. It found that there was
sufficient reason to justify a warrantless arrest, as the police officers were acting on a legitimate
complaint and had a reasonable suspicion that the persons identified at the scene were the
perpetrators of the offense. Likewise, the Court of Appeals held that the search and subsequent
seizure of the marijuana in question was lawful and valid, being incidental to a lawful arrest.9
Finding that all the elements of the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to be present
and duly proven,10 the Court of Appeals, on January 17, 2012, promulgated its Decision,
affirming in toto the RTCs ruling.
Undaunted, Calantiao is now before this Court praying for an acquittal, adding the following
arguments in support of his position:
First, the plain view doctrine is not an exception to a search incident to a valid warrantless arrest.
xxxx
Second, Calantiao did not waive the inadmissibility of the seized items.
xxxx
Finally, the seized items custodial chain is broken.11

In essence, Calantiao is questioning the admissibility of the marijuana found in his possession, as
evidence against him on the grounds of either it was discovered via an illegal search, or because
its custodial chain was broken.
Ruling of this Court
This Court finds no merit in Calantiaos arguments.
Search
Marijuana valid

and

Seizure

of

This Court cannot subscribe to Calantiaos contention that the marijuana in his possession cannot
be admitted as evidence against him because it was illegally discovered and seized, not having
been within the apprehending officers "plain view."12
Searches and seizure incident to a lawful arrest are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Section 13.Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission
of an offense without a search warrant.
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is "to protect
the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach."13 It is
therefore a reasonable exercise of the States police power to protect (1) law enforcers from the
injury that may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2) evidence
from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the
integrity of the evidence under the control and within the reach of the arrestee.
In People v. Valeroso,14 this Court had the occasion to reiterate the permissible reach of a valid
warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, viz:
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in
order to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape.
Otherwise, the officers safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In
addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on
the arrestees person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers
to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible
area within the latters reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or
dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
control. The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within which
he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer in
front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the
clothing of the person arrested. (Citations omitted.)
In Valeroso, however, the Court held that the evidence searched and seized from him could not
be used against him because they were discovered in a room, different from where he was being
detained, and was in a locked cabinet. Thus, the area searched could not be considered as one
within his immediate control that he could take any weapon or destroy any evidence against
him.15
In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a black bag in Calantiaos possession and within
his immediate control. He could have easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to
destroy the evidence inside it. As the black bag containing the marijuana was in Calantiaos

possession, it was within the permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly
conduct a warrantless search.
Calantiaos argument that the marijuana cannot be used as evidence against him because its
discovery was in violation of the Plain View Doctrine, is misplaced.
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspects person and premises under his
immediate control. This is so because "[o]bjects in the plain view of an officer who has the
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence."16 "The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object x x x.
[It] serves to supplement the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another object, hot
pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present
unconnected with a search directed against the accused and permits the warrantless seizure."17
The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in Calantiaos situation because the police
officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not inadvertently come
across the black bag, which was in Calantiaos possession; they deliberately opened it, as part of
the search incident to Calantiaos lawful arrest.
Inventory and Chain of
Custody of Evidence
Calantiao claims that even if the search and seizure were validly effected, the marijuana is still
inadmissible as evidence against him for failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the
rules on chain of custody, as the item was marked at the police station.18
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 provide as follows:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations state:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and

the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further,
that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
This Court has held that the failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, such as immediately marking seized drugs, will not automatically impair the integrity
of chain of custody because what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.19
Section 21 and its IRR do not even mention "marking." What they require are (1) physical
inventory, and (2) taking of photographs. As this Court held in People v. Ocfemia20:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the
matter of "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized
upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these
activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with
the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items to truly ensure that
they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence
should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation.
The prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the seized marijuana from the time
the police officers confiscated it, to the time it was turned over to the investigating officer, up to
the time it was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination.21 This Court has no
reason to overrule the RTC and the Court of Appeals, which both found the chain of custody of
the seized drugs to have not been broken so as to render the marijuana seized from Calantiao
inadmissible in evidence.
Furthermore, unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of the
evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will remain. The
burden of showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the police officers handled
the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly discharged their duties is on Calantiao.
Unfortunately, Calantiao failed to discharge such burden.22
It is worthy to note that these arguments were only raised by Calantiao on his appeal. He himself
admits this.23 His theory, from the very beginning, was that he did not do it, and that he was
being framed for having offended the police officers. Simply put, his defense tactic was one of
denial and frame-up. However, those defenses have always been frowned upon by the Court, to
wit:
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
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must
be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the cases before us, appellant failed to present
sufficient evidence in support of his claims. Aside from his self-serving assertions, no plausible
proof was presented to bolster his allegations.24
Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear and convincing evidence that the apprehending officers
were stirred by illicit motive or failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies deserve
full faith and credit.25

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the January 17, 2012 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate
Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 22-29; penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos and docketed as Criminal
Case No. 69566.
3 Records, p. A.
4 CA rollo, pp. 23-24.
5 Id. at 29.
6 Id. at 28.
7 Records, p. 326.
8 CA rollo, p. 46.
9 Rollo, pp. 7-10.
10 Id. at 13.
11 Id. at 37-39.

12 CA rollo, pp. 50-52.

13 People v. Valeroso, 614 Phil. 236, 252 (2009).
14 Id. at 251.
15 Id. at 252.
16 People v. Omogbolahan and Leangsiri, 322 Phil. 226, 248 (1996).
17 People v. Valeroso, supra note 13 at 253. Citing People v. Cubcubin, Jr., 413 Phil. 249,
271-272 (2001); People v. Omogbolahan and Leangsiri, id. at 249-250.
18 CA rollo, p. 53.
19 People v. Ocfemia, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013.
20 Id.
21 Rollo, p. 14.
22 People v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 574, 594-595.
23 Rollo, p. 40.
24 People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 269.
25 People v. Valencia, 439 Phil. 561, 568 (2002).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 201725

July 18, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JOY ALCALA y NOVILLA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CRHC Noj 04053 affirming the Decision2 in Criminal Case No. Q-04-129946 rendered by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 of Quezon City. Th~ RTC Decision found Joy Alcala y
Novilla (accuseq) guilty beyond reasonaple doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (Rj.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
The accused was charged under the Information3 docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-04-129946
for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which reads as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of September, 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused,
not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug,
did, then and there, willfully (sic) and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or
act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero two (0.02) gram of white crystalline
substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.4 Upon arraignment,
the accused pleaded not guilty to said charge.5 Trial thereafter ensued. The factual findings of the
trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are stated as follows: The Version of the
Prosecution
Around 5 oclock in the afternoon of September 30, 2004, a female informant came to the AntiIllegal DrugsSpecial Operation Task Force of the Central Police District, Station 11, Quezon
City, to report the illegal drug activities of a certain alias Joy in the vicinity of Lantana St.,
Barangay Immaculate Conception, Cubao, Quezon City. Thereupon, P/Insp. Erwin Guevarra
formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO1 Mario Abong, PO2 Anthony Pamiliar, PO3 Jose
Castuciano, PO2 Jonathan Caranza and PO2 Erwin Bautista, who was designated as poseur
buyer. The team was briefed on the details of the buy-bust operation against alias Joy and PO2
Bautista was given buy-bust money, a one hundred peso bill, which he marked with his initials
"EB". Thereafter, a pre-operation report was prepared.
Past 6:00 p.m. of the same day, the team arrived at the target area. The informant and Bautista
sought alias Joy, who was later identified as appellant, Joy Alcala. The rest of the operatives
followed at a distance and positioned themselves according to their plan. Along Lantana St., the
informant saw and approached appellant. He introduced PO2 Bautista as a buyer of shabu. Then,
appellant asked him, "Iiskor kayo, magkano?" PO2 Bautista replied "piso lang", meaning
P100.00 worth of shabu. Appellant took a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance from the right front pocket of her pants and then asked for payment. PO2 Bautista
handed her the marked money and then took the plastic sachet from appellant. Thereafter, PO2
Bautista lighted a cigarette, the pre-arranged signal that the sale was consummated. The other
members of the team converged on the scene and arrested appellant. Appellant was asked to
empty her pockets, after which, the buy bust money was recovered.
Appellant was brought to the police station. Thereat, the confiscated plastic sachet was markedby
PO2 Bautista with the letters "EB-JA". He then and turned it over to the duty desk officer, PO3

Castuciano, who prepared the standard request for laboratory examination. The specimen and the
request were brought by PO2 Pamiliar to the PNP Crime Laboratory. After a qualitative
examination conducted by forensic chemist, Victor Calub Drapete, it was reported that the
contents of the plastic sachet EB-JA proved positive for the presence of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
The Defense Version
On September 30, 2003,6 appellant accompanied her friend, alias Baba, to Police Station 11,
purportedly, totalk to a very important person there. However, while they were in the station, she
was arrested and ordered detained by the woman whom alias Baba talked to. She kept crying
inside the detention cell but nobody helped her. She did not see her friend nor the woman
anymore. Appellant vehemently denies the accusation against her and claims thatshe does not
know the cause of her detention.7
The Ruling of the RTC
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision8 finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The dispositive portion of
which is hereunder quoted as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JOY
ALCALA y NOVILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00)
PESOS.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency the dangerous drugs subject hereof for proper disposition and final disposal.9
The trial court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently satisfied the
quantum required for accuseds conviction. It found the testimonies of the police officers who
participated in the buy-bust operation credible and reliable since absence of any showing of illmotive on their part to concoct trumped-up charges, they enjoy the presumption of regularity in
the performance of their duties.10 On the other hand, the denial of the accused was found to be
unsubstantiated by any convincing and credible evidence. Hence, being considered as a negative,
weak, and self-serving evidence, accuseds bare denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony
of the prosecutions witnesses and the physical evidence which supported said judgment of
conviction.11
The Ruling of the CA
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision convicting the accused. It
ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently bear out the statutory elementsof the crime.
The elements of the sale of illegal drugs between accused and PO2 Erwin Bautista (PO2
Bautista), as poseur-buyer, have beenduly established by the prosecution, considering that there
was actual delivery of the prohibited drug to the poseur-buyer and actual receipt by the seller of
the marked money. These established factual findings consummated the buy-bust transaction
between the entrapping police officers and the drug dealer.12 Moreover, the appellate court held
that failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render the arrest of the accused
illegal, nor will it result to the inadmissibility in evidence of the illegal drugs seizedin the course
of the entrapment operation. What is of utmost relevance is the preservation of the integrity and
maintenance of the evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs, for in the end, the same
shall necessarily be the thrust that shall determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The
prosecution, therefore, must simply show that the seized item recovered from accused was the
same item presented in court and found to be an illegal/prohibited drug. These were all
established and proven beyond reasonable doubt in the instant case.13

In addition, the CA gave no credence to the defense of the accused of denial. It ruled that a denial
is a weak defense which cannot prevail against the positive testimony of the police officers
acting in the performance of their official duty, which appeared more credible and adequately
supported by evidence on record. Thus, a denialwhich is unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence is not worthy of credence.14 Lastly, it pointed out that any allegation of a violation of
fundamental rights during custodial investigation is relevant and material only in cases where
extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their
conviction. Since no such extrajudicial admission or confession was extracted from appellant
during her custodial investigation in the present case, such argument was therefore
unmeritorious.15
Upon elevation of this case before this Court, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that
it will no longer file its supplemental brief and, instead, will adopt all the arguments in its brief
filed before the CA.16 While in the Supplemental Brief17 filed by accused through the Public
Attorneys Office, she raisesthe issue that the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused
notwithstanding the prosecutions failure to establish the chain of custody and integrity ofthe
alleged seized illegal drugs for failure to comply with the mandatoryprocedures under Section 21
of R.A. No. 9165. Accordingly, it is her contention that the court a quo gravely erred in
convicting the accused despite the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The Issue
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was
sufficient to convictthe accused of the alleged sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.
Our Ruling
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
We find no valid reason to depart from the time-honored doctrine that where the issue is one of
credibility ofwitnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court
are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which
have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.18
Upon perusal of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the
RTC on the credibility of the testimony of the prosecutions witnesses, less so in the present case,
in which its findings were affirmed by the CA. It is worthyto mention that, in addition to the
legal presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty, the court a quowas in the
best position to weigh the evidence presented during trial and ascertain the credibility of the
police officers who testified as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation and inpreserving the
integrity of the seized illegal drug.
Nonetheless, for academic discussion,it has been consistently ruled that for the successful
prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Article II, Section 5 ofR.A. No.
9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.19 In other words,
there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered
a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeedknew that what she had sold and
delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.20 To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution
for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
plus the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.21
Certainly, based on the evidence in record, the prosecution had indeed established that there was
a buy-bust operation22 conducted, showing that accused-appellant sold and delivered the
shabufor P100.00 to PO2 Bautista, the poseur-buyer. PO2 Bautista himself testified that there
was an actual exchange of the marked-money and the prohibited drug. Likewise, accused was
fully aware that what she was selling was illegal and prohibited when she asked PO2 Bautista

"iiskor kayo, magkano?" Thereafter, the corpus delicti or the subject drug was seized, marked,
and subsequently identified as a prohibited drug. Taken collectively, the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs by accused-appellant was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.
It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, as amended, credenceshould be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution
witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed tohave performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence tothe contrary. In this regard, the defense
failed to show any ill motive orodious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a
serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person,such as in the
case of accused. Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up charges against her, there remains
a question of why no administrative charges were brought against the police officers. Moreover,
in weighing the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses vis--visthat of the defense, it is a
well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial judge, the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on
appeal.23
Again, in the absence of any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of
the crime have been misapplied or overlooked, this Court can only accord full credence to such
factual assessment of the trial court which had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor
and conduct of the witnesses during the trial. Absent any proof of motive to falsely charge an
accused of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility ofwitnesses shall prevail over
his/her bare allegation.24
Furthermore, this Court has timeand again adopted the chain of custody rule,25 a method of
authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be precededby evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.
This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to
it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.26
It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from
the suspect is the verysame substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established
with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.27
However, as correctly pointed out by the RTC and the CA, failure to strictly comply with the
prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render an arrest ofthe accused
illegal or the items seized/confiscated from her inadmissible. What is essential 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."28 Thus:
From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path by holding that the
failure to undertake the required photography and immediate marking of seized items may be
excused by the unique circumstances of a case. In People v. Resurreccion, we already stated that
"marking upon immediate confiscation"does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at
the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana, People v.
Hernandez, and People v. Gum-Oyen, the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the
police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we sustained the conviction because
the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had been
preserved.To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict
step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would

determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del
Montewhen we held:
We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of
the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the
drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For
evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is
no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that
will [be] accorded it by the courts. x x x
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the
nonadmissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21
of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is
not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the
evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances
obtaining in each case.29 (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted)
From the testimonies of the police officers in the case at bench, the prosecution established that
they had custody of the drug seized from the accused from the moment she was arrested, during
the time she was transported to the police station, and up to the time the drug was submitted to
the crime laboratory for examination.The same witnesses also identified the seized drug with
certaintywhen this was presented in court. With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there
are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity
thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court. It is therefore safe to conclude that, to the
unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a doubt that the evidence seized from the
accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested, introduced, and testified
to in court. This fact was further bolstered by the stipulations entered into between the parties as
to the testimony of forensic chemist, P/Insp. Victor Drapete.30 In other words, there is no
question as to the integrityof the evidence against accused.
To reiterate, although this Court finds that the police officers did not strictly comply with the
requirements of Article II, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such nonC'.ompliance did not affect the
evidentiary weight of the drug seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the
evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circmpstances of the case. As correctly found by
the appellate court, the drug confiscated from the accused was properly accounted for and
forthrightly submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for its extensive examination. The CA
further ruled that nothing invited the suspicion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized articles were jeopardized.
In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial of the
accused fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to thr facility with
which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and
self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the
crime committed.31
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 04053 dated 13 June 2011, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperison
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigndd to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article I VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of tl1e Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-15; Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor with Associate
Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.
2 Records, pp. 103-108; Penned by Presiding Judge Severino B. De Castro, Jr .
3 Records, pp. 1-2; Information dated 4 October 2004.
4 Id. at 1.
5 Id. at 21; Certificate of Arraignment dated 3 January 2005.
6 As testified to by accused-appellant during her direct examination conducted on 3
March 2008. TSN dated 3 March 2008, p. 34.
7 Rollo, pp. 4-6; CA Decision dated 13 June 2011.
8 Records, pp. 103-108.
9 Id. at 108.
10 Id. at 108 citing People v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762 (1999).
11 Id. at 107 citing People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740 (2001).

12 Rollo, pp. 8-9; CA Decision dated 13 June 2011.

13 Id. at 10-13 citing People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, 12 October 2009, 603
Phil. 510; People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 180508, 4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 472; and
People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 697.
14 Id. at 13 citing People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA
202; and People v. Aure, G.R. No. 185163, 17 January 2011, 639 SCRA 570.
15 Id. at 13-14 citing People v. Buluran, 382 Phil. 364 (2000).
16 Id. (no pagination, should be pages 43-44); Resolution dated 23 January 2013.
17 Id. at 34-42.
18 People v. Lardizabal, G.R. No. 89113, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 320, 329.
19 People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004); Chan v. Formaran, III et al.,572 Phil. 118,
132-133 (2008).
20 People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 215.
21 People v. Andres, G. R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 608 citing
People v. Serrano, G. R. No. 179038, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 327.
22 In People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 135, the
High Court expressed that "[a] buy-bust operation is a formof entrapment whereby ways
and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the
execution of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been
proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal afeguards is undertaken."
23 People v. Sembrano, G. R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing
People v. Lamado, G. R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552 and People v.
Remerata, G. R. No. 147230, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
24 People v. Soriaga, G.R. No. 191392, 14 March 2011, 645 SCRA 300, 306 citing
People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, 24 February 2010, 613 SCRA 556, and People v. De
Leon, supra note 22 at 136.
25 Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which
implements R.A. No. 9165 defines "Chain of Custody" as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
suchtransfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.
26 Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
27 People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 186390, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783, 795.
28 People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583.

29 People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 91-92.
30 Rollo, p. 12; CA Decision dated 13 June 2011.
31 Zalameda v. People, G. R. No. 183656, 4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 556.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 190177

June 11, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
VIVIAN BULOTANO y AMANTE, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
In the prosecution of a case for sale of illegal drugs punishable under Section 5, Artic1e II of
Republic Act No. 9165, noncompliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of the law is
not necessarily fatal as to render an accused's arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him
inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, if, nonetheless, the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated items is preserved, there will yet be basis for the establishment of the guilt of the
accused.1
Under review is the conviction of Vivian A. Bulotano (Bulotano) for illegal sale of shabu,
punishable under the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002". The challenged decision
is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 23 July 2009, which affirmed the Decision3
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dated 10 August 2005 in Criminal Case No. 2004-727.
The facts as culled from the records are as follows:
Upon a tip-off, a team of agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
conducted a buy-bust operation in Barangay 31, Sto. Nio, Cagayan de Oro City, toentrap
Bulotano for allegedly selling illegal drugs or shabu.
Acting as poseur-buyers, PO1 Dizon Dagaraga (PO1 Dagaraga), together with an informant,
approached Bulotano, who was playing a card game with two (2) other persons inside a billiard
hall. When Bulotano noticed the two, she approached them and asked what they were looking
for. PO1 Dagaraga replied that he wants to buy P200.00 worth of shabu. After Bulotano handed
PO1 Dagaraga a transparent plastic sachet containing crystals, PO1 Dagaraga handed Bulotano
marked money in the amount of P200.00.
Immediately, PO1 Dagaraga went out of the billiard hall to call the back-up officers to arrest
Bulotano.
During her arrest, PO1 Cotta Tanggote informed Bulotano of the reason for her arrest and of her
constitutional rights. Bulotano was brought to the PDEA- Region 10 Office at Cagayan De Oro
City for her inquest for violation of Republic Act No. 9165.
Bulotano was then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory where she was asked for her urine
sample. When tested, the result came positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.4
The laboratory examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory of the transparent plastic sachet
containing crystalline substance also tested positive for 0.10 gram of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu.5
As her defense, Bulotano claims that during her arrest, she was merely playing a card game when
three (3) armed men suddenly barged into the billiard hall and approached her. According to
Bulotano, one of the three (3) armed men introduced himself as a policeman, after which, she
was brought outside and made to board a police vehicle. Bulotano further claims that during the
entire incident, she was in a state of shock and was never informed of the reason for her arrest, as
well as of her constitutional rights. Contrary to the prosecutions allegation of facts, Bulotano
claims that she found out the reason for her arrest only upon arrival at the PDEA-Region 10

Office, where PO1 Dagaraga made her sign an inventory receipt of the illegal drugs allegedly
seized from her.
One Joel Flores was presented in support of the defense. Essentially, he testified that there was
no buy-bust operation which took place and that the PDEA agents just suddenly barged into the
billiard hall and poked a gun at Bulotanos forehead.6
Bulotano entered a plea of not guilty on the Information which reads:
That on or about September 6, 2004, at 6:00 oclock P.M., at Sto. Nio Brgy. 31, Cagayan de Oro
City, Philippines, 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 sell,
deliver, distribute and give away one (1) small sachet heat sealed transparent plastic cellophane
containing 0.10 gram of met[h]amphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), to a poseur buyer in
consideration of two (2) P100.00 bills, which was marked money bearing Serial Number
QP541321 and RP780963, while the other members of the police unit strategically located
nearby, intently observing the consummation of the transaction, including the giving of marked
money by the poseur buyer to the accused on a buy-bust operation, well knowing that it is
dangerous drug.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165.7
After trial, the trial court found Bulotano guilty of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, (sic) consideration, this Court hereby rendered
judgment finding the accused Vivian Bulotano y Amante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged in the information and sentences her to life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.00 and to pay the cost.
Accused Vivian Bulotano who has been detained since her arrest shall be credited in the service
of her sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty with the full time during which she has
undergone preventive imprisonment if she agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon corrected prisoners.
SO ORDERED.8
On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, Premises considered, the APPEAL is hereby DENIED. The decision dated
August 10, 2005 of Branch 25 of the Regional trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Before Us, Bulotano insists that her conviction is without basis. She anchors her arguments on
the following allegations:
(1) There were no photographs of the alleged seized illegal drugs taken;
(2) The inventory of the alleged seized illegal drugs was not immediately done after her
arrest. The inventory was conducted only after she underwent inquest proceedings at the
City Prosecutors Office, following which the inventory was shown to her and she was
forced to sign the same. There were no witnesses in the conduct of the inventory and that
the inventory report was solely signed by PO1 Dagaraga;
(3) The Chemistry Report, prepared by P/S Insp. April Madroo

(Forensic Chemical Officer), dated 7 September 2004, was not duly notarized;
and
(4) The trial court failed to appreciate the testimony of Joel Flores.
On these arguments, the CA ruled that, "even if it were to be conceded that the above arguments
presented by accused-appellant are indeed meritorious, regrettably, the same arguments do not
militate nor mitigate accused-appellants conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. At
most, the above arguments constitute infractions that may subject the parties concerned to
administrative charges."9
Further, the CA ratiocinated that the "alleged deviations from the guidelines of Republic Act No.
9165 relate only to minor procedural matters, which by any means, does not operate to tilt the
scales of justice in favor of accused-appellant, as the fact of sale of illegal drugs was duly
established by the prosecution against her."10
With the observations that follow, We affirm the conviction of the defendant for illegal sale of
shabu.
Necessity of presenting in evidence the corpus delicti.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and payment therefor.11 The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal
drugs.
The duty of the prosecution is not merely to present in evidence the seized illegal drugs. It is
essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in
evidence in court as the identity of the drug must be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt.12
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 as a legal safeguard that the seized illegal drugs are the
same one presented in court.
Because of the unique characteristic of illegal drugs, rendering them indistinct, not readily
identifiable, and susceptible to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or
otherwise, the law laid down rules to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized illegal
drugs. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the procedure that ensures that what
was confiscated is the one presented in court. Thus:
Section 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) The
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof; x x x x
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath
by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the
receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant

sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the
completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be
provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the
completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours; x
xxx
Otherwise stated, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires that upon seizure of illegal drug
items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical
inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from
whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the
inventory and be given copies thereof.
There were no photographs of the alleged seized illegal drugs taken.
Based on the records, in violation to Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165, the
arresting officers completely failed to take photographs of the seized illegal drugs 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.13
The testimony of PO1 Dagaraga affirms the fact:
Q: You also did not photograph the shabu at the scene in the presence of Vivian Bulotano?
A: No, sir.
Q: In the PDEA Office, did you photograph the shabu in the presence of Vivian Bulotano?
A: I cannot recall.
Q: Meaning to say, it is possible that you have perhaps the evidence together with Vivian
Bulotano at the PDEA Office already?
A: Yes.14
There were no witnesses in the conduct of the inventory, except PO1 Dagaraga.
Besides the failure to photograph the seized illegal drugs, the defense claims that the inventory
was not done immediately after the arrest. However, the defense failed to adduce evidence to
establish such fact. Thus, on this point, the presumption of regularity must prevail.
The defenses arguments, however, do not solely center on the promptness of the conduct of the
inventory. The defense maintains that the inventory report is defective on the ground of lack of
witnesses.
A simple perusal of the inventory report will reveal that PO1 Dagaraga was the sole signatory in
the inventory report.15 PO1 Dagaraga affirmed such procedural lapse. Thus:
Q: Will you agree with me that there are no witnesses who signed in this inventory receipt?
A: No, myself only.16
The Chemistry Report,
prepared by P/S Insp. April

Madroo (Forensic Chemical

Officer) was not duly notarized.
Again, contrary to the procedural requirement laid down in Section 21, paragraph (3) of Republic
Act No. 9165, which requires that the laboratory certification must be under oath, the Chemistry
Report was not duly notarized.17
As defined in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, an affirmation or oath refers to an act in
which an individual on a single occasion:18
(a) appears in person before the notary public;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or
document.
Contrary to the requirements in the law, the Chemistry Report was notarized by a certain
Theodore Ipan Baja (Baja), a Police Chief Inspector/QD Examiner/C/OPN OFFR.19 Baja is not
a duly commissioned notary public. Also, there were no allegations that PO1 Dagaraga was
personally known to Baja and that PO1 Dagaraga avows under the penalty of law to the whole
truth of the contents of the Chemistry Report.
In sum, the procedural requirements of Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 were not followed.
First,no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Second, the arresting officers did not
immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime. Third, although there was
testimony about the marking of the seized items at the police station, the records do not show
that the marking was done in the presence of Bulotano. Fourth, no representative of the media
and the Department of Justice, and any elected official attended the conduct of the physical
inventory and signed the inventory. And finally, the Chemistry Report was not duly notarized.
The "chain of custody" rule.
Without doubt, the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements provided in
Section 21.However, noncompliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render an
accuseds arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt,
for what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence.20
Such that, when there is a failure to follow strictly the said procedure, the crime can still be
proven, i.e., that the noncompliance was under justifiable grounds or that the shabu taken is the
same one presented in court by proof of "chain of custody".
We refer to the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR, which provides a saving mechanism
to ensure that not every case of noncompliance irreversibly prejudices the States evidence, to
wit:
(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly

preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items; (Emphasis and Underscoring supplied)
As thus provided, noncompliance with the enumerated requirements in Section 21 of the law,
does not automatically exonerate the accused. Upon proof that noncompliance was due to
justifiable grounds, and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, the seizure and custody over said items are
not, by the noncompliance, rendered void. This is the "chain of custody" rule.
In Mallillin v. People,21 the Court explained that the "chain of custody" requirement ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The chain of evidence
is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labelling and recording, and must exist from
the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.22 Failure to prove that the
specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from accused
is fatal to the prosecutions case. When there are doubts on whether the item confiscated was the
same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of
illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug.23
In the chain of custody, the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link. Thereafter, the specimen shall undergo different processes and will inevitably be
passed on to different persons. Thus, it is vital that there be an unbroken link in the chain to
obviate switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence,24 a fortiori, to segregate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings.25
In the case at bar, the records establish the links in the chain of custody.
After PO1 Dagaraga seized from Bulotano a transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline
substance (specimen) and the marked money of P200.00, PO1 Dagaraga then prepared an
inventory and request for laboratory examination and brought the specimen, the marked money,
and Bulotano, to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
During his cross-examination, PO1 Dagaraga attested that it was the same seized illegal drugs
which were presented in court because of the markings "DGD" on the specimen and the marked
money. The examination on PO1 Dagaraga as shown in the TSN:26
Q: What did you do next?
A: Then I brought Vivian to our office at PDEA, and I let her filled [sic] up the booking sheet for
her identification.
Q: What else did you do?
A: We prepared a request for laboratory examination for the specimen recovered from Vivian
Bulotano.
Q: If that laboratory request as you said prepared by you be shown to you, will you be able to
identify it?
A: Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q: Im showing to you a specimen already marked Exhibit "D", is that the one you bought from
the accused?
(Pros. Borja handed to the witness Exhibit "D").

A: Yes, this is the one, the sachet that we bought from Vivian Bulotano worth P200.00 peso bills.
Q: Why do you say that this is the one that you bought from Vivian Bulotano?
A: Because of the mark DGD, sir.
xxxx
Q: Why do you say that you were the one who submitted the letter request to the PNP Crime
Laboratory?
A: Because it bears my signatory receipt and I indicated my names (sic) sir.
To corroborate PO1 Dagaragas testimony, SPO1 Samuel Daang Tabligan (SPO1 Tabligan)
testified that he was the one who received the request, specimen, and marked money from PO1
Dagaraga:
Q: I am showing to you this request, is this the request that you received from the PDEA?
A: Yes, sir, including the specimen.
Q: Is this the specimen that you are referring to?
A: Yes, sir.27
xxxx
Q: Mr. Witness, when you received the laboratory request and the specimen, where did the
requesting party placed the small sachet containing a white crystalline substance?
A: It is placed in a bigger transparent cellophane.
Q: Where there markings on the bigger plastic cellophane where the small plastic sachet was
placed?
A: There was none.
Q: Now, how was that big cellophane sealed, was it sealed through masking tape or staple wire?
A: It was sealed through staple wire.
Q: When you received it, did you also open it in order to examine the specimen that was placed
inside?
A: Yes, Maam. I opened the bigger plastic for comparison.
xxxx
Q: By the way, who delivered this laboratory request and this specimen?
A: PO1 Dizon Dagaraga. He was the one who brought the written request together with the
specimen.28
To prove that the specimen presented in court was the same specimen he received from PO1
Dagaraga and the same specimen he examined and thereafter, forwarded to the PNP Chemical
Laboratory, SPO1 Tabligan positively identified the seized shabu:

Q: Now, Mr. Witness, on the smaller sachet which contains a white crystalline substance, what
were the markings you found?
A: I found the making "DGD".
xxxx
Q: And did you record in your police logbook, the receipt of this specimen and the laboratory
request?
A: Yes, Maam.29
In detail, the records of the case indicate that after Bulotanos arrest, she was taken to the police
station and turned over to the police investigator. Although there were no photographs taken,
PO1 Dagaraga, the poseur-buyer and arresting officer, testified that he personally30 made the
markings "DGD" (representing his initials) on the plastic sachet containing crystalline substance.
PO1 Dagaraga also testified that he was the one who drafted the inventory.31 PO1 Dagaraga,
also, drafted the request for chemical laboratory examination.32 After drafting the request, it was
still PO1 Dagaraga, who delivered the plastic sachet containing crystalline substance,33 which
had the marking "DGD" to the PNP Chemical Laboratory for examination. The request, together
with the sachet containing crystalline substance, was received by SPO1 Tabligan.34 Then, it was
transferred to the Forensic Chemical Officer, P/S Insp. Madroo.35 The plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance was later on determined to be positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu.36
Despite noncompliance with the requirements in Section 21, there is no showing of a break in the
chain in the custody of the seized item, later on determined to be shabu, from the moment of its
seizure by the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the time it was brought to the
forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.37 The prosecutions
failure to submit in evidence the required photograph and inventory conducted in the presence of
the accused and witnesses of the seized drugs pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 will not exonerate Bulotano.38 Noncompliance with the requirements is not fatal and
will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.39 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.40
Finally, We find need to comment on the statement by the appellate court that, "even if it were to
be conceded that the above arguments presented by accused-appellant are indeed meritorious,
regrettably, the same arguments do not militate nor mitigate accused-appellants conviction for
violation of Republic Act No. 9165. At most, the above arguments constitute infractions that may
subject the parties concerned to administrative charges."41
The requirements laid down in Section 21 are not a statement of duties or a job description of the
drugs law enforcement officers.1wphi1 It is a statement of procedure for compliance with the
imperative that the thing presented as proof of violation of the law is precisely that which was
confiscated or taken from the accused, recognizing the unique characteristic of illegal drugs
being vulnerable to tampering, altering or substitution.42 When it is not followed without any
justifiable reason, an acquittal of the accused results.
Thus, while minor deviations from the procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 would not
automatically exonerate an accused, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards
prescribed in the substantive law, serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized
items that the prosecution presented in evidence.43 Which is why the rule of chain of custody
was included in the IRR of the law.

Credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting illmotive on the part of the police officers.44
The same presumption holds good insofar as the fact of sale is concerned. Bulotano failed to
show any motive on the part of the arresting officers to implicate her in a crime she claimed she
did not commit. Bulotanos bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1
Dagaraga that she is the same person who sold the shabu to him, corroborated by SPO1 Tabligan.
Parenthetically, the testimony of Joel Flores, merely corroborative of the defense is likewise of
no moment.
We uphold the performance in this case of the police officers of their duty. We are not, however,
unmindful of the abuses that can possibly be committed by enforcing officers of the law. We take
note that arresting officers cannot run around the law unscathed; thus, the more stringent
implementation of Sections 27, 29 and 32 of Republic Act No. 9165, which criminalizes
misappropriation, misapplication, failure to account confiscated or seized illegal drugs, planting
of illegal drugs as evidence, and violation of rules of the PDEA of arresting officers.45
Thus said, We go back to what is this case at bottom. All the elements necessary for the
prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs has been established beyond reasonable doubt (a) the
identity of the buyer: PO1 Dagaraga; and the seller: Bulotano; the object: shabu; and the
consideration: P200.00 marked money; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment
therefor.46
Accordingly, We AFFIRM the 23 July 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CRHC No. 00254-MIN, which in turn affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court in
Criminal Case No. 2004-727 dated 10 August 2005, finding accused-appellant VIVIAN
BULOTANO y AMANTE guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 593 (2007).
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Elihu A.
Ybaez and Ruben C. Ayson concurring, Court of Appeals-Mindanao Station, TwentyThird Division, CAG.R. CR-HC No. 00254-MIN; CA rollo, pp. 56-63.
3 Penned by Judge Noli T. Catli, RTC, Branch 25, Misamis Oriental, Crim. Case No.
2004-727; id. at 24-28.
4 Exhibit "D", records, p. 108.
5 Exhibit "C", id. at 107.
6 TSN, 19 July 2005, p. 3.
7 Records, p. 2.
8 Id. at 165-166.
9 CA rollo, p. 59.
10 Rollo, pp. 6-7.
11 People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 184760, 23 April 2010, 619 SCRA 389, 400.
12 Sales v. People, 602 Phil. 1047, 1056 (2009).
13 Records, pp. 104-105.
14 TSN, 20 February 2005, p. 23.
15 Exhibit "1", records, p. 17.
16 TSN, 20 February 2005, p. 24.
17 Exhibit "D", records, p. 108.
18 A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice.
19 Exhibit "D", records, p. 108.
20 People v. Pringas, supra note 1.
21 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
22Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934, 954 (2007).

23 Id. at 951-952.
24 People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 267.
25 Id.
26 TSN, 20 February 2005, pp. 8-9.
27 TSN, 20 January 2005, pp. 3-4.
28 Id. at 4-6.
29 TSN, 20 January 2005, pp. 5- 6.
30 TSN, 20 February 2005, p. 23.
31 Id. at 9.
32 Id.
33 Id. at 8-9.
34 TSN, 20 January 2005, p. 5
35 Exhibit "E-1", records, p. 110.
36 Exhibit "C", id. at 107.
37 People v. Bara, G.R. No. 184808, 14 November 2011, 660 SCRA 38, 46 citing People
v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 508.
38 People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957, 971 (2008).
39 Id.
40 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, 5 June 2013.
41 CA rollo, p. 59.
42 People v. Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, 6 April 2011, 647 SCRA 431, 437.
43 People v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371, 13 June 2012, 672 SCRA 604, 617, citing People
v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 355.
44 People v. Torres, supra note 40, citing People v. Arriola, G.R. No. 187736, 8 February
2012, 665 SCRA 581, 591.
45 Section 27-29, RA 9165.
46 People v. Lorenzo, supra note 11.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 206770

April 2, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
NOEL PRAJES and ALIPA MALA, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 00462, which affirmed the Decision2 dated June 29, 2004 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 15, finding Noel Prajes (Prajes) and Alipa
Mala (Mala) (accused-appellants) guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
The accused-appellants were accused of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 via an
Information filed with the RTC of Cebu and docketed as Crim. Case No. CBU-63836. The
accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That sometime on 04 September 2002, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conniving and confederating
with each other and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent, did then and there sell,
trade, dispense, deliver and/or give away to a National Bureau of Investigation Operative who
posed as buyer: White Crystalline substances having a total net weight of 195.6580 grams placed
inside three (3) transparent plastic packs: positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug locally known as shabu, without authority of law.3
The accused-appellants pleaded "not guilty" when arraigned. After pre-trial, trial on the merits
ensued.4
According to the prosecution, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Cebu City received
reports that the accused-appellants were engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. Following
surveillance operations conducted during the last week of August 2002, a buy-bust operation was
organized by the NBI for September 4, 2002.5
Thus, at around 1:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, NBIs informant, Rene Sabayton (Sabayton)
transacted with the accused-appellants for a supposed buyers purchase of shabu weighing 200
grams for P180,000.00.6 At 4:00 p.m., the buy-bust team, headed by Senior Agent Atty. Angelito
Magno (Atty. Magno) and composed of NBI Supervising Agent Vicente Minguez (SA Minguez),
Special Investigator Teodoro Saavedra (SI Saavedra), SI Ray Tumalon (SI Tumalon), SI Danilo
Garay and SA Rennan Oliva, proceeded to Kinasang-an, Pardo, Cebu City where the purchase
would be made. SI Tumalon was designated the poseur-buyer. Atty. Magno prepared the buybust money amounting to P4,500.00, composed of nine P500.00 bills dusted with fluorescent
powder and which were combined with boodle money.7
As previously arranged with Sabayton, Prajes met up with Sabayton and SI Tumalon in a
makeshift house in Kinasang-an, where Mala later joined them. Since Prajes had not brought
with him the illegal drugs to be sold, the group proceeded to his fathers house which was only
15 to 20 meters away from the makeshift house8 and there, SI Tumalon received the illegal drugs
from Prajes.
While they were at the ground floor of the house, Prajes handed to SI Tumalon two packs of
shabu having a total weight of 100 grams. When SI Tumalon pointed out that he needed 200
grams, Prajes instructed Mala to produce more stock. Mala left the house, then later came back

with another pack, which he handed to SI Tumalon. Thereafter, SI Tumalon gave one bundle of
the buy-bust money to Prajes, and the other bundle to Mala.9
Upon the accused-appellants receipt of the buy-bust money, SI Tumalon introduced himself to
them as an NBI agent. SI Tumalon made a "missed call" to SA Minguezs phone, the teams preagreed signal to indicate that the sale had been consummated, and then arrested the accusedappellants.10 Soon thereafter, the other members of the buy-bust team arrived. The accusedappellants were handcuffed and brought to the NBI office, where their photographs and
fingerprints were taken.11 At the NBI office, SI Tumalon handed the buy-bust money and three
packs of shabu to SI Saavedra, who placed his markings on the packs of shabu. SI Saavedra also
prepared the letter-request for examination of the illegal drugs, which he personally turned over
to Chemist Rommel Paglinawan12 of the Forensic Chemistry Section, Central Visayas Regional
Office of the NBI. A laboratory examination of the three packs sold by the accused-appellants to
SI Tumalon confirmed that the specimen contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
An ultraviolet examination performed by the NBI also confirmed the presence of fluorescent
powder on the accused-appellants hands.
The accused-appellants denied the charge against them. Prajes claimed that at about 4:00 p.m. on
September 4, 2002, he was sleeping at his house in Kinasang-an when a neighbor, Renante
Paradero (Paradero), woke him up to inform him that some persons were looking for him. He
then proceeded to Paraderos house and there saw Sabayton, whom he had previously met in a
"sniffing session" and who had called him up at around 1:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002 for the
purchase of shabu. Sabayton was with two companions, who inquired from Prajes about the
purchase. Prajes, Sabayton and his two companions then proceeded to the house of Prajes father,
where Prajes received the drugs from a person sent by a certain "Alex". Prajes handed the pack
of shabu to Sabayton, then was immediately handcuffed by SI Tumalon. Sabayton hit Prajes
handcuffed right hand with money that was brought by the buy-bust team. Thereafter, Prajes was
taken to the NBI Office.
For Malas defense, witness Magdalena Abarquez claimed that at around 4:00 p.m. on September
4, 2002, she saw Mala enter the house of Prajes. When he tried to leave the house, he was
prevented by someone who was inside the house.13
Sabayton was called on the witness stand by the defense as a hostile witness. He claimed that he
was arrested by NBI operatives on September 3, 2002. While at the NBI office, the operatives
asked for a gift or "regalo" by giving names of persons whom they could arrest, in exchange for
his freedom. Thus, he gave the name of Prajes and coordinated with the latter for the drug
purchase.14 After Prajes presented the shabu to Sabayton during the buy-bust operation, he
called on Mala to test and sniff the shabu. Before the latter could do so, SI Tumalon pointed a
gun at the accused-appellants and handcuffed them. When Prajes refused to receive the buy-bust
money, SI Tumalon slapped the money on Prajes handcuffed hands. Notwithstanding Sabaytons
participation in the buy-bust which led to the arrest of the accused-appellants, he was neither
released from jail nor relieved from prosecution for his violation of R.A. No. 9165.15
The RTC Ruling
On June 29, 2004, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 15, rendered a Decision16 finding the accusedappellants guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and sentencing them to
each suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay fine of P500,000.00.17 Dissatisfied with
the trial courts ruling, the accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision18 dated May 30, 2012, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. The
appellate court found no credence in the denials that were posed by the accused-appellants.
Instead, it found credible the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the elements of the

crime of illegal sale of drugs, as well as its showing that there was sufficient compliance by the
NBI operatives with the rule on chain of custody.
The Present Appeal
Hence, the present appeal wherein the accused-appellants insist on the prosecutions failure to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-appellants also question the subject
drugs identity and the NBIs observance of the rule on the chain of custody. They argue that it
was unclear as to who actually marked the subject packs of shabu, and that there were no
photographs and physical inventory of the seized items, even when the same are required under
the law.
This Courts Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
At the outset, the Court reiterates the settled rule that "the findings of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof,
as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect.
This is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial courts findings
have been affirmed by the appellate court, x x x, said findings are generally binding upon
us[,]"19 save in settled exceptions such as: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are
grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is
based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6)
when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; (7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties
and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the
findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record.20 Upon review, the Court has determined that the present case does not fall
under any of these exceptions. We find no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings, and
consequent rulings, of the trial and appellate courts.
On the issue of chain of custody, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that "[t]he apprehending
team having initial custody and control of the [seized] drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof[.]" In relation thereto, Section 21 of the laws Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
provides in part:
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. x x x:
(a) x x x 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[.]
These "[s]tatutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and
related items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented

against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal
possession or illegal sale of prohibited drugs."21
In a line of cases, the Court has nonetheless explained that "while the chain of custody should
ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain."22 The limitation on chain of custody is also recognized in the afore-quoted Section 21
of R.A. No. 9165s IRR, as it states that non-compliance with the rules requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items. In resolving drug cases, we then repeatedly emphasize that "what is
essential 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."23
On the issue of the subject drugs marking as part of the chain of custody requirement, the
accused-appellants point out that SI Tumalon and SI Saavedra both named SI Saavedra as the
one who marked the seized drugs, but witnesses SA Minguez and Atty. Magno each testified that
it was SI Tumalon and the forensic chemist, respectively, who effected such marking. The Court,
however, agrees with the CAs observation that although there were conflicting accounts by the
prosecution witnesses as to the person who actually marked the seized drugs, the failure of SA
Minguez and Atty. Magno to identify the said person could be readily explained by the fact that
they had no actual participation in the evidences marking. As against their conflicting
statements, what were significant were the testimonies of SI Tumalon and SI Saavedra, being the
persons who actually seized, endorsed and marked the evidence. Both agreed that following the
accused-appellants arrest, the seized packs of shabu were handed by SI Tumalon to SI Saavedra,
who was the one who placed the markings on the evidence,24 before the same were brought to
the laboratory for examination. As aptly explained by the appellate court:
SA Minguez may have incorrectly assumed that it was SI Tumalon, their poseur-buyer, who
made the markings on the packs of shabu that were confiscated in the ensuing confusion.
However, SI Tumalon himself testified that he turned-over the drugs to SA Saavedra. Atty.
Magnos statement that it was "maybe our Forensic Chemist" who made the markings on the
three packs is inconsequential when considered with the positive testimonies of SI Tumalon and
SA Saavedra. SA Minguez and Atty. Magno assumed supporting roles. It was SI Tumalon who
was in the thick of things so to speak, as he was the poseur-buyer and he was the one who took
the shabu from accused-appellants and handed it to SA Saavedra for marking. Moreover, SA
Saavedras identification of his own handwriting puts any doubt to rest.25 (Citations omitted)
The fact that the marking was performed by SA Saavedra only upon the buy-bust teams arrival
at the NBI office did not adversely affect the prosecutions case against the accused-appellants.
Given the situation at the house where the accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto
and then arrested by the buy-bust team, the failure of SA Saavedra to mark the seized drugs at
the said site was justified. In his testimony before the trial court, SA Minguez described that after
the accused-appellants arrest, their neighbors interfered and rallied for the accused-appellants,
even compelling members of the buy-bust team inside the house to seek the immediate aid of
their peers so that they could leave the premises.26
Even the failure of the prosecution to present a physical inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs did not render inadmissible the packs of shabu that were seized from the accusedappellants, especially as we consider that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs did not
appear to have been compromised. This was similar with the Court's ruling in People v. Torres27
and Ambre v. People,28 wherein we affirmed the conviction of the accused notwithstanding
some deviations from the required procedure on physical inventory and photographs of the
seized items.1wphi1
As against the accused-appellants' denial, an inherently weak defense, the evidence presented by
the prosecution deserves credence. The following elements of illegal sale of shabu were
sufficiently established during the trial: (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.29 During a planned buy-bust operation, SI Tumalon served as a poseur-buyer and was
able to successfully purchase packs of shabu weighing 195 grams, more or less, from the
accused-appellants for a total consideration of P180,000.00. The payment was handed to the
accused-appellants by SI Tumalon. An examination conducted by the Forensic Chemistry
Section, Central Visayas Regional Office, NBI in Capitol Site, Cebu City, confirmed that the
packs contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.30 There was nothing on record which
would indicate that the substance purchased by SI Tumalon from the accused-appellants during
the buy-bust operation was different from the subject of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section's
examination, and that which was eventually presented by the prosecution in court to establish
their case against the accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CRHC No. 00462 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
Chief Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices
Gabriel T. Ingles and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-19.
2 Issued by Presiding Judge Fortunato M. De Gracia, Jr., CA rollo, pp. 48-54.
3 Id. at 48.
4 Id.
5 Id.

6 Id.
7 Id. at 49.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 49-50.
11 Id. at 49.
12 Id. at 51.
13 Id. at 52.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 48-54.
17 Id. at 54.
18 Id. at 3-19.
19 People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 54, 64-65.
20 People v. Omictin, G.R. No. 188130, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 611, 619, citing
Dueas v. Guce-Africa, G.R. No. 165679, October 5, 2009, 603 SCRA 11, 20-21.
21 People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 260, 262.
22 People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 357, 368, citing
Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 443.
23 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 452.
24 Rollo, pp. 16-17.
25 Id.
26 CA rollo, p. 50.
27 Supra note 23.
28 G.R. No. 191532, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 552.
29 People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529.
30 Rollo, pp. 8-9.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 188133

July 7, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
OLIVER RENATO EDAO y EBDANE, Appellant.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve in this appeal the challenge to the October 16, 2008 Decision1 and the December 23,
2008 resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01142. The challenged
CA decision affirmed the April 22, 2004 joint decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 103, Quezon City, finding appellant Oliver Renato Edafio guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and imposing on him the penalty of life imprisonment. The
assailed resolution, on the other hand, denied the appellant's motion for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant and Godofredo Siochi with violation of Section 11, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 under two separate Informations, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-02111200 and Q-02-112104.
The appellant and Siochi pleaded not guilty to the charge on arraignment. Joint trial on the merits
followed.
The prosecution presented, as itswitnesses, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Aylin Casignia and Police
Officer (PO) 3 Elmer Corbe. The appellant, Siochi and Ruben Forteza took the witness stand for
the defense.
The evidence for the prosecution established that on the evening of August 6, 2002, members of
the Metro Manila Drugs Enforcement Group, composed of PO3 Corbe, PO3 Nelson Javier, PO3
Dennis Padpad, PO3 Marcelo Alcancia, Jr., together with a female informant, went to the parking
area of McDonalds, West Avenue to conduct an entrapment operation against a certain alias
"Nato."4
At around 7:00 p.m., the appellant arrived on board a space wagon driven by Siochi.5 The
informant approached the appellant and talked to him inside the vehicle. Afterwards, the
informant waved at PO3 Corbe.6 When PO3 Corbe was approaching the appellant, the latter
went out of the vehicle and ran away. PO3 Corbe, PO3 Padpad and PO3 Alcancia chased the
appellant; PO3 Corbe was able to grab the appellant, causing the latter to fall on the ground. PO3
Corbe recovered a "knot-tied" transparent plastic bag from the appellants right hand, while PO3
Alcancia seized a gun tucked in the appellants waist. The other members of the police arrested
Siochi. Thereafter, the police brought the appellant, Siochi and the seized items to the police
station for investigation.7
P/Insp. Casignia, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Western Police District Crime Laboratory,
examinedthe seized items and found them positive for the presence of shabu.8
The appellant, for his part, testified that at around 4:00 p.m. on August 6, 2002, he called Siochi
on the phone, and informed him that the motorbike starter the latter needed was already
available.9 On the same day, Vanessa Paduada called the appellant, and asked for the directions
to McDonalds, West Avenue.10 At around 6:00 p.m., Siochi and Ruben arrived at the gate of
Philam Homes on board a space wagon. The appellant met them at the subdivision gate, and
showed the starter to Siochi. Thereafter, Vanessa called on the appellants cellular phone. The
appellant then boarded the vehicle, and told Siochi that he would just talk to a person at

McDonalds.11 When the space wagon arrived at McDonalds, the appellant alighted from the
vehicle and proceeded towards the restaurants entrance. Afterwards, Vanessa called him from
inside a parked car. The appellant approached Vanessa who, for her part, alighted from the car.
Vanessa told the appellant to get inside the cars rear. The appellant did as instructed; Vanessa
went to the front passenger seat, beside a male driver.12 Immediately after, the male driver
alighted from the vehicle and entered the cars rear. The appellant went out of the car, but the
male driver followed him and grabbed his hand. The appellant resisted, and wrestled with the
driver along West Avenue. During this commotion, the appellant heard a gunfire; four (4) persons
approached him, and then tied his hands with a masking tape.13 The police placed him on board
a pick-up truck, and then brought him to Bicutan. In Bicutan, the police brought him to the
interrogation room, where they punched him and placed a plastic on his head.14
In its joint decision dated April 22, 2004, the RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. It also ordered him to pay a P500,000.00 fine.
The RTC, however, acquitted Siochi on the ground of reasonable doubt.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA found PO3 Corbe to be a credible
witness. The CA also found the appellants warrantless arrest to be valid; it explained that the
appellants act of running when PO3 Corbe was approaching him reinforced the latters suspicion
that "something was amiss."15
The CA added that strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not
required as long asthe integrity of the seized item had been ensured. It further held that the police
officers were presumed to have regularly performed their official duties.
Finally, the CA held that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal
possession of shabu.
The appellant moved to reconsider this decision, but the CA denied his motion in its resolution
dated December 23, 2008.
In his brief16 and supplemental brief,17 the appellant essentially alleged that PO3 Corbes
testimony was "vague and equivocal;"18 it lacked details on how the appellant was lured to sell
shabu to the informant, and how the entrapment operation had been planned. The appellant also
argued that his warrantless arrest was illegal since he was not committing any crime when the
police arrested him. He alsoclaimed that the police did not mark and photograph the seized
items, and that there was a broken chain of custody over the confiscated drugs.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters with the argument that the testimony of PO3
Corbe was clear and convincing; the inconsistencies in his court testimony pertained only to
minor details. It also claimed that the appellants arrest was valid, and the seized shabu was
admissible in evidence. Finally, the OSG maintained that there was no break in the chain of
custody over the seized plastic bag containing shabu.19
THE COURTS RULING
After due consideration, we resolve to ACQUITthe appellant.
Warrantless arrest invalid; seized
items inadmissible
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be

arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is

known an arrest in flagrante delicto.20
"For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delictoto be valid, two requisites must
concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer."21
In the present case, there was no overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise that could be
properly attributed to the appellant to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Corbe that he
(appellant) had just committed, was actually committing, or was attempting to commit a crime.
In fact, PO3 Corbe testified that the appellant and the informant were just talking with each
otherwhen he approached them. For clarity and certainty, we reproduce PO3 Corbes court
testimony dated February 21, 2003, thus:
ATTY. RENATO SARMIENTO:
Q: You and the informant were not able to approach Nato because he sense[d] that you are (sic) a
policeman?
PO3 CORBE:
A: Our informant first approached Renato Edano[,] and they talked but when he (sic) called me,
Renato run (sic), sir.
Q: You said tinawag ka[,] who was that that call (sic) you?
A: Team informant, sir.
xxxx
Q: How did she call you?
A: She waived (sic) her had (sic), sir.
Q: What was she doing?
A: She was talking to Alias Nato[,] sir.
Q: Did you hear what they are talking? (sic)
A: I was still in the car[.] I was not able to hear[,] sir.
Q: How would you know that they are talking, Mr. Witness? (sic)
A: I could see them, sir.
Q: What did you see?
A: They were talking, sir.
Q: They were not exchanging stuff and money, Mr. witness?
A: Not yet, sir.
Q: While talking[,] the female informant call[ed] you, Mr. Witness?

A: Yes, sir.22 (emphases ours)

As testified to by PO3 Corbe himself, the appellant and the informant were just talking to each
other; there was no exchange of money and drugs when he approached the car. Notably,while it
is true that the informant waved at PO3 Corbe, the latter admitted that this was not the prearranged signal to signify that the sale of drugs had been consummated. PO3 Corbe also admitted
on cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge on whether there was a prohibited drug
and gun inside the space wagon when he approached it.
That the appellant attempted to run away when PO3 Corbe approached him is irrelevant and
cannot by itself be construed as adequate to charge the police officer with personal knowledge
that the appellant had just engaged in, was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in
criminal activity.
As the Court explained in People v. Villareal:23
Furthermore, appellants act of darting away when PO3 de Leon approached him should not be
construed against him. Flight per seis not synonymous with guilt and must not always be
attributed to ones consciousness of guilt.It is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other
circumstances, for even in high crime areas there are many innocent reasons for flight, including
fear of retribution for speaking to officers, unwillingness to appear as witnesses,and fear of being
wrongfully apprehended as a guilty party.Thus, appellants attempt to run away from PO3 de
Leon is susceptible of various explanations; it could easily have meant guilt just as it could
likewise signify innocence.24
In other words, trying to run awaywhen no crime has been overtly committed, and without more,
cannot be evidence of guilt.
Considering that the appellants warrantless arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure that
resulted from it was likewise illegal. Thus, the alleged plastic bag containing white crystalline
substances seized from him is inadmissible in evidence, having comefrom an invalid search and
seizure.
Corpus delicti not proved with moral
certainty
Even granting, for the sake ofargument, that the appellants warrantless arrest was valid, the
latters acquittal is still in order due to the prosecutions failure to establish the evidence of the
corpus delictiwith moral certainty.
We stress that "[t]he existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua nonfor conviction for
the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the verycorpus delictiof the
crimes."25 Thus, the evidence of the corpus delictimust be established beyond reasonable doubt.
In the present case, the various lapses enumerated and discussed below committed by the
police in the handling, safekeeping and custody over the seized drug tainted the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu.
First, we find it highly unusual and irregular that the police officers would let the appellant mark
the drugs seized from him, instead of doing the marking themselves. To directly quote from the
records:
ATTY. SARMIENTO:
Q: This item was not marked at the place allegedly where you apprehended the suspect at
McDonalds, West Avenue, Quezon City, am I correct to say that?

PO3 CORBE:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You are also required not only tomark it but to put your initial to it, my question did you place
your initial in this evidence? (sic)
A: No, sir.
Q: You did not, Mr. Witness?
A: No, sir.
Q: You were also required to put the date of apprehension, being the arresting officer, did you put
the date in this evidence, Mr. Witness?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why did you not do that, Mr. Witness?
A: What I remembered there is an initial of the accused, sir.
Q: Who put the initial, Mr. Witness?
A: He was the one, sir.
Q: At your station?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not put your initial?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why did you not put your initial?
A: I was not able to put sir.26 (emphases ours)
Marking, as used in drug cases, means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseurbuyerof his/her initials and signature on the item/s seized. "Consistency with the "chain of
custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the
same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done
(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation."27 The Court
clarified in People v. Resurreccion28 that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Thus, while
marking of the seized drugs at the police station is permitted, the marking should be done by the
police, and not by the accused. The appellants participation inthe marking procedure should only
be as a witness. Why the police failed to do a basic police procedure truly baffles us.
We also point out that per the testimony of P/Insp. Casignia, the Forensic Chemical Officer, the
police forwarded two (2) plastic bags containing white crystalline substances to the crime
laboratory for examination one marked with the initials "OR" and the other marked with "GS."
Both plastic bags were used asevidence against the appellant. The records, however, did not
indicate who marked the plastic bag with "GS," who witnessed this marking, and whenthis
marking had been made. As with the bag that had been marked "OR," we express doubts on
whether the plastic bag containing white crystalline substances marked as "GS" was the same
plastic bag taken from the appellants co-accused, Siochi.

Second, the police did not inventory or photographthe seized drugs, whether at the place of
confiscation or at the police station. These omissions were admitted by the prosecution during
pre-trial.29
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph
1,Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventoryand 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[.] [emphases ours]
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of theImplementing Rules and
Regulations(IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventoryand 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 berequired to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items[.] [emphasis ours]
To be sure, Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the
express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, i.e.,"noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]"This saving
clause, however, applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses and
thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved.30
These conditions were not met in the present case, as the prosecution did not even attempt to
offer any justification for its failure to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling and
safekeeping of the seized items. "We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to
establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under
Section 21[a] of R.A. No. 9165, or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so."31 The
Court cannot simply presume what these justifications are.
Although the Court has recognized that minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. No.
9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused, we have also declared that when there is
gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed inthe substantive law (R.A. No. 9165),
serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution
presented in evidence. This doubt cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of
the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official
duties.32
In sum, we hold that the appellants acquittal is in order since theshabupurportedly seized from
him is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Corollarily,

the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the
chain of custody requirement of this Act, compromised the identity of the item seized, leading to
the failure to adequately prove the corpus delictiof the crime charged.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSEand SET ASIDEthe October 16, 2008
decision and the December 23, 2008 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
01142. Appellant Oliver Renato Edao y Ebdane is hereby ACQUITTEDfor failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately
RELEASEDfrom detention unless heis otherwise legally confined for another cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be sent to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City,
for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the
action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and concurred
in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Mariflor
P. Punzalan Castillo.

2 CA rollo, p. 139.
3 Id. at 21-27; penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
4 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 2-3, 18.
5 Id. at 8 and 24.
6 Id. at 19-21.
7 Id. at 5-7, 23.
8 TSN, December 11, 2002, pp. 12-17.
9 TSN, December 9, 2003, pp. 3-4.
10 Id. at 6.
11 Id. at 8-12; and TSN, February 16, 2004, pp. 11-12.
12 TSN, December 9, 2003, pp. 14-18.
13 Id. at 19-25.
14 Id. at 26-29.
15 Supranote 1, at 10.
16 CA rollo, pp. 44-54, 104-107.
17 Rollo, pp. 24-40.
18 Supranote 16, at 48.
19 CA rollo, pp. 72-95.
20 See George Antiquera y Codes v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180661,
December 11, 2013.
21 See People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 191267, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 42, 51; italics
supplied.
22 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 19-21.
23 G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 549.
24 Id. at 560; italics supplied, citations omitted.
25 See People v. Magat, 588 Phil. 395, 402 (2008).
26 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 14-15.
27 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
28 618 Phil. 520, 532 (2009).
29 See Records, p. 43.

30 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 431 (2009), citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214
(2008).
31 See People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 354;
citations omitted.
32 See People v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 604, 617.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 188707

July 30, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
MANUELITA AMPATUAN y GONZALES, ET AL., Accused,
MASTOR SARIP y MARUHOM and WARREN TUMOG y SAMPARADO, AccusedAppellants.

DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Under review is the conviction of the accused-appellants for illegal sale of shabu, illegal
possession of shahu and shabu paraphernalia, punishable under Sections 5, 11 (3), and 12, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the "'Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002". The challenged decision is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals
(CA), dated 9 October 2007 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00356 MIN, which affirmed with
modifications the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dated 18 August 2003, in Criminal
Case No. 51,765-2003, 51,766-2003, 51,767-2003 and 51,768-2003.2
The present case involves four (4) separate Amended Information charging accused-appellants
Manuelita Ampatuan (Manuelita), Warren Tumog (Warren) and Mastor Maruhom (Mastor), with
violation of R.A. No. 9165. The first Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 51,765-2003,
charged accused-appellants Manuelita, Warren and Mastor with violation of Section 5, Article II
of R.A.No. 9165 or illegal sale of shabu.
The second Information, docketedas Criminal Case No. 51,766-2003, charged accused-appellant
Warren with violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia.
The third Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 51,767-2003, charged accused-appellant
Manuelita also with violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal possession of
drug paraphernalia.
The last Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 51,768-2003, charged accused-appellant
Manuelita with violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal possession of
prohibited drugs.
These four cases were tried jointly.
The facts as culled from the records are as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
On 29 January 2003, police officers apprehended Edward Dujon (Dujon) for violation of R.A.
No. 9165, which resulted to his detention at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Authority (PDEA)
in Davao City pending prosecution of his case.
While in detention, on 8 February 2003, Dujon approached Police Chief Inspector Wilkins
Villanueva (Chief P/Insp. Villanueva), Regional Director of the PDEA to give information on the
alleged drug activity of accused-appellant Manuelita and her group who are based in Cotabato
City, as one of his suppliers of shabu,.
To verify Dujons claim, Chief P/Insp. Villanueva ordered Dujon to contact Manuelita. When
Dujon was ableto talk to Manuelita, he ordered three (3) jumbo packs of shabu, consisting of 50
grams per packet, and asked that it be delivered the following day. Manuelita agreed.
The following day, 9 February 2003, Manuelita called Dujon, informing him that she could not
deliver the three (3) jumbo packs of shabu due to lack of supply and that she only had one (1)
jumbo sachet in her possession. Manuelita asked Dujon to postpone the delivery for another day.
When Manuelita again failed to deliver on 10 February 2003, Dujon called Manuelita and asked
that she deliver the one jumbo sachet of shabu, worth P70,000.00, in Davao City. Manuelita
agreed.

At around six oclock in the morning of 11 February 2003, Manuelita texted Dujon that she and
her men, accused-appellants Mastor and Warren, were already waiting for him inside a white
pick-up truck with plate number LBP 648 near Dimsum Diner on Guerrero Street, Davao City.
Dujon informed the PDEA about the arrival of Manuelita and her group. They immediately
commenced the entrapment operation. Dujon, driving his own car, proceeded to the Dimsum
Diner, discreetly followed by the PDEA operatives.
At the Dimsum Diner, Dujon and Manuelitas group agreed to conduct the delivery at Jogues
Apartelle("Jogues") in Juna Subd., Matina, Davao. The PDEA operatives went ahead to Jogues
to secure the area.
At around nine oclock in the morning, Dujon and Manuelitas convoy arrived at Jogues. Dujon,
after getting a room, went to Room No. 3 together with Manuelitas group. After a few minutes
in Room No. 3, they were informed to move to Room No. 2 as Room No. 3 had already been
reserved.
In Room No. 2, the group tasted the sample shabu to test its quality. Satisfied with the quality,
Dujon asked Manuelita to wait for his assistant, who was already on his way to withdraw his
money from the bank. Manuelita then took out the headscarf she was clasping, opened it, and
handed the jumbo sachet with crystalline substance over to Dujon.
Meanwhile, when Dujon failed toupdate the PDEA as previously planned, PO1 Anthony Alpiz
(PO1 Alpiz) peered through a window of Room No. 2. According to PO1 Alpiz, he clearly saw
Manuelita hand Dujon the jumbo sachet with crystalline substance. Upon seeing that the jumbo
sachet with crystalline substance was in Dujons possession, PO1 Alpiz, followed by other PDEA
operatives, rushed into Room No. 2.
After reading accused-appellants their constitutional rights, the PDEA operatives handcuffed
them. PO1 Alpiz confiscated the jumbo sachet with crystalline substance then proceeded to frisk
accused-appellants and saw a black canister with kettle tube inside hanging from Warrens neck,
which upon examination, turned out to bea drug paraphernalia for sniffing shabu. On top of the
table was Manuelitas headscarf. Upon inspection, PO1 Alpiz discovered four pieces of
aluminum foil, a lighter, and a small sachet containing a crystalline substance, which later tested
positive for shabu. After seizure of the illegal drugs and paraphernalia, the PDEA operatives
brought the accused-appellants to the PDEA headquarters for investigation.
According to the Forensic Report3 executed by Chief P/Insp. Noemi Austero, Head of the
Chemistry Section:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
"A"- White crystalline substance weighing 46.4490 grams contained in a transparent plastic.
"B"- White crystalline substance weighing 0.2284 gram[s] contained in a plastic sachet.
"C"- Three (3) pieces aluminum foil marked "C1" to "C3", each suspected to contain shabu
residue.
"D"- One (1) black keyholder with test tube inside suspected to contain shabu residue. xxxx
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-mentioned specimens have POSITIVE result to
the test for Methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
CONCLUSION

Specimens "A", "B", "C1" to "C3" and "D" contain Methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug.
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants deny the charges against them. They narrate as facts the following:
At around one oclock in the morning of 11 February 2003, Warren and Mastor set out for Davao
City, on board the pick-up truck of Warrens mother, to get the cellular phone of Warrens uncle.
While in Cotabato City, they passed by Manuelita, who was waiting for a ride to go to the bus
terminal going to Davao City for a medical check-up. Manuelita flagged down Warren and
Mastor and requested if she could ride with them to Davao City, to which the two acceded.
When they arrived in Davao City at around six oclock in the morning, Manuelita invited Warren
and Mastor to have breakfast at Chowking near Victoria Plaza Mall.
After having breakfast, they proceeded to see Warrens brother-in-law on Malvar Street to get his
uncles cellular phone. However, upon arrival, Warren discovered that the cellular phone has
already been sent to Cotabato City. Warren and Mastor then decided to go back to Cotabato City.
When they were about to drop-off Manuelita, Manuelita received a call from Dujon. Manuelita
then asked Warren and Mastor if they could drive her to Dimsum Diner to meet Dujon.
At the Dimsum Diner, Dujon invited the accused-appellants to his place at Jogues Apartelle to
get rest. When they arrived, they stayed in Room No. 3. Dujon told them to rest while he went
outside to get drinks. While they were making themselves comfortable, Warren noticed
cigarettes, plastic sachets and aluminum foils on top of the table and inquired about it. Manuelita
informed Warren that Dujon was a big time drug pusher in Davao City. When Dujon arrived, he
placed the drinks on top of the table and called somebody in his phone. After making a call,
Dujon told the accused appellants to transfer to Room No. 2 because Room No. 3 was already
reserved. Dujon then borrowed Manuelitas headscarf, wrapped it over the shabu and drug
paraphernalia, brought the headscarf to Room No. 2, and placed it on top of the table.
Inside Room No. 2, Dujon asked accused-appellants to taste the shabu, boasting its fine quality.
The accused-appellants initially declined, but Dujon was very insistent. Because of pakikisama,
the accusedappellants all sniffed the shabu. Feeling nervous, Warren and Mastor decided to go
out of the room. However, before opening the door, somebody knocked. When Dujon opened the
door, the police barged inside and arrested them.
Upon entering a not guilty plea to all the four sets of Information and after trial, the trial court
ruled in the following:
Wherefore, the Court finds and so rules that:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 51,765-2003, the three (3) accused Manuelita Gonzales y
Ampatuan, 47 years old, married, Filipino, a resident of 111 Sinsuat Avenue, Cotabato
City, Warren Samparado Tumog, 30 years old, married, Filipino, a resident of 18 Salisa
Street, Cotabato City, and Mastor Sarip Maruhom, 36 years old, married, Filipino, a
resident of Macapagal Street, Cotabato City, are hereby all found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt, and are CONVICTED of the crime for Violation of Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165. Each of them is hereby imposed a penalty of DEATH and a
fine of SEVEN MILLION PESOS (P7,000,000.00) EACH with all the accessory
penalties corresponding thereto including absolute perpetual disqualification from any
public office for Mastor Sarip Maruhom and Warren Samparado Tumog;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 51,766-2003 Warren Samparado y Tumog, 30 years old,
married, Filipino, a resident of 18 Salisa Street, Cotabato City, is hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt, and is CONVICTED for the crime of Violation of Section 12,

Paragraph (3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is hereby imposed a sentence of
IMPRISONMENT of FOUR (4) YEARS and a fine of FIFTY Thousand Pesos
(P50,00.00) with all the accessory penalties corresponding thereto including absolute
perpetual disqualification form any public office;
(3) In Criminal Case No. 51,765-2003, Manuelita Gonzales y Ampatuan, 47 years old,
married, Filipino, a resident of 111 Sinsuat Street, Cotabato City, is hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, and CONVICTED of the crime for Violation of
Section 12, Paragraph (3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. She is hereby imposed a
sentence of IMPRISONMENT of FOUR (4) YEARS and a fine of FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00) with all the accessory penalties corresponding thereto and;
(4) In Criminal Case No. 51,768-2003, Manuelita Gonzales y Ampatuan, 47 years old,
married, Filipino, a resident of 111 Sinsuat Avenue, Cotabato City, is hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, and CONVICTED of the crime for Violation of
Section 11, Paragraph (3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. She is hereby imposed a
sentence of IMPRISONMENT of TWENTY (20) YEARS and a fine of FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00) with all the accessory penalties
corresponding thereto.
SO ORDERED.4
On appeal to the CA, the CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the trial court. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 in Davao City
finding appellants Manuelita Ampatuan, Mastor Sarip and Warren Tumog for Violation of
Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS that [a] in Criminal Case No.
51,765-2003, appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
ofP500,000.00 each; [b] in Criminal Case No. 51,766-2003, appellant Warren Tumog is
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and
one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum and to pay a fine of P50,000.00; [c] in
Criminal Case No. 51,767-2003, appellant Manuelita Ampatuan is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day, as
minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, and topay a fine of P50,000.00; and [d] in Criminal
Case No. 51,768-2003, appellant Manuelita Ampatuan is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen
(15) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00.
SO ORDERED.5
We deny the appeal.
Elements of Illegal Sale of ShabuDuly Established
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and payment therefor.6 The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must
present in evidence the corpus delictiof the case. The corpus delictiis the seized illegal drugs.
The duty of the prosecution is not merely to present in evidence the seized illegal drugs. It is
essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in
evidence in court as the identity of the drug must be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt.7
This Court is convinced that the prosecution has sufficiently discharged its burden to establish
the elements in the illegal sale of shabu. The prosecution was able to establish the (1) identity of

accused-appellants as the sellers, and the buyer, Dujon; and (2) the object of the transaction,
which is the jumbo sachet of shabu, weighing 46.4490 grams; and the delivery of the sold illegal
shabuto Dujon, the poseur-buyer.
The absence of marked money does not run counter to the presented proof of illegal sale of
shabu.1wphi1 Lack of marked money is not an element to the crime of illegal sale of shabu.8
The marked money used in the buy-bust operation, although having evidentiary value, is not vital
to the prosecution of the case. It is merely corroborative in nature. What is material to the
prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the illegal sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delictias evidence.9 In the case at bar, the
prosecution duly established both.
Relative to the required proof of anunbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal shabuand
shabuparaphernalia, the parties agreed to stipulate on the relevant testimony of the witnesses, the
requestfor laboratory examination, machine copy blotter, inventory, photographs, and affidavits,
all attesting to the fulfillment of the requirement.10 Indeed, the defense never raised as defense
any break in the chain of custody of the seized shabu and drug paraphernalia.
The accused-appellants accuse the PDEA operatives of instigation. They submit that Dujon, as
the principal witness for the prosecution and poseur-buyer, lacks credibility, because heis
engaged in the illegal sale of shabu.
It is elementary that entrapmentand instigation are different. In instigation, the instigator induces
the would-be-defendant into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. In
entrapment, the means originates from the mind ofthe criminal. Otherwise stated, the idea and
the resolve to commit the crime come from the criminal. While in instigation, the law enforcer
conceives the commission of the crime and suggests the same to the accused who adopts the idea
and carries it into execution.11
While it is true that it was Dujon, who initiated the illegal sale, it does not disprove the fact of
illegal sale and habitual activity of illegal sale of shabuof accused-appellants: the accusedappellants brought the illegal shabuall the way from Cotabato to Davao, and handed the same to
Dujon. Evidently, the accused-appellants voluntarily resolved to commit the crimes as charged.
Indeed, what transpired in the instant case was a legitimate buybust operation and not instigation.
Furthermore, the defenses mere denial of the charges and allegations of instigation and frame-up
cannot prevail over the clear and unequivocal pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution.
We are not unaware of the common defenses of frame-up or instigation by police officers in
illegal drugs cases. However, because instigation and frame-up as a defense can easily be
concocted and fabricated, they are given little evidentiary value.12
Accused-appellants were arrestedduring a buy-bust operation, in flagrante delicto. Thus, unless
there is clear and convincing evidence that the arresting officers have ill-motive, the presumption
of regularity shall prevail. The defense has not adduced any such evidence.
The qualification and credibility ofDujon as a principal witness cannot be assailed. The law has
specifically provided for the immunity of informants from prosecution and punishment. Section
33, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
Section 33. Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Republic
Act No. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991, any person who has
violated Sections 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19, Article II of this Act, who voluntarily gives
information about any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16, Article II of this Act as well
as any violation of the offenses mentioned if committed by a drug syndicate, or any information
leading to the whereabouts, identitiesand arrest of all or any of the members thereof; and who
willingly testifies against such persons as described above, shall be exempted from prosecution
or punishment for the offense with reference to which his/her information of testimony were

given, and may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in bar of such
prosecution: Provided,That the following conditions concur:
(1) The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the persons
described above;
(2) Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;
(3) Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points;
(4) the informant or witness has notbeen previously convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude, except when there is no other direct evidence available for the State other than
the information and testimony of said informant or witness; and
(5) The informant or witness shall strictly and faithfully comply without delay, any
condition or undertaking, reduced into writing, lawfully imposed by the State as further
consideration for the grant of immunity from prosecution and punishment.
Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness who does not
appearto be most guilty for the offense with reference to which his/her information or testimony
were given: Provided, finally, That there is no direct evidence available for the State except for
the information and testimony of the said informant or witness.
The allegation that Dujon is engaged in illegal sale, indeed even the fact that Dujon is a detainee
charged with violation of the law is not a disqualification from immunity since such is not
equivalent to a previous "conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude."
Dujon, having all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the law, is eligible for
immunityfrom prosecution. While Dujon was part of the entrapment, the sale and possession of
dangerous drugs were proven solely by Dujons testimony but largely and importantly by the
testimony of the apprehending authorities and by the admitted documents.
WHEREFORE, We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
00356-MIN dated 9 October 2007 as to the imposable penalty. Thus:
1. Criminal Case No. 51,765-2003, accused-appellants, Warren Tumog and Mastor
Maruhom are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00 each;
2. Criminal Case No. 51,766-2003, accused-appellant Warren Tumog is sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1)
day, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum and to pay a fine of P50,000.00;
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybanez with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja
and Mario V. Lopez concurring, Court of Appeals-Mindanao Station, Twenty-Second
Division, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00356-MIN; CA rollo, pp. 350-410.
2 Penned by Judge Adoracion Cruz Avisado, RTC, Branch 9, Davao City, Crim. Case No.
51765- 2003; id. at 31-72.
3 Exhibit "C", RTC records, Criminal Case No. 51,765-03, p. 233.
4 CA rollo, pp. 70-71.
5 Rollo, pp. 63-64.
6 People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 184760, 23 April 2010, 619 SCRA 389, 400.
7 Sales v. People, 602 Phil. 1047, 1056 (2009).
8 Cruz v. People, 597 Phil. 722, 729 (2009).
9 People v. Concepcion et al., 578 Phil. 957, 976 (2008); People v. Macabalang, 538 Phil.
136, 148 (2006); People v. Astudillo, 440 Phil. 203, 224 (2002); People v. Chang, 382
Phil. 669, 684 (2000).
10 Pre-Trial Order, Joint Affidavit of PO1 Ferlindo N. Foncardaz and PO1 Anthony Alpiz
dated 12 February 2003; Records, Criminal Case No. 51,765-03, p. 67.
11 People v. Sta. Maria, 545 Phil. 520, 528 (2007).
12 Quinicot v. People, 608 Phil. 259, 279 (2009).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 207392

July 2, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
RAMIE ORTEGA Y KALBI, a.k.a AY-AY, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION

PEREZ, J.:
We resolve the appeal filed by Ramie Ortega y Kalbi a.k.a Ay-ay (appellant) assailing the 19
November 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00910-MIN
which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) 15 April 2010 Decision in Criminal Case No.
5659 (21355) finding the accused guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Factual Antecedents
Appellant was charged before RTC,Branch 13, Zamboanga City for violation of Section 5, R.A
No. 9165 inan information that reads:
That on or about February 12, 2005, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not being authorized by law to
sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drugs, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL AND DELIVER to PO2 JAAFAR H. JAMBIRAN, a
member of the PNP, who acted as buyer, two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet each
containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0206 gram, which when
subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for the presence of worth of
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous
drug.2
On 14 April 2005, appellant, assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
Trial thereafter ensued.
The apprehending officers also filed a case against appellants wife Merlinda Ortega (Len-len)
and their cases were jointly heard. The case against Len-len was, however, dismissed after she
filed a Demurrer to Evidence3 which the trial court granted in an Order4 dated 22 October 2008.
The trial court ruled that the evidence against Len-len was inadmissible for being a product of an
invalid search.
Version of the Prosecution
On 12 February 2005 at 2:10 P.M., a confidential informant tipped the Zamboanga City Police
Office, Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force: Tumba Drogathat a married couple
named Ay-ay and Lenlen were selling shabuin their residence at Seaside, Lower Calarian,
Zamboanga City.
A team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation and PO2 Jaafar Jambiran (PO2 Jambiran)
was tasked toact as the poseur-buyer, with PO3 Alvin Ajuji (PO3 Ajuji) as his immediate backup. Five others were included in the team to serve as perimeter security.
At 3:10 P.M., the team proceededto the target area with PO2 Jambiran riding in tandem with the
informant on his motorcycle while the rest of the team followed on board an L-300 van.
Upon arrival at the locus criminis, PO2 Jambiran and the informant walked towards appellants
house. The informant pointed to the appellant, who was then seated on a bench outsidehis house.
The informant asked appellant, in Tausug dialect, if he has stuff or shabusince PO2 Jambiran
wanted to purchase some of the stuff. Appellant replied by asking how much is he buying, to
which informant answered P200.00. PO2 Jambiran gave the marked two (2) one hundred peso
(P100.00) bills in exchange for two (2) plastic sachets of shabu, which appellant took from his
right pocket. PO2 Jambiran scrutinized the items soldto him and afterwards executed the prearranged signal of removing his hat. This prompted PO3 Ajuji to rush to the scene while PO2
Jambiran grabbed appellants hand and introduced himself as a policeman. Forthwith, PO2
Jambiran informedappellant of his constitutional rights and the fact the he violatedR.A. No.
9165. After handcuffing appellant, PO3 Ajuji conducted a body search on appellant and found

two (2) one hundred peso (P100.00) bills inside his right pocket. When appellants wife Len-len
appeared, PO3 Ajuji also searched her and found another two (2) plastic sachets of shabuin her
right pocket. Using her cellphone, PO2 Hilda Montuno (PO2 Montuno) took pictures of
appellant and Len-len before bringing them tothe Zamboanga City Police Office.
At the Zamboanga City Police Office, PO2 Jambiran turned over to the investigator, PO3 Allan
M. Benasing (PO3 Benasing), two (2) plastic sachets of shabu taken from appellant, which he
consequently marked with his initials "JJ." PO3 Ajuji, on the other hand, turned over the marked
money and the two (2) other plastic sachets of shabu taken from Len-len, which he also
successively marked with his initials "AA." PO2 Montuno also turned over the photographs she
has taken of the appellant. These were all received pursuant to Complaint Assignment Sheet No.
1894. Upon receiving all the evidence, PO3 Benasing also placed his initials "AB." PO3
Benasing then prepared a request for laboratory examination for the plastic sachets, personally
forwarded the request to the Crime Laboratory Office and these were received by the duty Police
Non-Commissioned Officer (PNCO) thereat by placing the stamp of the said office at 4:00 PM
of the same day.
On 14 February 2005, Police Senior Inspector Melvin Ledesma Manuel (PSI Manuel), a forensic
chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Batalla, JRT Lim Boulevard, Zamboanga City
examined the contents of the plastic sachets and issued Chemistry Report No. D-045-2005. The
report yielded positive findings for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Chemistry Report
No. D-045-2005 was co-signed by Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Constante Sunio Sonido.5
Version of the Defense
Appellant denied the accusations against him. He claimed that on 12 February 2005, policemen
suddenly entered their house and accused him and his wife of selling shabu.He alleged that they
were forced to hold plastic sachets at gunpoint while they were being photographed. Thereafter,
he and his wife were brought and detained at the police station.6
Ruling of the RTC
On 15 April 2010, the trial court rendered a Decision7 finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00.). The trial court
ruled that the evidence of the prosecution successfully established the elements of illegal sale of
drugs as accused was caught red-handed in a valid buy-bust operation. It noted that the defense
of denial offered by the accused cannot overturn the presumption of regularity inthe performance
of official duties accorded to the apprehending officers.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed in totothe ruling of the RTC. The appellate
court agreed with the RTC in giving weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in
holding that the apprehending officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody and
disposition of the seized drugs.
Issue
Whether the court-a-quogravely erred in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charged.8
Our Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the prosecution
is able to establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,

the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its
payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delictias evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to
the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the
buy-bust transaction.9
After a careful evaluation of the records, we find that these elements were clearly met. The
prosecutions evidence positively identified the buyer as PO2 Jambiran and the seller as
appellant. Likewise, the prosecution presented in evidence the two sachets of shabuas the object
of the sale and the P200.00 as consideration thereof. Finally, the delivery of the shabusold and its
payment were clearly testified to by prosecution witnesses.
Appellants defense which is anchored principally on denial cannot be given credence. It does
not have moreevidentiary weight than the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses.
Appellants defense is unavailing considering that he was caught in flagrante delictoin a
legitimate buy-bust operation. This Court has ruled that the defense of denial or frame-up, like
alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted
and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.10
Appellant submit that the trial court failed to consider the procedural flaws committed by the
arresting officers in the seizure and custody of drugs as embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II, R.A. No. 9165.11 Appellant alleged that there was lack of inventory and the marking
of the items was not done in his presence, a representative of media, the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and an elected official.12 Further, he averred that the confiscated items were only
examined two days after it was submitted for laboratory examination. Appellant maintained that
such failure casts doubt on the validity ofhis arrest and the identity of shabu allegedly seized and
confiscated from him, forwarded by the apprehending officers to the investigating officer, tothe
crime laboratory for examination and later presented in court.
Relevant to appellants case is the procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of the
seized dangerous drugs as outlined in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same inthe
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative orcounsel, 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, thatthe 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 suchseizures of and
custody over said items[.]
The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the exception to the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a
perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal
requirements on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient.13 This Court has consistently
ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will notrender the items
seized inadmissible in evidence.14 What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.15 In other words, to be admissible in
evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony,the whereabouts

of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting
officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of
their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain
ofcustody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided
for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be
affected.16
Here, the prosecution witnesses testified on the chain of custody over the seized drugs. After the
buy-bust operation was completed, PO2 Jambiran marked the items seized from appellant with
his initials "JJ".17 PO2 Montuno took pictures of the appellant spouse holding the plastic
heatsealed sachets from them. This fact was even admitted by accused-appellant in his testimony.
PO3 Benasing testified that he was the duty officer of the case to whom PO2 Jambiran turnedover the seized items. He alleged that he placed his initials "AB-1" and "AB-2" thereon.18 He
thereafter prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit "A") and had this delivered
and received by the PNP Crime Laboratory.19 The items were examined by PSI Manuel and his
Chemistry report showed that the specimens tested yielded positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.20 These same items were later on presented and identified during the
trial of the case.
Thus, through these testimonies, the prosecution has clearly shown that the chain of custody has
been unbroken.
Further, even if there was no categorical statement on the part of the prosecution witnesses that a
physical inventory was prepared, as claimed by appellant, it was testified on that the
Complaint/Assignment sheet prepared by PO2 Jambiran and the police report prepared by PO3
Benasing reflected the details of items seized. Likewise, PSI Manuel was able to explain why the
plastic sachets turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory were examined by him only two days
after these were delivered.
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of
bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellant bears the burden
of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the
presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that
public officers properly discharged their duties.21 Appellant in this case failed to present any
plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers.1wphi1 Thus, the
testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit.22 In fact, he did not even
question the credibility ofthe prosecution witnesses. He anchored his appeal primarily on the
alleged broken chain of the custody of the seized drugs.
Finally, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the penalty for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
viz:
Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugsand/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to
Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized
by law, shall sell, trade administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless
of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
We affirm the penalty imposed on appellant as this conforms to the above-quoted provision of
the law.
On the basis of the aforesaid disquisition, we find no reason to modify or set aside the Decision
of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the 19 November 2012 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00910-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA
Chief Justice

LOURDES

P.

A.

SERENO

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 3-16; Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate
Justices Renato C. Francisco and Oscar V. Badelles concurring.
2 Records, p. 1.
3 Id. at 115-119.
4 Id. at 128-131.
5 Rollo, pp. 4-5.
6 Id. at 5-6.
7 Records, pp. 140-149.
8 CA rollo,p. 16; Brief for Accused-Appellant.

9 People v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 186470, 27 September 2010, 631 SCRA 350, 364
citing People v. Guiara, G.R. No. 186497, 17 September 2009, 600 SCRA 310, 322-323.
10 People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, 18 June 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 642.
11 (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[.]
12 Rollo,p. 7.
13 People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, 23 July 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 764.
14 People v. Jose Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, 5 September 2012, 680 SCRA 306, 323;
People v. Campos, G.R. No. 186526, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 462, 468 citing People
v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436-437.
15 People v. Magundayao, G.R. No. 188132, 29 February 2012, 667 SCRA 310, 338;
People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583 citing People v. De
Leon, G.R. No. 186471, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 133 further citing People v.
Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; People v. Concepcion,
G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 437.
16 People v. Manlangit, G.R. No. 189806, 12 January 2011, 639 SCRA 455, 467 citing
People v. Rosialda, G.R. No. 188330, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 507, 520-521 further
citing People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 879, 897-899.
17 TSN, 26 June 2006, p. 22; Testimony of PO2 Jambiran
18 TSN, 19 September 2006, p. 7; Testimony of PO3 Benasing.
19 Id. at 9.
20 TSN, 15 august 2005, p. 11; Testimony of PSI Manuel.
21 People v. Miranda, 560 Phil. 795, 810 (2007).
22 See People v. Macabalang, 538 Phil. 136 155 (2006).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 199874

July 23, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
PETER FANG y GAMBOA a.k.a. "Fritz" and JEFFERSON FANG y PERALTA, Accused,
PETER FANG y GAMBOA a.k.a. "Fritz," Accused-Appellant.

DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 28 January 2010 affirming
the conviction by the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 4 of appellant Peter
Fang y Gamboa for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing
him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00 fine.
Appellant had been charged following a "buy-bust" operation.
The accusatory portion of the Information against appellant reads:
That on or about the 7th day of August, 2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or distribute to PO2 Paulino Lobus, a member of the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-CAR, who posed as buyer, methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as "Shabu", a dangerous drug, weighing 0.04 gramcontained in
a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet for P500.00, without being authorized by law, in violation
of the aforecited provision of law.3
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses: Police Chief Inspector Hordan Pacatiw (Police Chief
Inspector Pacatiw); PO2 Paulino Abance Lubos, Jr. (PO2 Lubos), who acted as poseur-buyer;
Police Inspector Emilia Gracio Montes, the forensic chemist; PO2 Arturo San Andres, a back-up
operative who assisted a certain OfficerSabo; and PO1 Aldrin Mariano, who transmitted the drug
specimen confiscated from appellant to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory.Their testimonies sought to establish the following facts:
Acting on a tip from an informant that a certain "Fritz" and "Kaday" were selling shabuat the
Slaughter Compound in BarangaySto. Nino, Baguio City, Police Chief Inspector Pacatiw of the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in Baguio City formed a buy-bust team on 7
August 2004 composed of PO2 Lubos as poseur-buyer, a certain SPO4 Lucas from Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency and a certain PO1 Lacangan from the CIDG, who acted as back-ups.
PO2 Lubos and SPO4 Lucas brought the buy-bust money and a piece of Five Hundred Peso bill,
to the Fiscals office for authentication. At around 3:10 p.m. of the same date, the buy-bust team
proceeded to the Slaughter Compound. Upon reaching the area, PO2 Lubos and the informant
went to the house where the alleged illegal drug activity was taking place.Other members ofthe
buy-bust team were positioned in the area. The informant knocked on the door and a certain
Fritz, who was later identified asappellant, and Kaday, who was later identified as appellants
son, Jefferson Fang (Jefferson), came out of the house. Appellant talked to the informant.
Thereafter, the informant and appellant approached PO2 Lubos, and appellant asked the latter
how much will he get. PO2 Lubos answered "limampiso lang," which means Five Hundred
Pesos. Appellant asked aboutthe money prompting PO2 Lubos to bring out the Five Hundred
Peso bill and hand it to appellant. In turn, appellant brought out 2 small sachets of shabuand gave
it to PO2 Lubos. After examining the same, PO2 Lubosmade the pre-arranged signal of removing
his cap. The back-up police operatives emerged and arrested appellant, and SPO4 Lucas frisked
appellant and was able to recover the buy-bust money and another sachet of shabufrom his
pocket. Police Chief Inspector Pacatiw frisked Jefferson and recovered two sachets of marijuana.
After informing the accused of their constitutional rights, they were placed under arrest and
brought to the CAR-CIDG. The confiscated sachets of shabu were marked and an inventory of
the seizeditems was made. The seized items were later brought to the Crime Laboratory.4 Police
Inspector Emilia Montes in her Chemistry Report No. D-057-20045 found that the seized plastic
sachets are positive for methamphetamine hydrochlorideor shabu. She likewise testified on her
findings.

Appellant denied the charges against him and testified that he was sleeping at around 3:00 p.m.
of 7 August 2004 when he was awakened by his sister who told him that several men entered
their house. Appellant came out and saw men searching the cabinet. Appellant went backto his
room to search for a weapon when one armed man demanded that he open the door of his room.
Appellant obliged and two more men entered his room and conducted a search. The armed men
took P2,500.00 cash and his cellphone. Thereafter, appellant and his son were forced to go with
the armed men to the CIDG office.6 In defense of appellant, his nephew Romier Antipuesto
(Romier) narrated that he and appellant live in the same house with partition. Romier was
watching television with Jefferson and his younger siblings in the front portion of the house
while appellant was sleeping in the back portion when four men barged into their house. One of
them frisked Jefferson while the others searched the house. When Romiers mother saw the four
men, she ran and called appellant. Three men approached appellant. Jefferson and appellantwere
arrested.7 Jefferson corroborated his cousins narration and added that heand appellant were
brought to the CIDG station where he was charged for illegal possession of drugs. Jefferson
denied the charges against him and his father. Myrna Antipuesto, appellants sister, recounted
that she was doing the laundry when three men suddenly entered the house and she heard the
children shouting. She immediately called appellant. She denied that appellant was selling illegal
drugs.8
On 10 March 2008, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment finding appellant guilty of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment
and to pay a P500,000.00 fine. He was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 23402-R while Jefferson
was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 23403-R for illegal possession of shabuand marijuana,
respectively. The trial court found that in Criminal Case No. 23401-R, the prosecution has
proven the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt by competent objectand testimonial
evidence. After receiving a copy of the trial court's decision, appellant seasonably filed a Notice
of Appeal9 before the Court of Appeals. On 28 January 2010, the appellatecourt affirmed the
judgment of the RTC.
Appellant appealed his conviction before this Court, adopting the same arguments in his Brief
before the Court of Appeals.
It is jurisprudential that factual findings of trial courts especially those which revolve on matters
of credibility ofwitnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross
misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions,
can be gleaned from such findings.10 The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses'deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.11
After a painstaking review of the records, we agree with the lower courts unanimous finding that
the guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved:
(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.12 Indeed, all these elements were duly established.
Appellant was caught in flagrante delictoselling shabuthrough a buy-bust operation conducted by
members ofthe CIDG in Baguio City.
The poseur-buyer, PO2 Lubos, positively testified that the sale took place; that appellant was the
author thereof; that appellant produced the plastic sachet containing shabuand handed it to the
poseur-buyer in exchange for P500.00, thus:
Q: And when you went to the house of Fritz and Kaday what happened next?
A: The civilian informant went aheadabout, left me at about five (5) meters from the house
which, and which [sic] the civilian informant knocked at the small door.

Q: And when he knocked the small door what happened next?

A: Fritz came out.
Q: And when Fritz came out what transpired?
A: I saw them talking.
Q: And after you saw them talking what else happened?
A: Fritz came out together with the civilian informant and came to, near me, Maam.
Q: And when they came near you what did you do?
A: The civilian informant informed me about, introduced me as a buyer.
Q: And when you were introducedas a buyer what did you do?
A: Fritz asked me how much in Tagaloghow much will I get.
Q: And how much did you tell him?
A: Limampiso lang, which means Five Hundred-Peso (500) bill.
Q: So, when you informed Fritz that you were going to buy worth limampiso what happened
next?
A: He asked me about the money.
Q: What He asked you about the money?
A: Which I brought out the five hundred-peso bill and gave it him.
Q: And when you received the five hundred-peso bill what else happened?
A: He brought out two (2) small sachet of shabu.
Q: And when he brought out this small sachet of shabu to whom did he give it?
A: To me, Maam.
Q: And did you receive the sachet?
A: Yes, Maam.
Q: Upon receipt of the sachet what else happened?
A: After examining if it is real shabu[,] I gave my signal to our backup team which about ten (10)
to fifteen (15) meters away then they came.
Q: You said that you gave a pre-arranged signal, what was your prearranged signal?
A: By removing my cap, Maam.
Q: And the back-up team was about 10 to 15 meters away?
A: Yes, Maam.

Q: When the back-up team came what happened?

A: When the back-up team came they arrested Fritz and Kaday who was about one (1) meter
away.13
The result of the laboratory examination, as testified to by the forensic chemist, confirmed the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochlorideon the white crystalline substance inside the plastic
sachet confiscated from appellant.14 The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the
receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.
This was further corroborated by the presentation of the marked money in evidence.15 Appellant
asserts that the standard procedures for the custody and disposition of the confiscated drugs as
provided in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not complied with. Appellant argues that
the physical inventory of the seized items was not conducted in the place where the seizure had
taken place.
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the custody and
disposition of the confiscated illegal drugs, to wit:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof.
This rule was elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of Republic Act No. 9165, viz:
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 inthe
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative orcounsel, 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 or warrantless
arrest; 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 suchseizures of and custody over
said items.
The failure of the prosecution toshow that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory in the place where the subject shabuwas seized does not automatically render
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. A provisowas added in the
implementing rules 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 seizuresof and custody over
said items."
Pertinently, it is the preservation ofthe integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which
mustbe proven to establish the corpus delicti.
Appellant maintains that the trial court erred in convicting him despite the prosecution witnesses
conflicting testimonies. Appellant claims that the poseur-buyer stated that two sachets of
shabuwere sold to him but appellant was indicted for selling only one plastic sachet of shabu.
Appellant points out that in the poseur-buyers affidavit, the latter described the physical

appearances and the clothes that appellant and his son were wearing but the poseur-buyer
changed his statement at the stand and claimed that he could no longer recall the type of clothes
thatappellant was wearing at the time of the alleged buy-bust operation. Appellant questions the
prosecutions story about an anonymous confidential informant, in that, said informant was not
even identified as one ofthe police asset.
We quote with approval the appellate courts ratiocination on why appellants arguments must
fail:
The mere fact that the drugs obtained were more, had no bearing on the crime charged. This is
because liability under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 is without regard to the quantityof the
drugs seized.
Of no consequence likewise was accused-appellants argument that PO2 Lubos testimony of his
not being able to recall the type of clothes that accused-appellant wore during the buy-bust
operation was inconsistent with PO2 Lubos description in his Affidavit of Arrest regarding the
clothes worn by accused-appellant.16
The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal
drugs.1avvphi1 The concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabuwas proven by the
prosecution. Moreover, the rule is that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when
referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their
declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor inconsistencies even
enhance their veracity as the variances erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.17
The chain of custody does not appear to have been broken. The recovery and handling of the
seized drugs were satisfactorily established.1wphi1 As correctly found by the appellate court,
"no break whatsoever in the chain of custody of the prohibited drugs occurred. The testimonial,
documentary, and object evidence presented by the prosecution established every link in the
custody of the prohibited drugs. This leads to no other conclusion than that the specimen
examined by the forensic chemist, which tested positive for shabu, and which were presented as
evidence during the trial, were the ones taken from accused-appellant during the buy-bust
operation."18
Appellants defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of
the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases
requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement
agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.19 Bare denials of appellant
cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.20 Moreover, there is no
evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation to falsely testify against appellant.
In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellants sold shabu.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death
and fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved. Hence, the trial comi, as affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 28 January 2010 of the Couti of Appeals affirming the
conviction of appellant Peter Fang y Gamboa by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch
4, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division Chairperson
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias with Associate Justices Juan Q.
Enriquez, Jr. and Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-11.
2 Presided by Acting Presiding Judge Agapito K. Laoagan, Jr. CA ro!lo, pp. 23-33.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 TSN, 17 November 2005, pp. 4-9.
5 Records, p. 15.
6 TSN, 5 December 2006, pp. 3-6.
7 TSN, 25 July 2006, pp. 3-11.
8 TSN, 26 September 2006, pp. 3-4.
9 CA rollo, p. 34.

10 People v. Ocampo, 503 Phil. 310, 317 (2006).

11 Id.
12 People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 439, 449 citing People v.
Tan, 432 Phil. 171, 183 (2002) citing further People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 131
(2000); People v. Tiu, 460 Phil. 95, 103 (2003).
13 TSN, 17 November 2005, pp. 6-7.
14 Records, p. 15.
15 Id. at 8.
16 Rollo,p. 8.
17 People v. Monceda, G.R. No. 176269, 13 November 2013.
18 Rollo, p. 10.
19 People v. Chua Uy,384 Phil. 70, 85-86 (2000) citing People v. Dichoso, G.R. Nos.
101216-18, 4 June 1993, 223 SCRA 174, 187; People v. Constantino, G.R. No. 109119,
16 August 1994, 235 SCRA 384, 391; People v. Tranca, G.R. No. 110357, 17 August
1994, 235 SCRA 455, 462-463.
20 People v. Lee Hoi Ming, 459 Phil. 187, 195 (2003); People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719,
727 (2003).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 200334

July 30, 2014

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee,

vs.
VICTOR COGAED y ROMANA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:

The mantle of protection upon one's person and one's effects through Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution is essential to allow citizens to evolve their autonomy and, hence, to avail
themselves of their right to privacy. The alleged compromise with the battle against dangerous
drugs is more apparent than real. Often, the compromise is there because law enforcers neglect to
perform what could have been done to uphold the Constitution as they pursue those who traffic
this scourge of society.
Squarely raised in this appeal1 is the admissibility of the evidence seized as a result of a
warrantless arrest. The police officers identified the alleged perpetrator through facts that were
not based on their personal knowledge. The information as to the accuseds whereabouts was
sent through a text message. The accusedwho never acted suspicious was identified by a driver.
The bag that allegedly contained the contraband was required to be opened under intimidating
circumstances and without the accused having been fully apprised of his rights. This was not a
reasonable search within the meaning of the Constitution. There was no reasonable suspicion that
would allow a legitimate "stop and frisk" action. The alleged waiver of rights by the accused was
not done intelligently, knowingly, and without improper pressure or coercion.
The evidence, therefore, used against the accused should be excluded consistent with Article III,
Section 3 (2) of the Constitution. There being no possible admissible evidence, the accused
should be acquitted.
I
According to the prosecution, at about 6:00 a.m. of November 25, 2005, Police Senior Inspector
Sofronio Bayan (PSI Bayan) of the San Gabriel Police Station in San Gabriel,La Union,
"received a text message from an unidentified civilian informer"2 that one Marvin Buya (also
known as Marvin Bugat) "[would]be transporting marijuana"3 from Barangay LunOy, San
Gabriel, La Union to the Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union.4
PSI Bayan organized checkpoints in order "to intercept the suspect."5 PSI Bayan ordered SPO1
Jaime Taracatac, Jr. (SPO1 Taracatac), a member of the San Gabriel Police, to set up a
checkpoint in the waiting area of passengers from San Gabriel bound for San Fernando City.6 A
passenger jeepney from Barangay Lun-Oy arrived at SPO1 Taracatacs checkpoint.7 The jeepney
driver disembarked and signalled to SPO1 Taracatac indicating the two male passengers who
were carrying marijuana.8 SPO1 Taracatac approached the two male passengers who were later
identified as Victor RomanaCogaed and Santiago Sacpa Dayao.9 Cogaed was carrying a blue
bag and a sack while Dayao was holding a yellow bag.10
SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed and Dayao about the contents of their bags.11 Cogaed and Dayao
told SPO1 Taracatac that they did not know since they were transporting the bags as a favor for
their barriomatenamed Marvin.12 After this exchange, Cogaed opened the blue bag, revealing
three bricks of what looked like marijuana.13 Cogaed then muttered, "nagloko daytoy nga
Marvinen, kastoymet gayam ti nagyanna,"which translates to "Marvin is a fool, this is what [is]
contained in the bag."14 "SPO1 Taracatac arrested [Cogaed] and . . . Dayao and brought them to
the police station."15 Cogaed and Dayao "were still carrying their respective bags"16 inside the
station.17
While at the police station, the Chief of Police and Investigator PO3 Stanley Campit (PO3
Campit) requested Cogaed and Dayao to empty their bags.18 Inside Cogaeds sack was "four (4)
rolled pieces of suspected marijuana fruiting tops,"19 and inside Dayaos yellow bag was a brick
of suspected marijuana.20
PO3 Campit prepared the suspected marijuana for laboratory testing.21 PSI Bayan personally
delivered the suspected marijuana to the PNP Crime Laboratory.22 Forensic Chemical Officer
Police Inspector Valeriano Panem Laya II performed the tests and found that the objects obtained
were indeed marijuana.23 The marijuana collected from Cogaeds blue bag had a total weight of
8,091.5 grams.24 The marijuana from Cogaeds sack weighed 4,246.1 grams.25 The marijuana

collected from Dayaos bag weighed 5,092 grams.26 A total of 17,429.6 grams werecollected
from Cogaeds and Dayaos bags.27
According to Cogaeds testimony during trial, he was at Balbalayan, La Union, "waiting for a
jeepney to take him"28 to the Poblacion of San Gabriel so he could buy pesticide.29 He boarded
a jeepney and recognized Dayao, his younger brothers friend.30 Upon arrival at the Poblacion
of San Gabriel, Dayao and Cogaed alighted from the jeepney.31 Dayao allegedly "asked for
[Cogaeds] help in carrying his things, which included a travelling bag and a sack."32 Cogaed
agreed because they were both going to the market.33 This was when SPO1 Taracatac
approached them, and when SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed what was inside the bags, Cogaed
replied that he did not know.34 SPO1 Taracatac then talked to Dayao, however, Cogaed was not
privy to their conversation.35 Thereafter, SPO1 Taracatac arrested Dayao and Cogaed and
brought them to the police station.36 These facts were corroborated by an eyewitness,Teodoro
Nalpu-ot, who was standing across the parking lot where Cogaed was apprehended.37
At the police station, Cogaed said that "SPO1 Taracatac hit [him] on the head."38 The bags were
also opened, but Cogaed never knew what was inside.39
It was only later when Cogaed learned that it was marijuana when he and Dayao were charged
with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165.40 The information
against them states:
That on or about the 25th day of November, 2005, in the Municipality of San Gabriel, Province
of La Union, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA and SANTIAGO DAYAO Y SACPA (who acted with
discernment) and JOHN DOE,conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did
then there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly, without being authorized by law,
have in their control, custody and possession dried marijuana, a dangerous drug, with a total
weight of seventeen thousand,four hundred twenty-nine and sixtenths (17, 429.6) grams.
CONTRARY TO Section 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs), Article II, of Republic Act No.
9165 (otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002").41
The case was raffled to Regional Trial Court, Branch 28 of San Fernando City, La Union.42
Cogaed and Dayao pleaded not guilty.43 The case was dismissed against Dayao because he was
only 14 years old at that time and was exempt from criminal liability under the Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act of 2006 or Republic Act No. 9344.44 Trial against Cogaed ensued. In a
decision45 dated May 21, 2008, the Regional Trial Court found Cogaed guilty. The dispositive
portion of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Victor Cogaed y Romana GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002") and sentences him to suffer life imprisonment,
and to pay a fine of one million pesos (Php 1,000,000.00).46
The trial court judge initiallyfound Cogaeds arrest illegal considering that "Cogaed at that time
was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was shown that hewas about to do
so or that had just done so. He just alighted from the passenger jeepney and there was no
outward indication that called for his arrest."47 Since the arrest was illegal, the warrantless
search should also be considered illegal.48 However, the trial court stated that notwithstanding
the illegality of the arrest, Cogaed "waived his right to object to such irregularity"49 when "he
did not protest when SPO1 Taracatac, after identifying himself, asked him to open his bag."50
Cogaed appealed51 the trial courts decision.However, the Court of Appeals denied his appeal
and affirmed the trial courts decision.52 The Court of Appeals found that Cogaed waived his
right against warrantless searches when "[w]ithout any prompting from SPO1 Taracatac, [he]
voluntarily opened his bag."53 Hence, this appeal was filed.

The following errors were assigned by Cogaed in his appellants brief:

I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE SEIZED DANGEROUS
DRUGS AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE BEING THE
RESULT OF AN UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE ARRESTING
OFFICERS
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS
UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.54
For our consideration are the following issues: (1) whether there was a valid search and seizure
of marijuana as against the appellant; (2) whether the evidence obtained through the search
should be admitted; and (3) whether there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction of the
accused.
In view of the disposition of this case, we deem that a discussion with respect to the requirements
on the chain of custody of dangerous drugs unnecessary.55
We find for the accused.
II
The right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined by implication in our Constitution. It has
many dimensions. One of its dimensions is its protection through the prohibition of unreasonable
searches and seizures in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determinedpersonally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
This provision requires that the court examine with care and diligence whether searches and
seizures are "reasonable." As a general rule, searches conducted with a warrant that meets all the
requirements of this provision are reasonable. This warrant requires the existence of probable
cause that can only be determined by a judge.56 The existence of probable cause must be
established by the judge after asking searching questions and answers.57 Probable cause at this
stage can only exist if there is an offense alleged to be committed. Also, the warrant frames the
searches done by the law enforcers. There must be a particular description of the place and the
things to be searched.58
However, there are instances when searches are reasonable even when warrantless.59 In the
Rules of Court, searchesincidental to lawful arrests are allowed even without a separate
warrant.60 This court has taken into account the "uniqueness of 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."61 The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless
searches and seizures are:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. . . ;
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," . . . ;
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicles inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that
the occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consentedwarrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.62 (Citations omitted)
III
One of these jurisprudential exceptionsto search warrants is "stop and frisk". "Stop and frisk"
searches are often confused with searches incidental to lawful arrests under the Rules of Court.63
Searches incidental to a lawful arrest require that a crime be committed in flagrante delicto, and
the search conducted within the vicinity and withinreach by the person arrested is done to ensure
that there are no weapons, as well as to preserve the evidence.64
On the other hand, "stop and frisk"searches are conducted to prevent the occurrence of a crime.
For instance, the search in Posadas v. Court of Appeals65 was similar "to a stop and frisk
situation whose object is either to determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain
the status quomomentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information."66 This
court stated that the "stop and frisk" search should be used "[w]hen dealing with a rapidly
unfolding and potentially criminal situation in the city streets where unarguably there is no time
to secure . . . a search warrant."67
The search involved in this case was initially a "stop and frisk" search, but it did not comply with
all the requirements of reasonability required by the Constitution.
"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terrysearches68) are necessary for law
enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission
of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in
accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
The balance lies in the concept of"suspiciousness" present in the situation where the police
officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience ofthe police
officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal
behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern based on facts that they themselves
observe whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion
would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts
leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.
In Manalili v. Court of Appeals,69 the police officers were initially informed about a place
frequented by people abusing drugs.70 When they arrived, one of the police officers saw a man
with "reddish eyes and [who was] walking in a swaying manner."71 The suspicion increased
when the man avoided the police officers.72 These observations led the police officers to

conclude that the man was high on drugs.73 These were sufficient facts observed by the police
officers "to stop[the] petitioner [and] investigate."74
In People v. Solayao,75 police officers noticed a man who appeared drunk.76 This man was also
"wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit."77 Upon seeing the police, the man fled.78 His
flight added to the suspicion.79 After stopping him, the police officers found an unlicensed
"homemade firearm"80 in his possession.81 This court ruled that "[u]nder the circumstances, the
government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first."82 This was also a
valid search.
In these cases, the police officers using their senses observed facts that led to the suspicion.
Seeing a man with reddish eyes and walking in a swaying manner, based on their experience, is
indicative of a person who uses dangerous and illicit drugs. A drunk civilian in guerrilla wear is
probably hiding something as well.
The case of Cogaed was different. He was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling
aboarda jeepney. There was nothing suspicious, moreover, criminal, about riding a jeepney or
carrying a bag. The assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer but by the
jeepney driver. It was the driver who signalled to the police that Cogaed was "suspicious."
This is supported by the testimony of SPO1 Taracatac himself:
COURT:
Q So you dont know what was the content while it was still being carried by him in the
passenger jeep?
WITNESS:
A Not yet, Your Honor.83
SPO1 Taracatac likewise stated:
COURT:
Q If the driver did not make a gesture pointing to the accused, did you have reason to believe that
the accused were carrying marijuana?
WITNESS:
A No, Your Honor.84
The jeepney driver had to point toCogaed. He would not have been identified by the police
officers otherwise.
It is the police officer who should observe facts that would lead to a reasonable degree of
suspicion of a person. The police officer should not adopt the suspicion initiated by another
person. This is necessary to justify that the person suspected be stopped and reasonably
searched.85 Anything less than this would be an infringementupon ones basic right to security
of ones person and effects.
IV
Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an opportunity to confer with a
judge to determine probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of Appeals,86 one of the earliest cases
adopting the "stop and frisk" doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence, this court approximatedthe
suspicious circumstances as probable cause:

The probable causeis that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the
buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it
was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.87 (Emphasis supplied)
For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as "a reasonable ground of
suspicionsupported 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."88
Malacat v. Court of Appeals89 clarifies the requirement further. It does not have to be probable
cause,but it cannot be mere suspicion.90 It has to be a "genuine reason"91 to serve the purposes
of the "stop and frisk" exception:92
Other notable points of Terryare that while probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and
frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A
genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions,
to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.93 (Emphasis
supplied, footnotes omitted)
In his dissent for Esquillo v. People,94 Justice Bersamin reminds us that police officers must not
rely on a single suspicious circumstance.95 There should be "presence of more than
oneseemingly innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of
criminal activity."96 The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures."97
Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all will not result in a
reasonable search.98
There was not a single suspicious circumstance in this case, and there was no approximation for
the probable cause requirement for warrantless arrest. The person searched was noteven the
person mentioned by the informant. The informant gave the name of Marvin Buya, and the
person searched was Victor Cogaed. Even if it was true that Cogaed responded by saying that he
was transporting the bag to Marvin Buya, this still remained only as one circumstance. This
should not have been enough reason to search Cogaed and his belongings without a valid search
warrant.
V
Police officers cannot justify unbridled searches and be shielded by this exception, unless there is
compliance with the "genuine reason" requirement and that the search serves the purpose of
protecting the public. As stated in Malacat:
[A] "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under
appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing
interest of safety and self-preservationwhich permit the police officer to take steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.99 (Emphasis supplied)
The "stop and frisk" searchwas originally limited to outer clothing and for the purpose of
detecting dangerous weapons.100 As in Manalili,101 jurisprudence also allows "stop and frisk"
for cases involving dangerous drugs.
The circumstances of thiscase are analogous to People v. Aruta.102 In that case, an informant
told the police that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be bringing in drugs from Baguio City by
bus.103 At the bus terminal, the police officers prepared themselves.104 The informant pointed
at a woman crossing the street105 and identified her as "Aling Rosa."106 The police
apprehended "Aling Rosa," and they alleged that she allowed them to look inside her bag.107
The bag contained marijuana leaves.108

In Aruta, this court found that the search and seizure conducted was illegal.109 There were no
suspicious circumstances that preceded Arutas arrest and the subsequent search and seizure.110
It was only the informant that prompted the police to apprehend her.111 The evidence obtained
was not admissible because of the illegal search.112 Consequently, Aruta was acquitted.113
Arutais almost identical to this case, except that it was the jeepney driver, not the polices
informant, who informed the police that Cogaed was "suspicious."
The facts in Arutaare also similar to the facts in People v. Aminnudin.114 Here, the National
Bureau ofInvestigation (NBI) acted upon a tip, naming Aminnudin as somebody possessing
drugs.115 The NBI waited for the vessel to arrive and accosted Aminnudin while he was
disembarking from a boat.116 Like in the case at bar, the NBI inspected Aminnudins bag and
found bundles of what turnedout to be marijuana leaves.117 The court declared that the
searchand seizure was illegal.118 Aminnudin was acquitted.119
People v. Chua120 also presents almost the same circumstances. In this case, the police had been
receiving information that the accused was distributing drugs in "different karaoke bars in
Angeles City."121 One night, the police received information that thisdrug dealer would be
dealing drugs at the Thunder Inn Hotel so they conducted a stakeout.122 A car "arrived and
parked"123 at the hotel.124The informant told the police that the man parked at the hotel was
dealing drugs.125 The man alighted from his car.126 He was carrying a juice box.127 The police
immediately apprehended him and discovered live ammunition and drugs in his person and in the
juice box he was holding.128
Like in Aruta, this court did not find anything unusual or suspicious about Chuas situation when
the police apprehended him and ruled that "[t]here was no validstop-and-frisk."129
VI
None of the other exceptions to warrantless searches exist to allow the evidence to be
admissible.The facts of this case do not qualify as a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court allows for searches incidental to a lawful arrest. For
there to be a lawful arrest, there should be either a warrant of arrest or a lawful warrantless arrest
as enumerated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may,
withouta warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
The apprehension of Cogaed was not effected with a warrant of arrest. None of the instances
enumerated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court were present whenthe arrest was made.
At the time of his apprehension, Cogaed has not committed, was not committing, or was about to
commit a crime. As in People v. Chua, for a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delictoto be
affected, "two elements must concur: (1) the person to bearrested must execute anovert act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;

and (2) such overt act is done inthe presence or within the view of the arresting officer."130 Both
elements were missing when Cogaed was arrested.131 There were no overt acts within plain
view of the police officers that suggested that Cogaed was in possession of drugs at that time.
Also, Cogaed was not an escapee prisoner that time; hence, he could not have qualified for the
last allowable warrantless arrest.
VII
There can be no valid waiver of Cogaeds constitutional rights even if we assume that he did not
object when the police asked him to open his bags. As this court previously stated:
Appellants silence should not be lightly taken as consent to such search. The implied
acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere passive
conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent
at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.132 (Citations omitted) Cogaeds silence
or lack of aggressive objection was a natural reaction to a coercive environment brought about
by the police officers excessive intrusion into his private space. The prosecution and the police
carry the burden of showing that the waiver of a constitutional right is one which is knowing,
intelligent, and free from any coercion. In all cases, such waivers are not to be presumed.
The coercive atmosphere created by the presence of the police officer can be discerned again
from the testimony of SPO1 Taracatac during cross-examination:
ATTY. BINWAG:
Q Now, Mr. witness, you claimed that you only asked them what are the contents of their bags, is
it not?
WITNESS:
A Yes, maam.
Q And then without hesitation and voluntarily they just opened their bags, is it not?
A Yes, maam.
Q So that there was not any order from you for them to open the bags?
A None, maam.
Q Now, Mr. witness when you went near them and asked them what were the contents ofthe bag,
you have not seen any signs of hesitation or fright from them, is it not?
A It seems they were frightened, maam.
Q But you actually [claimed] that there was not any hesitation from them in opening the bags, is
it not?
A Yes, maam but when I went near them it seems that they were surprised.133 (Emphasis
supplied)
The state of mind of Cogaed was further clarified with SPO1 Taracatacs responses to Judge
Florendos questions:
COURT:

....
Q Did you have eye contact with Cogaed?
A When I [sic] was alighting from the jeepney, Your Honor I observed that he was somewhat
frightened.1wphi1 He was a little apprehensive and when he was already stepping down and he
put down the bag I asked him, "whats that," and he answered, "I dont know because Marvin
only asked me to carry."134
For a valid waiver by the accused of his or her constitutional right, it is not sufficient that the
police officerintroduce himself or herself, or be known as a police officer.1wphi1 The police
officer must also inform the person to be searched that any inaction on his orher part will amount
to a waiver of any of his or her objections that the circumstances do not amount to a reasonable
search. The police officer must communicate this clearly and in a language known to the person
who is about to waive his or her constitutional rights. There must be anassurance given to the
police officer that the accused fully understands his or her rights. The fundamental nature of a
persons constitutional right to privacy requires no less.
VIII
The Constitution provides:
Any evidence obtained in violation of [the right against unreasonable searches and seizures] shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.135
Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this
constitutional provision originated from Stonehill v. Diokno.136 This rule prohibits the issuance
of general warrants that encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained
through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because it is "the only practical means
of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures."137 It
ensures that the fundamental rights to ones person, houses, papers, and effects are not lightly
infringed upon and are upheld.
Considering that the prosecution and conviction of Cogaed were founded on the search of his
bags, a pronouncement of the illegality of that search means that there is no evidence left to
convict Cogaed.
Drugs and its illegal traffic are a scourgeto our society. In the fight to eradicate this menace, law
enforcers should be equipped with the resources to be able to perform their duties better.
However, we cannot, in any way, compromise our societys fundamental values enshrined in our
Constitution. Otherwise, we will be seen as slowlydismantling the very foundations of the
society that we seek to protect.
WHEREFORE, the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, San Fernando City, La
Union and of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03394 are hereby REVERSEDand
SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accusedappellant VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED
from confinement unless he is being heldfor some other legal grounds. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.*

Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the oofnion of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO
Associate
Chairperson, Third Division

J.

VELASCO,

JR.
Justice

C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA
Chief Justice

LOURDES

P.

A.

SERENO

Footnotes
* Designated as Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division per Special
Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.
1 CA rollo, pp. 39-58.
2 Id. at 60.
3 Id.
4 Rollo, p. 5; CA rollo, p. 10.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Rollo, p. 5; CA rollo, p. 13.

12 Rollo, pp. 56, 13.

13 Id. at 6, 13.
14 Id. at 6.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Rollo, p. 7; CA rollo, p. 12.
24 Rollo, p. 7.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 78.
33 Id. at 8.
34 Id. at 5.
35 Id. at 8.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.

40 Rollo, pp. 8 and 34.

41 Id. at 34.
42 Id. at 23.
43 Id. at 4.
44 Id.
45 CA rollo, pp. 915.
46 Id. at 15.
47 Id. at 14.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 3958.
52 Rollo, pp. 222. Ninth Division, decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon R.
Garcia, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Samuel H. Gaerlan
concurring.
53 Id. at 12.
54 CA rollo, pp. 4142.
55 Rep. Act No. 10640 (2014) amending sec. 21 of Rep. Act No. 9165.
56 CONST., art. III, sec. 2.
57 CONST., art. III, sec. 2.
58 CONST., art. III, sec. 2.
59 See Valmonte v. De Villa, 258 Phil. 838, 843 (1989) [Per J. Padilla, En Banc]: "Not all
searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden."
60 RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have
been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without search warrant.
61 Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 370, 383 [Per J.
Carpio- Morales, Third Division], citing People v. Nuevas, 545 Phil. 356, 370371
(2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
62 People v. Aruta,351 Phil. 868, 879880 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
63 Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 370, 393394 [Per
J. CarpioMorales, Third Division] (Bersamin dissenting), citing Malacat v. Court of
Appeals,347 Phil. 462, 479480 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].

64 See also Nolasco v. Judge Pao, 223 Phil. 363, 377378 (1985) [Per J. MelencioHerrera, En Banc].
65 G.R. No. 89139, August 2, 1990, 188 SCRA 288 [Per J. Gancayco, First Division].
66 Id. at 294, citingthe Solicitor Generals arguments.
67 Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 632, 636 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
Division].
68 The term was derived from the American case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
This case served as basis for allowing "stop and frisk" searches in this jurisdiction.
69 345 Phil. 632 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
70 Id. at 638.
71 Id.
72 Id.
73 Id. at 647.
74 Id.
75 330 Phil. 811 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
76 Id. at 815.
77 Id.
78 Id.
79 Id. at 818819.
80 Id. at 815.
81 Id.
82 Id. at 819.
83 TSN, May 23, 2006, p. 6.
84 TSN, June 1, 2006, pp. 2122.
85 Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 462, 473474 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En
Banc].
86 G.R. No. 89139, August 2, 1990, 188 SCRA 288 [Per J. Gancayco, First Division].
87 Id. at 293.
88 People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 880 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division] (Emphasis
supplied).
89 347 Phil. 462 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].

90 Id. at 481.
91 Id.
92 Id.
93 Id.
94 Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 370 [Per J. Carpio
Morales, Third Division].
95 Id. See dissenting opinion of J. Bersamin, p. 397.
96 Id.
97 CONST., art. III, sec. 2.
98 See dissenting opinion of J. Bersamin in Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, August
25, 2010, 629 SCRA 370, 397 [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
99 Malacat v. Court of Appeals,347 Phil. 462, 481-482 (1997) [Per J. Davide, En Banc].
100 In J. Bersamins dissent inEsquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010, 629
SCRA 370, 396, he opined:
[A] Terryprotective search is strictly limited towhat is necessary for the discovery
of weapons that may be used to harm the officer of the law or others nearby.
There must then be a genuine reason to believe that the accused is armed and
presently dangerous. Being an exception to the rule requiring a search warrant, a
Terryprotective search is strictly construed; hence, it cannot go beyond what is
necessary to determine if the suspect is armed. Anything beyond is no longer valid
and the fruits of the search will be suppressed.
See also Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1 (1968).
101 345 Phil. 632 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
102 People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
103 Id. at 883.
104 Id.
105 Id. at 884885.
106 Id. at 883.
107 Id.
108 Id.
109 Id. at 888.
110 Id. at 885.
111 Id.

112 Id. at 894.

113 Id. at 895.
114 246 Phil. 424 (1988) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
115 Id. at 427.
116 Id.
117 Id.
118 Id. at 434.
119 Id. at 435.
120 444 Phil. 757 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
121 Id. at 763.
122 Id.
123 Id.
124 Id.
125 Id.
126 Id.
127 Id.
128 Id. at 763764.
129 Id. at 774.
130 Id. at 770.
131 See also People v. Molina,404 Phil. 797, 812 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En
Banc] and People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424, 433434 (1988) [Per J. Cruz, First
Division].
However, the application of these rules to crimes of illegal possession has been
subject of debate. In People v. Maspil, Jr.(G.R. No. 85177, August 20, 1990, 188
SCRA 751 [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division]), we ruled that the accused were
in flagrante delictowhen the police searched their cargo at a checkpoint, and the
accused were found to be transporting prohibited drugs. {761-762} The court
delineated this from Aminnudinbecause in Aminnudin,the police had an
opportunity to secure a warrant. {433} Maspilalso relied on the doctrine in People
v. Tangliben(263 Phil. 106 (1990) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division]) wherein
the search was considered incidental to an in flagrante delictoarrest because of the
"urgency" of the situation. {115}
Despite these doctrinal deviations, it is better if we follow the two-tiered test to
determine if an individual is in flagrante delicto, which calls for his or her
warrantless arrests.The general rule should be that there must be an overt act and
that such act is in plain view of the law enforcer.

132 People v. Encinada, 345 Phil. 301, 322 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
133 TSN, June 1, 2006, pp. 1819.
134 Id. at 21.
135 CONSTI., art. III, sec. 3 (b).
136 126 Phil. 738 (1967) [Per C.J. Concepcion, En Banc].
137 Id. at 750.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 204911

August 6, 2014

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
MIKE STEVE y BASMAN and RASHID MANGTOMA y NONI, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:

Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CRHC No. 02460 affirming in toto the Decision2 in Criminal Case No. 03-115457 rendered by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch l 03 of Quezon City. The RTC Decision found Mike Steve y
Basman and Rashid Mangtoma y Noni guilty beyond reasonable doubt of drug pushing,
particularly for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165),
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
Both accused were charged under the Information3 docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-03-115457
for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which reads as follows:
That on or about 20th day of February, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not
being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did,
then and there, willfully, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as
broker in the said transaction, Nine Hundred Seventy Two point eight (972.8) grams of white
crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, [a] dangerous drug[.]4
Upon arraignment, both accused Mike Steve and accused Rashid Mangtoma pleaded not guilty
to said charge.5 Subsequently, a full-blown trial proceeded.
Incidentally, the parties entered into stipulation and admitted the following: (a) that there was a
letter request for the examination of the specimen involved in this case dated 20 February 2003
(Exhibit "A"); (b) that as a result of said letter request, an Initial Laboratory Report was issued
finding the subject specimen positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exhibit "B"); (c) that
a Chemistry Report No. D-95-03 was issued by Forensic Chemist Mae Andrea Bonifacio
(Forensic Chemist Bonifacio) subscribed and sworn to before an Administrative Officer as stated
in a certification attached thereto (Exhibits"C" and "D"); (d) that the subject specimen was
placed in a transparent plastic bag (Exhibit "E"); and (e) that the said chemist has no personal
knowledge of the facts of this case. Accordingly, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bonifacio
was dispensed with.6
Records reveal that, based on the evidence presented,7 the summary of factual findings of the
trial court is stated as follows:
In 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers PO3 Mohammad Sugod, Jr. and
SPO3 Santiago Gonzales inside the Kimco Subdivision in Barangay Sauyo, Quezon City. The
buy-bust team was formed due to the information received from the residents of the said
subdivision regarding some illegal drug activities. Surveillances were made.
The team prepared buy-bust money and PO3 Sugod was assigned as the poseur buyer. As
planned, the teams informant made arrangement with the accused-appellants Mike Steve and
Rashid Mangtoma for the purchase of one kilo of "shabu". On February 20, 2003, the team
proceeded to the target area. Ataround ten (10) in the morning, the informant communicated to
the police officers of the arrival of the accused-appellants. PO3 Sugod transacted with accusedappellant Mangtoma. A plastic bag containing (almost) one kilo of "shabu" was handed over to
PO3 Sugod. After witnessing the transaction, SPO3 Gonzales approached the parties involved
who were also inside the car. SPO3 Gonzales declared "Pulis kami, huwag na kayong manlaban
pa". The accused-appellants were arrested and brought to the police station.
The item of the transaction was seized. It was subsequently subjected for laboratory examination
in the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. A chemistry report manifesting that the
confiscated substance yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride was issued by
Forensic Chemist Officer May Andrea A. Bonifacio.
Both accused-appellants denied the commission of the crime. They alleged that a buy-bust
operation was never conducted by the police officers. Both of them were temporarily staying in

the residence of Spouses Pauto and Armpo Lilog when the policemen forced their way into the
house. They were arrested togetherwith the said spouses and a certain Noro.
In the police station, all of them were asked to pay the total amount of one (1) million pesos for
their release. As accused-appellants failed to give any amount, only Noro and Spouses Pauto and
Armpo Lilog were released.8
The Ruling of the RTC
The RTC rendered a Decision9 finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of drug pushing, specifically in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive
portion of which is hereunder quoted as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, judgment is hereby rendered finding
accused MIKE STEVE y BASMAN and RASHID MANGTOMA y Noni GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of drug pushing and each is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and each to pay a fine of P800,000.00.
The drug involved in this case is hereby ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for proper
disposition.10
The court a quogave emphasis to the undisputed fact established by the prosecution that a buybust operation was properly conducted, including prior surveillances, by the police operatives;
that both accused were positively identified to be the source of the "shabu" submitted as evidence
before the trial court; and that both accused sold the same to the arresting officers for a
consideration. In other words, it ruled that the testimonies of the police operatives are more
credible and reliable since there was absence of any evil motive on their part to allegedly barge
into the house of any person and arrest and charge both accused for such serious crime. On the
other hand, the mere denials of the accused were found to be weak and selfserving. It further
pointed out that there were inconsistencies on the accused respective testimonies, aggravated
further by the doubtful credibility of their corroborating witnesses as shown bytheir demeanors
and implausible version of the story, particularly as to the alleged bribery.
The Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the accused-appellants contended that there were glaring inconsistencies with the
testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses pertaining to the conduct of the buy-bust operation,
and the manner of the alleged consummation of saleof dangerous drug; thatthere were procedural
lapses on the part of the buy-bust team to comply with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, which
accordingly failed to secure the evidence related to the arrests, and to protect the chain
ofcustody; and that ultimately, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the accused-appellants
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.11
However, the CA affirmed in totothe Decision of the RTC and dismissed the appeal.12 The
appellate court ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently bear out the statutory elements
of the crime. It explained that the allegation of frame-up is a banal defense of those accused in
drugrelated cases that is viewed with disfavorsince, like the defense of alibi, it is an allegation
that can be easily concocted. Such defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to
overcome the presumption or regularity of official acts of government officials. Otherwise, the
findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility ofprosecutions witnesses shall prevail
over that of the accused.13 It further ruled that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the prosecutions witnesses were immaterial to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the crime
was in fact committed by both accused. Besides, in criminal cases, the evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion
thereon deservesmuch weight and respect, because the judge has the opportunity to observe them
on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.14

Moreover, the CA held that failure tocomply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render
the arrest of the accused illegal, nor will it result to the inadmissibility in evidence against the
accused ofthe illegal drugs seized in the course of the entrapment operation.What is of utmost
relevance is the preservation of the integrity and maintenance of the evidentiary value of the
confiscated illegal drugs, for in the end,the same shall necessarily be the thrust that shall
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Although it was mentioned that the justifiable
ground for non-compliance with Section 21 was not very well expressed by the police officers,
this does not necessarily mean that the accused-appellants arrestwas illegal or the items seized
inadmissible. Said justifiable ground will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of
the accused-appellants to challenge the custody and safekeeping of the issue ofdisposition and
preservation of the subject drugs before the lower court. In short, they cannot be allowed to
question the police officers alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on
appeal.15
Lastly, non-coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) by the police
officers in conducting a buy-bust operation does not render such operation illegal. As pointed out
by the appellate court, Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 is silent asto the consequence of failure to
comply therewith, but this should not be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest
without the participation of the PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest
inadmissible.16
The Issue
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was
sufficient to convict both accused-appellants of the alleged sale of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu," in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.
Our Ruling
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
At the outset, this Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses
involving drug pushing or sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller,
object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.17 In
other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold
and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeedknew that what he had sold
and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.18 To reiterate, what is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.19
Contrary to the claim of accused-appellants, the prosecution was able to clearly recount how the
buy-bust operation20 was conducted, and the eventual submission of the subject sachet of
"shabu" as part of its evidence. Both the trial court and the appellate court appreciated the
evidence presented which certainly established that accused-appellants sold and delivered the
972.8 grams of "shabu" for a consideration of P600,000.00 to PO3 Mohammad Sugod, Jr. (PO3
Sugod,Jr.), the poseur buyer. PO3 Sugod, Jr. himself testified that there was an actual exchange
of the buy-bust money and the prohibited drug. This fact was further corroborated by the
testimony of SPO3 Santiago Gonzales, who acted as back-up for PO3 Sugod, Jr. during said
operation. Likewise, it was shown that accusedappellant Rashid Mangtoma was fully aware that
he was selling an illegal and prohibited drug as manifested by him uttering the words: "Isang kilo
yan!;" while accused-appellant Mike Steve was also inside the vehicle where the said transaction
took place silently participating with his consent. Consequently, the corpus delicti or the subject
drug was seized, and subsequently identified as a prohibited drug through a forensic report
admitted in evidence by the parties as stipulated. Taken collectively, the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs by accused-appellants was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt in the present case.

Worthy to note that where the issue isone of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their
testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration
of certain facts of substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the
result of the case.21 It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of Dangerous
Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses
especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this regard, the defense failed to show
any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police officers to impute such a serious crime
that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of
accused-appellants. Additionally, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses visvis that of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial courts evaluation of the credibilityof
witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.22
Moreover, this Court has time and again adopted the chain of custody rule,23 a method of
authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be precededby evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.
This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to
it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.24
However, as correctly pointed out by the RTC and the CA, failure to strictly comply with the
prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render the arrest of the accusedappellants illegal or the item seized/confiscated from them inadmissible. The essential thing to
consider is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized inthe determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."25 Hence:
From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path by holding that the
failure to undertake the required photography and immediate marking of seized items may be
excused by the unique circumstances of a case. In People v. Resurreccion, we already stated that
"marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at
the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana, People v.
Hernandez, and People v. Gum-Oyen, the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the
police station and not at the place of seizure.1wphi1 Nevertheless, we sustained the conviction
because the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had
been preserved.To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the
strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del
Montewhen we held:
We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of
the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the
drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For
evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is
no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that
will [be] accorded (to) it by the courts. x x x
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the
nonadmissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21
of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is
not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the

evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances
obtaining in each case.26 (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted)
From the testimonies of the police officers in the case at bench, the prosecution established that
they had custody of the drug seized from the accused-appellants from the moment they were
arrested, during the time they were transported to the police station, and up to the time the seized
prohibited drug was submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. As regards to the
handling of the seized drug, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that
would cast doubt on the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinizedin court. It is
therefore safe to conclude that, to the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a doubt
that the evidence seized from the accused-appellants at the time of the buy-bust operation was
the same one tested, introduced, and testified to in court. This fact was further bolstered by the
stipulations entered into between the parties as to the testimony of Forensic Chemist
Bonifacio.27 Needless to say, the integrity of the evidence against accused-appellants was indeed
preserved.
By way of resume, although this Court finds that the police officers did not strictly comply with
the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, such noncompliance did notaffect
the evidentiary weight of the drug seized from the accused-appellants because the chain of
custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case.
Similarly, Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 issilent as to the consequence of failure to comply
therewith; hence, the same shall not be considered as a sole ground to make an arrest withoutthe
participation of the PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such anarrest inadmissible.
Note that the subject drug confiscated from the accused-appellants was properly accounted for
and forthrightly submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for its extensive examination.
Consequently, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the mere denial
of and the allegation of a frame-up by accused-appellants should fail. As correctly pointed out by
the appellate court, the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular
performance of their official duties. On the other hand, courts generally view the defense of
denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her
defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more
credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing
thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.28
Again, findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great
weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative,
arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rationale behind
this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having
heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This
rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.29
This Court does not find any convincing reason to depart from the ruling of the trial court, which
was affirmed by the appellate court. Thus, We affirm the assailed Decision of the appellate court
and uphold the conviction of both accusedappellants.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
02460. dated 4 April 2011, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA
Chief Justice

LOURDES

P.

A.

SERENO

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-15; Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justice
Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 18-23; Penned by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
3 Records, pp. 1-2.
4 Id. at 1.
5 Id. at 18 and 20; Certificate of Arraignment and Order both dated 8 December 2003.
6 Id. at 25; Order dated 16 February 2004.
7 The prosecution proffered the testimonies of PO3 Mohammad Sugod, Jr., and SPO3
Santiago Gonzales; while the defense presented as its witnesses both accused-appellants
Rashid Mangtoma and Mike Steve, with the testimonies of Datu Amirol Ambiong,
Ateneo Tamayo, and Sultan Guinto as corroborating witnesses.
8 Rollo, pp. 3-4; CA Decision dated 4 April 2011.
9 Records, pp. 110-116; RTC Decision dated 21 July 2006.
10 Id. at 116.

11 CA rollo, pp. 71-92; Brief for the Accused-Appellants dated 28 April 2008.
12 Rollo, p. 14; CA Decision dated 4 April 2011.
13 Id. at 6 citing People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 196
and People v. Agulay, 588 Phil. 247 (2008).
14 Id. at 7-10 citing People v. Pambid, G.R. No. 192237, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA
722.
15 Id. at 10-13 citing People v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, 8 August 2010, 627
SCRA 494
16 Id. at 13-14 citing People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA
196.
17 People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004); Chan v. Formaran, 572 Phil 118, 132-133
(2008).
18 People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 215.
19 People v. Andres, G. R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 608 citing
People v. Serrano, G. R. No. 179038, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 327.
20 In People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 135, the
High Court expressed that "[a] buy-bust operation is a formof entrapment whereby ways
and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the
execution of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been
proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken."
21 People v. Lardizabal, G.R. No. 89113, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 320, 329.
22 People v. Sembrano, G. R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing
People v. Lamado, G. R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552 and People v.
Remerata, G. R. No. 147230, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
23 Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which
implements R.A. No. 9165 defines "Chain of Custody" as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receiptin the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include
the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
24 Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
25 People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583.
26 People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 91-92.
27 Records, p. 25.

28 Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).

29 People v. Cruz, G. R. No. 187047, 15 June 2011, 652 SCRA 286, 297-298.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 207992

August 11, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA,
Accused-appellants.

DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of
custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a
miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused.
This resolves an appeal from a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs or for violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
Accused-appellants Roberto Holgado y Dela Cruz (Holgado) and Antonio Misarez y Zaraga
(Misarez) were charged in an information dated January 19, 2007, as follows:
On or about January 17, 2007, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the accused conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding
with (sic) one another, and not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Philip Aure, one (1)
piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing five (5) centigrams (0.05 gram) of
white crystalline substance, which was found to (sic) positive to the test for methylamphetamine
hyrdrocloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law.1
Holgado and Misarez were also charged with possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of
drug paraphernalia, but subsequently acquitted.
As alleged by the prosecution, inDecember 2006, the Pasig City Police received reports of illegal
drug activities of Holgado along C. Raymundo Street, Pasig City.2 After surveillance operations,
a search warrant was issued against Holgado. Acting on the search warrant, the Pasig City Chief
of Police instructed his officers to, if possible, first conduct a buy-bust operation before
actuallyenforcing the search warrant.3
In the evening of January 17, 2007, police operatives went to No. 17, C. Raymundo Street for the
buy-bust operation. PO1 Philip Aure, acting as poseur-buyer and accompanied by the police
informant, approached Holgado who was then part of a drinking session with two (2)
companions. Holgado asked the informant if he was buying drugs while at the same time
offering him a drink. The informant accepted the drink and introduced PO1 Aure as a drug user.
PO1 Aure thenhanded Holgado two (2) marked one hundred peso bills. Holgado asked PO1 Aure
and the informant to wait as the drugs were with his "kumpare" who was then in the restroom.4
Holgado called Misarez. After some time, co-accused Antonio Misarez stepped out of the
restroomand asked who was buying drugs. PO1 Aure and the informant answered, "Kami."
Misarez then handed a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to PO1 Aure. PO1
Aure examined the sachets contents and took out his cellphone. This was the pre-arranged signal
to the other police operatives that the sale of drugs had been consummated.5
The police operatives then approached PO1 Aure. When PO1 Aure saw his companions
approaching, he seized Misarezs hand, but the latter was able to escape and lock himself inside
the house. Holgado, too, was able to flee into the house and join Misarez. The police operatives
managed to break open the wooden door with a crowbar. By then, however, Holgado and
Misarez had managed to leave the house through a passageway in the ceiling leading to an
adjoining house. PO3 Rolando Abuyme and PO2 Arnulfo Dancel managed to get inside the
adjoining house where they apprehended Holgado and Misarez.6

The search warrant was then enforced "in coordination with a barangay official and in the
presence of some media people."7 The search allegedly yielded several drugs and drug
paraphernalia.8 These items (i.e., other than the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline
substance supposedly sold to PO1 Aure) were the subject of three (3) other cases. These other
cases have since been dismissed.9
As noted in the Regional Trial Courts August 17, 2009 decision, PO3 Abuyme prepared an
inventory of the seized items.10 Specifically with respect to the plastic sachet which was the
basis of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, PO1 Aure supposedly marked the plastic
sachet handed to him by Misarez with "RH-PA"11 at the site of the buy-bust operation.
Following their arrest, Holgado and Misarez were charged with violating Sections 5 (sale of
dangerous drugs),12 11 (possession of dangerous drugs),13 and 12 (possession of drug
paraphernalia)14 of Republic Act No. 9165. The case for violating Section 5 was docketed as
Criminal Case No. 15338-D. The cases for violating Section 11 were docketed as Criminal Case
Nos. 15339-D and 15341-D. The case for violating Section 12 was docketed as Criminal Case
No. 15340-D. The charge for violating Section 5 was in view of the plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance supposedly sold by Holgado to PO1 Aure. The charges for violations
of Sections 11 and 12 were in view of the items supposedly seized in enforcing the search
warrant.
During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO1 Aure and the apprehending officers PO2
Roberto Castulo and PO3 Abuyme. The defense presented as its witnesses accused-appellants
Holgado and Misarez, as well as their neighbor, Carlos Marquing, and Holgados wife, Maribel
Villareal.15
In their testimonies, accused-appellants claimed that no buy-bust operation was conducted.
Instead, the police operatives allegedly barged into Holgados house and arrested accusedappellants who were then merely having a few drinks. While Holgado and Misarez were
handcuffed, the police operatives conducted a supposed search of Holgados house. They were
then taken to the police station. Defense witnesses Marquing and Villareal corroborated accusedappellants claims.16
After trial, the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 154 found Holgado and Misarez guilty of
illegal saleof dangerous drugs (i.e., violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165). They were
acquitted of the charges pertaining to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 as the drugs
supposedly seized were not introduced in evidence. Holgado, the sole accused in Criminal Case
No. 15340-D, was also acquitted of the charges relating to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165
asthe paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo testified to in court were different from those indicated
in the inventory supposedly made when the search warrant was enforced.17
Holgado and Misarez were sentencedto suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
penalty of P1million. The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Courts decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
In Crim. Case No. 15338-D finding both the accused Roberto Holgado and Antonio Misarez
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale of
dangerous drug), and each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.
Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). In Crim. Cases
Nos. 15339-D and 15341-D for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 (possession of dangerous
drug) against accused Roberto Holgado and Antonio Misarez, they are hereby found NOT
GUILTY of the said offense for lack of evidence.
In Crim. Case No. 15340-D for violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 (possession of drug
paraphernalia) against Roberto Holgado, judgment is hereby rendered finding the said accused
NOT GUILTY of the said offense charged against him on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia allegedly obtained from the persons of the accused
and subject of the Informations are hereby ordered delivered forthwith to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
Considering the penalty imposed by the Court on the accused ROBERTO HOLGADO and
ANTONIO MISAREZ for violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drug), their
immediate commitment to the National Bilibid Prisons is hereby ordered.
SO ORDERED.18 (Underscoring in the original)
In the decision dated February 18, 2013,19 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial
Courts decision convicting Holgado and Misarez.
On March 4, 2013, Holgado and Misarez filed their notice of appeal.20
In the resolution dated September 11, 2013, this court noted the records forwarded by the Court
of Appeals and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs.21
On November 6, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion, on
behalf ofthe People of the Philippines, noting that it would no longer file a supplemental brief.22
On December 27, 2013, Holgado and Misarez filed their joint supplemental brief23 where they
assailed the supposed lack of compliance with the requirements set by the chain of custody of
seized drugs and drug paraphernalia as provided by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
For resolution is the issue of whether Holgados and Misarezs guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 was established. Subsumed in the resolution of this
issue is the question of whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the
requisites of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
are settled. In People v. Morales,24 this court stated:
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.25
On corpus delicti, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640,
provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or
drug paraphernalia. Specifically with respect to custody before the filing of a criminal case,
Section 21, as amended, provides: SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition ofConfiscated, Seized,
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/orLaboratory Equipment. The PDEA
shall take charge and havecustody 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 teamhaving initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the
National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof:Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the

nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources ofdangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to
the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by
the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the
subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the
completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall
be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be
examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be
issued immediately uponcompletion of the said examination and certification[.]
(Emphasis supplied)
As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution toestablish
the identity of the corpus delicti."26 It "produce[s] doubts as tothe origins ofthe [seized
paraphernalia]."27
The significance of ensuring the integrity of drugs and drug paraphernalia in prosecutions under
Republic Act No. 9165 is discussed in People v. Belocura:28
Worse, the Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the
corpus delicti itself. The omission naturally raises grave doubt about any search being actually
conducted and warrants the suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.
In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for
the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the
moment it is offered in evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not enough
that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also be
sufficiently connectedto and tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely
because it is available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved and with
the parties thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the
introduction of evidence are important.29 (Emphasis supplied)
In Malilin v. People,30 this court explained that the exactitude required by Section 21 goes into
the very nature of narcotics as the subject of prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake withrespect to an exhibit is greatest when the
exhibit issmall and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form
to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham vs. Statepositively acknowledged
this danger. In that case where a substance later analyzed as heroinwas handled by two police
officers prior to examination who however did not testify in court on the condition and
whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possessionwas excluded from the
prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed
heroin or it could havebeen sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by
records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came
into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratorys findings is inadmissible. A unique
characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are

subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature.The Court cannot
reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the
chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of
substances from other casesby accident or otherwisein which similar evidence was seized or
in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the
same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily
identifiable must be applied,a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item
with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been
exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.31 (Emphasis supplied)
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the
integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drugparaphernalia in four (4)
respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of
the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident
allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the
person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this
requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in
any manner.
By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a
failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that
this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v.
Lorenzo:32
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if
there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.The identity of the prohibited drug must be
established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are
present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of
certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.33 (Emphasis supplied)
The prosecutions sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug
paraphernaliawill not secure a conviction. Not even the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the
regularity of the manner by which officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is
"negated."34 Republic Act No. 9165 requires compliance with Section 21.
Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actuallycomply with
the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice. In People v. Magat,35 for instance, this court
had occasion to emphasize the inadequacy of merely marking the items supposedly seized:
"Marking of the seized drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough to comply with the clear
and unequivocal procedures prescribed in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165."36
The exactitude which the state requires in handling seized narcotics and drug paraphernalia is
bolstered by the amendments made to Section 21 by Republic Act No. 10640. Section 21(1), as
amended, now includes the following proviso, thereby making it even more stringent than as
originally worded:
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:
In People v. Nandi,37 this court explained that four (4) links "should be established in the chain
of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officerto the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer ofthe illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and

fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court."38
In Nandi, where the prosecution failed to show how the seized items were handled following the
actual seizure and, thereafter, turned over for examination, this court held thatthe accused must
be acquitted:
After a closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of custody of the subject item
were not clearly established.1wphi1 As can be gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1
Collado failed to provide informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately
after the seizure. He just claimed that the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of
the transaction and, thereafter, hehanded it to the investigator.
There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. PO1
Collado could not even providethe court with the name of the investigator. He admitted that he
was not present when it was delivered to the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist
Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who identified the person who delivered the specimen to the crime
laboratory. Hedisclosed that he received the specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even a
member of the buybust team. Per their record, PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-request with the
attached seized item to the CPD Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2 Semacio recorded
it and turned it over to the Chemistry Section.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered view that chain of custody of the illicit
drug seized was compromised. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties
cannot be applied in this case.
Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the
obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute
authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance
thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers
deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is
irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the
lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty.
With the chain of custody in serious question, the Court cannot gloss over the argument of the
accused regarding the weight of the seized drug. The standard procedure is that after the
confiscation of the dangerous substance, it is brought to the crime laboratory for a series of tests.
The result thereof becomes oneof the bases of the charge to be filed.39 (Citations omitted)
In this case, the defense points out that all that the prosecution claimed, with respect to the
handling of the sachetsupposedly handed by Misarez to PO1 Aure, was that PO1 Aure
supposedly marked it "RH-PA" at the scene of the buy-bust operation.40
While the buy-bust operation team allegedly conducted an inventory of the seized items, it is
unclear if this inventory was limited to those seized pursuant to the enforcement of the search
warrant (i.e., after the conduct of the buy-bust operation) or was inclusive of whatever items
seized during the buy-bust operation. In any case, this inventory was discredited as Holgado was
acquitted by the Regional Trial Court of the charge of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia
because the inventory was found to be unreliable visa-vis the testimony of PO2 Castulo. The
paraphernaliato which PO2 Castulo testified to in court were different from those indicated in the
inventory supposedly made when the search warrant was enforced.
There have been claims to the effect that the search warrant was enforced "in coordination with a
barangay official and in the presence of some media people."41 However, this "barangay

official" and these "media people" have neither been identified nor presented as witnesses. In any
case, even if it were to be granted that these individuals took part in the events that transpired in
the evening of January 17, 2007, their participation was alleged to have been only with respect to
the enforcement of the search warrant. It did not extend to the physical inventory and taking of
photographs of the seized items arising from the buy-bust operation, as required by Section 21.
For that matter, it was not even shown that photographs of the sachet marked as "RH-PA" were
taken. Per his own testimony, PO1 Aure himself doubtedif any photograph was taken.42
The defense also points out that "PO1 Aure . . . failed to disclose who, in particular, held the
sachet of shabu from the crime scene (after it was marked) up to the police station, and finally to
the crime laboratory for the requisite chemical examination."43 It added that "nothing on (sic)
the records showed who, in particular, submitted/brought the specimen to the crime laboratory
for examination."44
In People v. Gatlabayan45 and People v. Sitco,46 this court considered as fatal to the
prosecutions case the lack of evidence on the identity of the person who submitted the specimen
for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory and/or the forensic chemist. In Sitco, this court
characterized the lack of evidence on this matter as "glaring gaps or missing links in the chain of
custody of evidence, raising doubt asto the identity of the seized items and necessarily their
evidentiary value."47 This court also underscored that "[t]his broken chain of custody is
especially significant given that what are involved are fungible items that may beeasily altered or
tampered with."48
In sum, the integrity of three (3) ofthe four (4) links enumerated in People v. Nandi49 (i.e.,
seizure and marking, turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and
turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist) has been cast in doubt. As in Nandi,
this doubt must be resolved in favor of accused-appellants.
It is true that Section 21(1), as amended, now includes a proviso to the effect that
"noncompliance of (sic) these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items."
However, the prosecution has not shown that when the buy-bust operation was allegedly
conducted on January 17, 2007 and the sachet was supposedly seized and marked, there were
"justifiable grounds" for dispensing with compliance with Section 21. Rather, it merely insisted
on its self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized sachet has nevertheless been,
supposedly, preserved. The omission became more glaring considering that the prosecution
asserted that the events of January 17, 2007 entailed a carefully planned operation, engendered
by reports of drug-related activities along C. Raymundo Street. This planning even led to the
application for and issuance of a search warrant.
Apart from the officers glaring non-compliance with Section 21, two (2) circumstances are
worth underscoringin this case. First, the shabu supposedly seized amounted to five (5)
centigrams (0.05 gram). This quantity is so miniscule it amounts to only about 2.5% of the
weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams). Second, Holgado
and Misarez were acquitted by the Regional Trial Court of all other charges (i.e., for possession
of dangerous drugs and for possession of drug paraphernalia).
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this
circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Malilin v.
People,50 this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss ormistake with respect to an
exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible
innature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives."51
Moreover, the Regional Trial Courts observations which led to accused-appellants acquittal for
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 should have warned the Regional
Trial Court and the Court of Appeals that something was amiss.

The events of January 17, 2007 should be taken and appreciated as a whole even as they gave
rise to four (4) distinct criminal cases which were separately docketed. The reasons for acquitting
accused-appellants for the charges of violating Sections 11 and 12 (i.e., the prosecutions
complete failure to introduce in evidence the drugs seized and the testifying police operatives
own failure to properly account for the paraphernalia he himself took part in seizing)52 seriously
cast doubt, not only on accused-appellants own guilt, but more so on the soundness and
reliability of the measures taken and procedures followed by the police operatives. These
circumstances cast a heavy shadow on the integrity of the operation and the police operatives
themselves.
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of
Republic Act No. 9165.1wphi1 All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicatedand
barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny,
consistent with the requirement ofproof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving
miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. Also, doubt normally
follows in cases where an accused has been discharged from other simultaneous offenses due to
mishandling of evidence. Had the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals been so
judicious in this case, a speedier resolution would have been handed to Holgado and Misarez
whose guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not established.
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No.
9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions
involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have
been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small
retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law
enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus
resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all
these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram
of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture.
Itmight in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the
causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs
and the leadership of these cartels.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated February 18, 2013 of the Court of
Appeals inCA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04635 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants
Roberto Holgado y Dela Cruz and Antonio Misarez y Zaraga are hereby ACQUITTEDfor failure
of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa
City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to
report to this court within five (5) days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken.
Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of Philippine National Police and the
Director General of Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachet of methamphetamine
hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.*

Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
* Designated as Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division per Special
Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.
1 Rollo, pp. 34.
2 CA rollo, p. 27.
3 Id. at 28.
4 Id. at 2829.
5 Id. at 29.
6 CA rollo, pp. 2930 and rollo, p. 5.
7 CA rollo, p. 30.
8 Id. at 2930.
9 Rollo, pp. 23.
10 CA rollo, p. 30.
11 Rollo, p. 5 and CA rollo, p. 158.

12 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 of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such
transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation,delivery, distribution or
transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners,
couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade,the
maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or
should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical
involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a
victimthereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be
imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any
person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any ofthe illegal
activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of
imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this
Section.
13 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 ofthe degree
of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8)10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine
(MDA)
or
"ecstasy",
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA),
lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (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, as determined and
promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this
Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less thanthe foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the
quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams
or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life
imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten
(10) 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
"ecstasy", 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 three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500)
grams of marijuana; and(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 "ecstasy", 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.
14 Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia
for Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in
the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such

equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their

profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia
fit or intended for any of the purposes enumeratedin the preceding paragraph shall
be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered
to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be
presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
15 Rollo, p. 4.
16 CA rollo, pp. 32-33.
17 Id. at 33-38.
18 Id. at 3738.
19 Rollo, pp. 210.
20 Id. at 12.
21 Rollo, p. 17.
22 Id. at 21-22.
23 Id. at 28-37.
24 G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
Division].
25 Id. at 235, citing People v. Darisan, 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First
Division] and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883 (2009) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
Division].
26 People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 236 [Per J. Del
Castillo, Second Division].
27 People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], as cited
in People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758 [Per J. Tinga,
Second Division].
28 G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 318 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
29 Id. at 337338.
30 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
31 Id. at 588589.
32 G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 389 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
33 Id. at 401.
34 People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 609, 618 [Per J.
Carpio-Morales, Third Division]. See also People v. Ulat, G.R. No. 180504, October 5,
2011, 650 SCRA 607 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].

35 588 Phil. 395 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

36 Id. at 97.
37 G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
38 Id. at 133, citing People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610
SCRA 295 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
39 Id. at 133134.
40 Rollo, pp. 3132; supplemental brief, pp. 45.
41 CA rollo, p. 30.
42 Rollo, p. 29; supplemental brief, p. 2.
43 Id. at 31; supplemental brief, p. 5.
44 Id.
45 G.R. No. 186467, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 803 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
46 G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010, 620 SCRA 561 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
47 Id. at 576577.
48 Id. at 577.
49 G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division],
citing People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295 [Per J.
Brion, Second Division].
50 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
51 Id. at 633.
52 CA rollo, pp. 33-38.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 206366

August 13, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
EDUARDO BALAQUIOT y BALDERAMA, Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:

At bench is an appeal1 assailing the Decision2 dated 29 August 2012 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04595. In the said decision, the appellate court affirmed the
conviction of herein appellant Eduardo B. Balaquit for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act
No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The facts are as follows:
On 11 June 2008, appellant was arrested during a buy bust operation performed by officers of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camiling, Tarlac. He was thereafter charged with the offense
of illegal sale of shabu under an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Tarlac.3 The Information reads:
That on June 11, 2008 at on or about 10 AM at Bobon 1st , in the Municipality of Camiling,
Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, did then and there willfully and feloniously sell to one another one (1) heat sealed
plastic sachet containing 0.049 grams of met[h]amphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as
"shabu", a dangerous drug, without being authorized by law.
Appellant was arraigned on 26 August 2008 and entered a plea of not guilty. Trial thereafter
ensued.
During trial, the prosecution presented, among others, the following object evidence:
1. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.049 grams of white
crystalline substance.The plastic sachet is dated "11 June 2008" and marked with "JSEEBB,"4 and
2. Chemistry Report D-184-085
The foregoing object evidence weresupplemented by the testimonies of Police Officer Jay
Espiritu (PO3 Espiritu), Special Police Officer Noli Daraman (SPO1 Daraman) and police
chemist Jebie Timario (Mr. Timario).
PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman were the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation
that led tothe arrest of the appellant. Their testimonies recounted the following events:6
1. On 11 June 2008, PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman engaged in a buy-bust operation
against appellantafter receiving confirmation from the Chief Intelligence Officer(CIO) of
the Camiling PNP that the former was involved in the peddling of shabu. The
confirmation from the CIO came at the heels of a week-long surveillance on the appellant
conducted by the Camiling PNP.
2. As the designated poseur-buyer of the operation, PO3 Espiritu met with the appellant
outside the latters residence at Bobon 1st, Camiling, Tarlac. SPO1 Daraman,on the other
hand, hid behind a tree about ten (10) to twenty(20) meters from where PO3 Espiritu and
appellant were standing.
3. PO3 Espiritu was able to negotiate and successfully purchase from the appellant one
(1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet.1wphi1 In exchange, PO3 Espiritu handed to
the appellant a previously marked P500 bill. After the transaction, PO3 Espiritu
proceeded to arrest appellant. SPO1 Daraman, who was able to witness the exchange,
emerged from his hiding place and aided in the arrest of the appellant.
4. PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman retrieved from appellant the marked P500 bill. They
then proceeded to call the barangay officials of the place to witness the inventory of the
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and the marked money. Photographs
of the plastic sachet, the marked bill and of the appellant were also taken.

5. PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman brought the appellant and the recovered items to the
Camiling PNP station. The plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance were then
dated "11 June 2008" and marked with "JSE-EBB"the initials of both PO3 Espiritu and
the appellant. 6. On 12 June 2008, PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 forwarded to the PNP Crime
Laboratory the plastic sachet, now dated "11 June 2008" and marked "JSE-EBB," along
with a request for laboratory examination.
In his testimony, PO3 Espiritu also identified the plastic sachet dated "11 June 2008" and marked
with "JSE-EBB" presented by the prosecution as the very one he retrieved from the appellant
during the buy-bust.7
Mr. Timario, on the other hand, isa police chemist for the Camiling PNP and the one who
conducted laboratory examination on the contents of the plastic sachet dated "11 June 2008" and
marked "JSE-EBB." He is also the signatory of Chemistry Report D-184-08. Mr. Timario
testified that per Chemistry Report D-184-08, hewas able to confirm that the contents of the
plastic sachet dated "11 June 2008" and marked "JSE-EBB" are positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.8
The defense, for its part, relied on the testimonies of the appellant and his brother, Exequil
Balaquit (Exequil).
In substance, appellantdenied being caught, in flagrante, selling shabuand claimed that he was
merely a victim of a police frame-up. He professed the following version of events:9
1. On the date and time of the supposed buy-bust, he was in a day care center where he
bought some sopasfor his children. On his way home, he encountered two (2) men aboard
a motorcycle. 2. One of the two (2) men aboard the motorcycle alighted and drew a gun
at him. At that point, SPO1 Daraman arrived and introduced himself and the one pointing
a gun at him as policemen.
3. Afterwards, SPO1 Daraman and other police officers led him to an alley. One of the
police officers twisted his arms. At the alley, he was forced to sign a report. Later, the
barangay captain also arrived and signed the same report.
4. He was then brought to the Camiling PNP station where he was detained.
Exequil corroborated the denial of his brother. He recounted that he saw the appellant, armtwisted and all, being led to an alley by police officers.10
On 24 June 2010, the RTC rendered a decision11 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense of illegal sale of shabuunder Section 512 of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. In doing so, the RTC gave full faith and credenceto the version of the
prosecution as established by the testimonies of PO3 Espiritu, SPO1 Daraman and Mr. Timario.
Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P500,000.00.
Aggrieved, appellant appealedthe RTC decision to the CA.
On 29 August 2012, the CA rendered a decision affirming the RTC. Hence, this appeal.
In this appeal, appellant claims that the RTC and the CA erred in giving full faith and credence to
the version of the prosecution. To support his claim, he cites three (3) circumstances:
1. The prosecution never presented as a witness the CIO of the Camiling PNP.
2. The Camiling PNP never coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA).

3. The representation by the prosecution that the appellant was under surveillance prior to
the buy-bust is not believable. If it were true, then the Camiling PNP could have just
applied for a search warrant against the appellant.
These circumstances, the appellant believes, destroy the credibility of the prosecution story that
the Camiling PNP really undertook a genuine buybust operation and also lend trustworthiness to
his own version that he was merely a victim of a frame-up.
At any rate, the appellant adds thathis acquittal for the two charges is in order because the
prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense charged. Appellant claims that the
identity of the shabuthat was presented by the prosecution in evidence issuspect in view of the
failure by PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman to mark the plastic sachet they allegedly retrieved
during the buy-bust immediately thereat as required by Section 2113 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Appellant points out that PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman, by
their own testimonies, admitted to marking such plastic sachetonly after bringing the same to the
police station.
OUR RULING
We deny the appeal.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals did not err in giving full faith and credence to the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses
We find no error on the part of the RTC and the CA in sustaining the prosecutions version of
events. The circumstances cited by the appellant does not at all destroy its credibility:
First. The non-presentation as a witness of the CIO of the Camiling PNP does not discount that a
legitimate buy-bust operation was undertaken in this case. The conduct of the buy-bust operation
was already adequately established by the testimonies of PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman who
were the very participants of such operation. Indeed, the testimony of the CIO would, at most,
merely corroborate the testimonies of PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman.
Second. The appellants qualm regarding the absence of coordination between the Camiling PNP
and the PDEA is also immaterial. In People v. Roa,14 this Court ruled that prior coordination
with the PDEA is not a condition sine qua nonfor the validity of every entrapment operation
conducted by police authorities:
In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police
authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation.1wphi1 While it is true that Section 8615 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 PDEAs participation a condition sine qua nonfor every
buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by
Section 5, Rule 11316 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.17 A buy-bust
operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
Third. The assertion that the Camiling PNP could have just applied for a search warrant instead
of conducting a buy-bust operation is irrelevant to the issue of whether a legitimate buy-bust
operation was, in fact, undertaken. The decision whether to apply for a search warrant or to
conduct instead a buy-bust operation on any given case is a matter rightfully addressed to the
sound discretion of the police officers. Certainly, police officers have the right to choose which
legal means or processes are best suited, given the circumstances, in accomplishing the task they
are called upon to perform.

Verily, appellant is left with only his denial to fend off the serious accusations against him. Such
denial, by itself, however, cannot overcome the weight traditionally accorded toaffirmative
testimonies by police officers with unsullied credibility.18 The RTC and the CAwere, therefore,
correct in giving full faith and credit to the open court narrations of PO3 Espiritu and SPO1
Daraman.
Corpus
delicti
proven beyond reasonable doubt

of

the

offense

We also find that the corpus delictiof the offense was adequately proven in this case.
A review of the evidence on recordwill show that the prosecution was able to establish an
unbroken chain of custody over the shabuthat it claims as having been sold by the appellant:
1. PO3 Espiritu testified that he was able to buy P500.00 worth of shabuinside a
transparent plastic sachet from appellant, which he brought to the Camiling PNP
station.19
2. Upon arrival at the station, PO3 Espiritu Espiritu testified that he dated the plastic
sachet "11 June 2008" a marked it with "JSE-EBB." Afterwards, a request for laboratory
examination was prepared.20
3. The next day, plastic sachet dated "11 June 2008" and marked "JSE-EBB" was sent to
the PNP Crime Laboratory along with the request for laboratory examination.21
4. At the PNP Crime Laboratory, Mr. Timario conducted examination on the contents of
the plastic sachet dated "11 June 2008" and marked "JSE-EBB" that yielded positive
results for shabu.22
5. Afterwards, the shabuwas retrieved for purposes of the trial.23
Evidently, the prosecution was able to account for each and every link in the chain of custody
over the shabu, from the moment it was retrieved during the buy-bust operation up to the time it
was presented before the court as proof of the corpus delicti.
Contrary to appellants assertion, the failure by PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman to mark the
seized shabuimmediately at the place where the buy-bust was conducted will notautomatically
impair the integrity of the chain of custody so established. Strictly speaking, marking the seized
contraband at the nearest police station,rather than at the place where the buy-bust operation was
conducted, is not even a violation of the procedure set forth in Section 21 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Thus, in People v. Resurreccion,24 this Court explained:
Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoros failure to mark the confiscated
shabuimmediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the drugs identity. People v.
Sanchez,25 however, explains that RA 9165 does not specify a time frame for "immediate
marking," or where said marking should be done:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the
matter of "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized
upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these
activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with
the enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done ( 1) in the
presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.1wphi1
To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking
be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. "Immediate
confiscation" has no exact definition. Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen,26 testimony that included

the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was
sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate
confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team. (Emphasis supplied)
Verily, We are satisfied that the corpus delicti of the offense in this case was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 29
August 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04595 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 By way of an ordinary appeal pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule 122 of the Rules of
Court.

2 The decision was penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza for the Seventh (7th)
Division of the Court of Appeals with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Ramon A.
Cruz concurring; rollo, pp. 2-17.
3 The Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 08-71 and was assigned to Branch
68. Records, p. 1.
4 Exhibit "G," id. at 49-50.
5 Exhibit "B," id. at 5.
6 See TSN, 13 November 2008 and 5 February 2009.
7 TSN, 10 September 2009, p. 3.
8 TSN, 30 July 2009, pp. 5-6.
9 TSN, 22 October 2009, pp. 3-8.
10 See TSN dated 10 June 2010.
11 The decision was penned by Judge Jose S. Vallo; records, pp. 82-88.
12 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 asa broker in any of such transactions.
xxx
13 Particularly, Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165. to wit:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well
as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof;
(2) xxx
14 G.R. No. 186134, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 368-369.

15 Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal
Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the
Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby
abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail
service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational
structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA
Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves. x x x.
xxxx
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the
NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic
laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the
NBI, PNP or any ad hocanti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of
the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or
any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided,
further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close
coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters. (Emphasis supplied)
16 Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to bearrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) x x x; and
(c) x x x.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall
be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (Emphasis
supplied)
17 Even the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 does
not make PDEAs participation a mandatory requirement before the other law
enforcement agencies may conduct buy-bust operations. Section 86(a) of the said IRR
provides:
(a) Relationship/Coordination between PDEA and Other Agencies The PDEA
shall be the lead agency in the enforcement of the Act, while the PNP, the NBI
and other law enforcement agencies shall continue to conduct anti-drug operations
in support of the PDEA: Provided,that the said agencies shall, as far as
practicable, coordinate with the PDEA prior to anti-drug operations; Provided,
further,that, in any case said agencies shall inform the PDEA of their anti-drug
operations within twenty-four hours from the time of the actual custody of the
suspects or seizure of said drugs and substances, as well as paraphernalia and
transport equipment used in illegal activities involving such drugs and/or
substances, and shall regularly update the PDEA on the status of the cases
involving the said anti-drug operations; Provided furthermore,that raids, seizures,
and other anti-drug operations conducted by the PNP, the NBI, and other law
enforcement agencies prior to the approval of this IRR shall be valid and
authorized; Provided, finally,that nothing in this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the
NBI, other law enforcement personnel and the personnel of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) from effecting lawful arrests and seizures in consonance
with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

18 People v. Roa, supra note 14, at 367-368.

19 TSN, 13 November 2008, p.4.
20 Id. at 5.
21 Id. at 4-5.
22 TSN, 30 July 2009, pp. 5-6.
23 TSN, 10 September 2009, p. 3.
24 G.R. No. 186380, 12 October 2009, 603 SCRA 510, 520.
25 590 Phil. 214, 240-241 (2008).
26 603 Phil. 665 (2009).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 203048

August 13, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
RUSTY BALA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:

On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 25 July 2011 affirming the
conviction by the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) of Malabon City, Branch 72 of appellant Rusty
Bala for violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659 ..
This case is an offshoot of G.R. No. 1523513 promulgated on 18 September 2003, where the
Court affirmed the conviction only of Jamil Malay Ragid (Mala), appellant's co-accused in this
case.
Following a buy-bust operation, appellant and Mala were charged with a violation of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended, under an Information which reads:
That on or about the 4th day of April 2001, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and helping with one another, being private persons and without
authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver in
consideration of undetermined pieces of money (boodle money) to poseur-buyer, two (2) pieces
of transparent plastic bags each containing yellowish crystalline substance with the following net
weights:
A- (ABI-R1 4-4-01) = 105.89 grams
B- (ABI-R2 4-4-01) = 105.71 grams
which substances when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive results for
METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE otherwise known as "shabu" which is a
regulated drug.4
When arraigned, both appellant and Mala pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. On 28 August 2001,
the RTC rendered a decision convicting both appellant and Mala of the crime charged. On 18
September 2003, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 152351 affirmed the conviction only of Mala,
appellants co-accused in this case. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of 28 August 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon
City, Branch 72, in Criminal Case No. 24514-MN is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as JAMIL
MALA y RAJID is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged as penalized
under Section 15, Article III, R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuaand to pay a fine in the amount of P1 MILLION and the
costs. However, insofar as appellant Rusty Bala is concerned,the decision is SET ASIDE and this
case is hereby remanded to the trial court below for the reception of evidence for Rusty Bala,
unless itis determined that he is not mentally fit to face trial, in which case the trial court should
take the appropriate steps provided by law.5 (Emphasis supplied).
The factual antecedents, as narrated by prosecution witnesses, have been succinctly summarized
inG.R. No. 152351 as follows:
On 4 April 2001, at around 5:30 p.m., a confidential informant came to the office of the Drug
Enforcement Group, Malabon Police Station. He reported that a transaction with two Muslims
for the sale of 200 grams of shabuin the amount of P130,000 would take place between 9:00 and
10:00 p.m. in his house at C-4 Road, Barangay Taong, Malabon, Metro Manila. Acting on this
information, Police Inspector Virgilio Olalia forthwith formed a buy-bust team composed of PO1
Joel Fernandez [PO1 Fernandez] as poseur-buyer, SPO2 Armando Isidto [SPO2 Isidto], SPO2
Manolito Manalo, and other policemen. PO1 Fernandez was then given "boodle money"
consisting of fake P1,000 bills on both ends of the bundle and cut newspaper prints in the
middle, which were wrapped in a plastic bag. At about 8:30 p.m. the team proceeded to the place
of operation. They then waited along C-4 Road.

An hour later, the appellants arrived on board a taxicab. Fernandez and the confidential
informant immediately entered the latters house. After a short while, there was a knocking at the
door. The confidential informant opened the door and let appellants Jamil Mala and Rusty Bala
enter his house. He then talked with the appellants and introduced Fernandez to the two as the
buyer of shabu. When Mala asked for the money, Fernandez showed to him the boodle money
contained in a plastic bag. The former then gave to the latter the suspected shabu wrapped with a
yellow transparent plastic bag. As Mala was counting the money, he noticed it to be fake
ormerely boodle money. The appellants then talked with each other in Muslim and instantly
grabbed the suspected shabufrom Fernandez.
Meanwhile, the confidential informer went out of the house and gave the pre-arranged signal to
the other policemen by scratching his head. Isidto and Manalo immediately entered the house
just as Fernandez was drawing his gun. Isidto confiscated the suspected shabu from Mala, and
the boodle money from Bala. The shabuwas sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination,
which yielded positive result for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
For his part, appellant Jamil Mala denied the accusation against him and his co-appellant. He
claimed that he was engaged in the selling of VCDs in the Muslim area in Greenhills, as well as
in Caloocan City. He was also selling at the Caloocan City market readymade pants on
installment basis. One time, he met a certain Manny in Czar Bar near the Wise Hotel in
Monumento, Caloocan City; and later Manny borrowed P18,000 from him. On 4 April 2001, he
went to the house of Manny to collect the P18,000 he loaned to him (Manny). He arrived at 7:00
p.m. only to be told by Mannys daughter that Manny was not around. While Mala was saying
that he would leave and would just return later, Mannys wife told him to wait, as she would ask
her daughter to fetch Manny.
Fifteen minutes thereafter, fourpersons in civilian clothes arrived. They frisked him and told him
to undress. They then handcuffed him along with his companion Rusty Bala. Two of the armed
men went out of the house and later returned with two plastic bags. Mala and Bala were
thereupon taken to the Pagamutang Bayan ng Malabon and then to a detention cell. When
appellant Mala subsequently learned of the charges against him and Bala, he asked his wife to
file charges against the arresting officers. But his wife instead returned home to their home
province.
Appellant Rusty Bala was no longercalled to testify because his lawyer allegedly "had a hard
time communicating with him"; and besides, he (Bala) appeared somewhat mentally deficient
and would only corroborate Malas testimony.6
Acting on the Resolution issued by the Court on 7 July 2004, further proceedings insofar as
appellant is concerned was conducted by the Muntinlupa RTC.7 The trial against appellant
resumed on 8 June 2006 during which appellant testified in his defense. Appellant denied the
charges against him. He claimed that around 5:00a.m. of 4 April 2001, he went to Balintawak
market to sell baby clothes. At 10:00 a.m., appellant proceeded to Caloocan City to attend a
worship service in a mosque until 12:00 p.m. While he was waiting for a tricycleto go back to
Balintawak, an owner-type jeep suddenly stopped beside him. Three men alighted from the jeep
and asked appellant if he is a Muslim. When he answered in the affirmative, the three men
suddenly frisked him and forcibly boarded him into their jeep where he was blindfolded. When
theyreached their destination which was unknown to appellant, he was brought to a room where
he heard the three unidentified men talking to another person. When his blindfold was removed,
appellant was asked if he knew the person whom they were talking to earlier. He only came to
know said person as his co-accused, Mala, when they were both left in the room handcuffed. On
the following day, they were brought to the Malabon City Jail. Appellant denied the charges
against him.8
Mohammad Nur Tandual (Tandual), a distant relative of appellant, corroborated his testimony.
Tandual recounted that after the worship service, he saw the police arrive outside the mosque and

arrest the appellant. Tandual recalled that appellant was merely standing when he was
apprehended. Appellant tried to resist but he was dragged and boarded into the police vehicle.9
On 5 February 2008, the RTC rendered an Amended Decision finding appellant guilty of the
crime of drug pushing under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, penalized with
reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to pay a fine ofOne Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), and
to pay the costs.10 The trial court did not give credit to appellants defense of denial and frameup.
After receiving a copy of the trial court's decision, petitioner seasonably filed a Notice of
Appeal11 before the Court of Appeals. In his Appellants Brief, appellant questioned the police
officers decision to immediately conduct a buy-bust operation without conducting a surveillance
or test-buy. Appellant found the action of the poseur-buyer in immediately demanding payment
for the shabuafter introductions were made as improbable because if appellant were indeed
involved in illegal drug trade, he would not have immediately agreedto transact business with
such readiness and willingness. Appellant alleged that the apprehending officers failed to
immediately mark the evidence, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items, and to
photograph the same in the presence of the accused. Appellant averred that the prosecution failed
to account for every link in the chain of custody starting from its turn over by SPO3 Isidto to the
investigator and from the latter to the chemist.
On 25 July 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellants conviction in toto. The issues raised
by appellant were resolved as follows: 1) The absence of a prior surveillance ortest-buy does not
affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. The Court has left it accordingly to the discretion of
the police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers; 2) It is not
improbable for appellant to deal with drugs openly in a public place to persons he hardly knew,
for drug dealers are known to sell their goods even to strangers; 3) Strict compliance with the
requirements relating to the corpus delictiis not required as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized itemshave been preserved; and 4) The prosecution was able to establish
anunbroken chain of custody over the shabu.12
The appellate court also dismissed appellants claim of frame-up and denial as insufficient.
Appellant appealed his conviction before this Court.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved:
(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.13 All these elements were duly established. Appellant
was caught in flagrante delictoselling shabuthrough a buybust operation conducted by members
of the Malabon Drug Enforcement Unit. The poseur-buyer, PO1 Fernandez, positively testified
that the sale took place and appellant was one of the authors of the illegal sale of drugs, thus:
Q: And after they entered the house, referring to the 2 accused, what happened next?
A: The 2 accused and the confidential informan[t] talked to each other.
Q: You were present when they talked?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And after the confidential informant and the 2 accused talked to each other, what happened
next?
A: Our confidential informant introduced me, sir.
Q: As what?
A: As the buyer of the shabu, sir.

Q: And after you were introduced by the confidential informant to the 2 accused as the buyer,
what happened next?
A: They demanded the money.
Q: The 2 of them?
A: Jamil, sir.
Q: Only Jamil?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what did you do when Jamil Mala asked for the money?
A: I showed the boodle money, sir, wrapped with yellow plastic bag.
Q: Then what happened?
A: I asked for the shabu, sir.
Q: From whom?
A: From Jamil, sir.
Q: And what did Jamil Mala do?
A: He gave to me the shabu, sir. What happened was like this: Jamil Mala was asked by the other
to count the money and while doing so, Mala noticed the money to be fake so the 2 accused
talked in Muslim after which Jamil Mala tried to grab from me the shabu and was able to do so.
But before that, the confidential informant went out of his house and gavethe signal to the others.
Q: Will you be able to identify the buy-bust shabuif shown to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: From whom did he grab the shabu?
A: From me.
Q: You said the confidential informant went out. What happened later when the confidential
informant went out?
A: It was our pre-arranged signal that that is the time that the deal was consummated already.
Q: What happened next after the confidential informant went out of his house?
A: When Jamil Mala was able to grab the shabufrom me, I drew my gun and at the same time,
SPO[2] Armando Isidto and SPO2 Manolito Manalo entered the house.
Q: Were you in civilian clothes?
A: Yes, sir. I was wearing shorts, sir.
Q: What about Isidto and Manalo? Were they also in civilian clothes?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where was your gun at the time?

A: Under my shirt at the back ofmy waist.
Q: What did they do when they entered the house?
A: Isidto recovered the shabufrom Mala and the boodle money from Bala, sir.
Q: And who recovered the boodle money?
A: Isidto recovered the money.
Q: From whom did he recover the boodle money?
A: From Rusty Bala, sir.14
It can be gleaned from the above-quoted testimony that appellant acted in common concert with
his co-accused in the illegal sale of shabu. They were both present during the entire transaction.
Mala produced the shabu and handed it to the poseur-buyer in exchange for the boodle money.
Appellant ordered Mala to count the money. When they were placed under arrest, the boodle
money was recovered from appellant. Their acts clearly demonstrate the presence of conspiracy.
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even
take part in every act or need not even know the exactpart to be performed by the others in the
execution of the conspiracy.15
In his Supplemental Brief, appellant assails the appellate courts affirmance of his conviction
despite the apprehending officers failure to preserve the evidentiary value of the seized items.
First, appellant argues that the apprehending officers failed togive any explanation why they
failed to place the necessary markings on the items seized in the presence of the persons
mentioned by law, to take photographs, and, submit a detailed inventory of the same. Second,
appellant avers that while SPO3 Isidto claimed that he delivered the drugs to a certain SPO1
Mandac, it does not appear that the latter received the same as the dispatch in the blotter was not
signed by said person. Appellant alsonotes that a certain PO1 Sigua made the delivery to the
crime laboratory and not the investigator as claimed by SPO2 Isidto. Third, appellant maintains
that the failure of the apprehending officers to observe the proper procedure negates the
operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.
Section 1 of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by Board
Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990, provides that all prohibited and regulated drugs shall be
physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof, to wit:
Section 1. All prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses and articles specially
designed for the use thereof when unlawfully used or found in the possession of any person not
authorized to have control and disposition of the same, or when found secreted or abandoned,
shall be seized or confiscated by any national, provincial or local law enforcement agency. Any
apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should
immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and
photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Thereafter, the seized
drugs and paraphernalia shall be immediately brought to a properly equipped government
laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.
The apprehending team shall: (a) within forty-eight (48) hours from the seizure inform the
Dangerous Drugs Board by telegram of said seizure, the nature and quantity thereof, and who

has present custody of the same, and (b) submit to the Board a copy of the mission investigation
report within fifteen (15) days fromcompletion of the investigation.
This rule is now incorporated asSection 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 that repealed Republic
Act No. 6425.
The alleged procedural infirmity pointed out by appellant does not prove fatal to the
prosecutions case.
In People v. Gratil,16 a case wherein appellant therein claimed that proper procedure for taking
custody of the seized prohibited drugs was not faithfully followed, we ruled that:
In People v. De Los Reyes, a case which also involved an objection regarding the noncompliance with the chain of custody rule, we held that:
The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of
1979 is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is
totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the commission of the
crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction
is established x x x and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of the arresting
officers to comply with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board.
Moreover, in People v. Agulay, we held that:
Non-compliance with [Section 21, 19 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165] is not fatal and will
not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. In
People v. Del Monte, this Court held that 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. x x x.
The ponenteof Agulaywould further observe in a separate opinion that the failure by the buy-bust
team to comply with the procedure in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which replicated Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165,
did not overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to police authorities in the performance
of their official duties, to wit:
First, it must be made clear that in several cases decided by the Court, failure by the buy-bust
team to comply with said section did not prevent the presumption of regularityin the performance
of duty from applying.
Second, even prior to the enactment of R.A. 9165, the requirements contained in Section 21(a)
were already there per Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979. Despite the
presence of such regulation and its non-compliance by the buy-bust team, the Court still applied
such presumption. x x x.
Notwithstanding the minor lapse in procedure committed by the police officers in the handling of
the illegal drugs taken from appellant, the identity and integrity of the evidence was never put
into serious doubt in the course of the proceedings of this case. x x x.17
Pertinently, it is the preservation ofthe integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which
mustbe proven to establish the corpus delicti.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals held that the chain of custody requirement were proven
during the trial, thus:
A review of the evidence on recordwill show that the prosecution was able to establish an
unbroken chain of custody over the shabuwhich it claims as having been sold and possessed by

the accused-appellant. SPO[2] Armando Isidto testified that he recovered the shabu from
accused-appellant Bala and Mala. He then sealed the recovered shabuin a plastic bag and marked
it at the police station. Heturned over the dangerous drugs to investigator SPO1 Vic Mandac,
who prepared the request for examination. The recovered shabu was then sent to NPDC Crime
Laboratory. P/Insp. Sandra Goacknowledged the receipt of the sealed plastic bag. She stated that
the test she conducted on the specimens yielded a positive result for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.18
Appellants defenses, which are predicated on denial and frame-up, are invariably viewed with
disfavor because such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for
the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.19 They deserve scant consideration in light of
the positive testimonies of the police officers.
In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sold shabu.
Section 15, Article III, in relation to Section 20(3) of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, states:
Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated Drugs.- The penalty of reclusion perpetuato death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the
offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the
proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed.
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of
the Crime.- The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections
14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is
in any of the following quantities:
1. 40 grams or more of opium;
2. 40 grams or more of morphine;
3. 200 grams or more of shabuor methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of Indian hempor marijuana;
6. 50 grams or more of marijuanaresin or marijuanaresin oil;
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrocholoride; or
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic
requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after
public consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range
from prision correccionalto reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.1wphi1
In the instant case, appellant was found to have sold to the poseurbuyer a total of 211.6 grams of
shabu, which amount is more than the minimum of 200 grams required by the law for the
imposition of reclusion perpetua to death.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that when the law prescribes a penalty composed
of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be applied.20 Thus, in this case, considering
that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended the appellant's violation of Section 15,
Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and the fine of P1,000,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 25 July 201 1 of the Court of Appeals, affirming the
conviction of appellant Rusty Bala by the RTC of Malabon City, Branch 72 for violation of
Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay a fine of P 1,000,000.00 is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA*

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division Chairperson
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Per Raffle dated 1 October 2012.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Antonio L.
Yillamor and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-14.
2 Presided by Judge Benjamin M. Aquino, Jr. CA rollo, pp. 27-33.

3 People v. Mala, 458 Phil. 180 (2003).

4 Records, p. 1.
5 People v. Mala, supra note 3 at 195.
6 Id. at 185-187.
7 CA rollo, p. 28.
8 TSN, 8 June 2006, pp. 4-19.
9 TSN, 2 August 2007, pp. 4-8.
10 CA rollo, p. 33.
11 Id. at 36.
12 Rollo, pp. 8-13.
13 People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 439, 449 citing People v.
Tan, 432 Phil. 171, 183 (2002) citing further People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 131
(2000); People v. Tiu, 460 Phil. 95, 103 (2003).
14 TSN, 9 July 2001, pp. 5-7.
15 People v. Seraspe, G.R. No. 180919, 9 January 2013, 688 SCRA 289, 305 citing
People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, 15 November 2010, 634 SCRA 689, 706.
16 G.R. No. 182236, 22 June 2011, 652 SCRA 551.
17 Id. at 566-568.
18 Rollo, pp. 12-13.
19 People v. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, 24 October 2012, 684 SCRA 622, 635 citing
People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 610.
20 People v. Vasque, G.R. No. 200304, 15 .January 2014.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 200987

August 20, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
RONALDO BAYAN y NERI, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:

On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 19 July 2011 affirming the
conviction by the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 82, of appellant Ronaldo
Bayan y Neri for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him
to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00 fine.
Appellant was charged following a "buy-bust" operation.
The accusatory portion of the Information against appellant reads:
That on or about the 5th day of July 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not
authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then
and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in
the said transaction, zeropoint zero three (0.03) grams of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochlorideknown as Shabu, a dangerous drug.3
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses PO2 Emeterio Mendoza, Jr. (PO2 Mendoza), who acted
as poseur-buyer, and PO3 Ferdinand de Guzman (PO3 de Guzman), a back-up operative who
assisted PO2 Mendoza. Their testimonies sought to establish the following facts:
Police operatives from the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU) of the Novaliches Police
Station conducted a buy-bust operation on 5 July 2003 based on a tip from an informant thata
certain Ronaldo Bayan and Irene Bayan (Irene) were engaged in illegal drug trade in
BarangayCapri, Novaliches, Quezon City. The team leader, PO3 de Guzman, narrated that the
buy-bust team conducted a surveillance at BarangayCapri where they were able to confirm that
an illegal drug activity was ongoing in the house of appellant. PO2 Mendoza prepared the preoperation report which was submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.4 PO2
Mendoza was assigned as the poseur-buyer while PO3 de Guzmanacted as one of his backups. At
about 7:40 p.m. of the same day, the team proceeded to the target place. The buy-bust team was
strategically positioned in the area while the informant and PO2 Mendoza went directly to the
house of appellant. When appellant opened the door, the informant introduced PO2 Mendoza to
appellant as the buyer of shabu. Appellants live-in partner, Irene, was likewise present during
the introduction. PO2 Mendoza readily gave the 100-peso bill to appellant in exchange for the
small plastic sachet containing shabu. Immediately after the exchange, PO2 Mendoza placed his
hand on appellants shoulder, introduced himself as a police officer and arrested appellant. Irene
meanwhile tried to escape but PO3 de Guzman was able to arrest her. PO3 de Guzmanrecovered
from Irenes possession dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper.Appellant and Irene
were brought to the police station where PO2 Mendoza put his markings "EM" on the plastic
sachet he received from appellant. Thereafter, they brought the plastic sachet to the crime
laboratory.5
The forensic chemist issued anInitial Laboratory Report which revealed that the heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet with markings "EM" containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance was found positive for shabu.6
In his defense, appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed that he and Irene were
walking on their way home when they were blocked by five men at the corner of Guyabano
Street and Amparo Capri Street. Appellant recognized one of them as Isagani Mateo, who
frequently displaces them whenever they sell inthe market. The five men frisked, handcuffed,
and brought them to Station 4, Novaliches, Quezon City. Thereat, they were asked to remove
their clothes and they were frisked again. Appellant saw a sachet of shabuand marijuanaon top of
a table. They were forced by one of the policeman to point to the objects under threat of physical
harm, while their photographs were being taken. They were also asked to sign a document which
they were not able to read. Later that night, they were brought to the fiscals office for inquest
without the presence of counsel.7

On 20 February 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment
and to pay a P500,000.00 fine. Irene was likewise found guilty for violation of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12)years and one (1) day as minimum to thirteen (13) years as
maximum and to pay a fine in the amount P300,000.00.8 The trial court gave credence to the
testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team.
After receiving a copy of the trial court's Decision, the two accused seasonably filed a Notice of
Appeal9 before the Court of Appeals. On 19 July 2011, the appellate court acquitted Irene for
violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 but appellants conviction was
affirmed in toto.
The appellate court held that the prosecution established the consummation of the sale through
the testimony of the poseur-buyer.
Appellant appealed his conviction before this Court, adopting the same arguments in his Brief
before the Court of Appeals.
Appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
appellant dueto the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses.
Appellant points out that PO2 Mendoza spoke of an alleged informant while PO3 de Guzman
mentioned a concerned citizen who called the police station to inform them of an illegal drug
trade. Appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to present the buy-bust money as proof of the
illegal sale of shabu. Appellant argues that since the buy-bust money was the consideration of the
alleged sale, failure to adduce it in evidence is tantamount to failure to establish the elements of
the crime.
Appellants arguments deserve scant consideration. Jurisprudence dictates that minor
inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the witness. We have held that "discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality
touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of
witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the
principal occurrence. In fact, such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the
witnesses credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed."10
Failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the prosecutions cause. It is not
indispensable in drugcases since it is merely corroborative evidence, and the absence thereof
does not create a hiatus inthe evidence for the prosecution provided the sale of dangerous drugs
is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction ispresented before the court. Neither
law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.11
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved:
(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.12 Indeed, all these elements were duly established.
Appellant was caught in flagrante delictoselling shabuthrough a buy-bust operation conducted by
the operatives of SDEU of the Novaliches Police Station.
The poseur-buyer, PO2 Mendoza, positively testified that the sale took place and appellant was
the author thereof, thus:
Q: What happened after you were tasked as poseur-buyer?
A: We proceeded to the subject of our operation.
Q: Where was that?

A: No. 17 Guyabano Street, Barangay [Capril], Novaliches, Quezon City.

Q: What time was that, what time did you arrive there?
A: About 7:40.
COURT:
7:40 in the evening? A: Yes, your Honor.
PROS. ANTERO:
What happened when you arrived there?
A: The informant introduced me to Ronaldo Bayan.
Q: Where did you get contact with the subject?
A: At No. 17 Guyabano Street.
Q: How were you introduced to the subject by the informant?
A: I was introduced as buyer of shabu.
Q: To whom?
A: Ronaldo Bayan, sir.
Q: Is this Ronaldo Bayan inside this courtroom?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you point to him?
INTERPRETER:
The witness is going to a man inyellow shirt who answered by the name of?
ACCUSED:
RONALDO BAYAN.
INTERPRETER:
RONALDO BAYAN.
COURT:
Who were present when you were introduced by the informant to Ronaldo Bayan?
A: The live-in partner, Irene Bayan, me, the informant and Ronaldo Bayan, your Honor.
PROS. ANTERO:
Is this Irene Bayan inside this courtroom?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you point to her?
INTERPRETER:
The witness is [pointing] to a woman who answered by the name of?
ACCUSED 2:
IRENE BAYAN.
INTERPRETER:
Irene Bayan.
PROS. ANTERO:
What happened after you were introduced to Ronaldo Bayan by the informant?
A: I gave the P100.00, sir.
A: Ronaldo Bayan, sir.
Q: You gave it to whom?
A: To Ronaldo Bayan, sir.
Q: What did this Ronaldo Bayan do after you handed him this P100.00?
A: He gave me shabu, sir.
COURT:
Where was it contained?
A: Small plastic sachet, your Honor.
PROS. ANTERO:
He gave you a small plastic sachet?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened after he gaveyou a small plastic sachet?
A: I introduced myself as policeman.
Q: What happened after you introduced yourself asa policeman?
A: I placed my hand on his shoulder and introduced myself as a policeman and told him of his
mistake and of his rights.13
Appellant produced the plastic sachet containing shabuand handed it to the poseur-buyer in
exchange for P100.00. This transaction was witnessed by PO3 de Guzman who acted as one of
the back-ups.

Furthermore, the prosecution was ableto preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said
illegal drugs.1wphi1 The prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the following
circumstances showing an unbroken chain of custody over the shabuthat was seized from herein
accusedappellant: (1) P02 Mendoza, who acted as the poseur-buyer during the buybust operation,
was the one who received the transparent plastic sachet containing shabu from the appellant;14
(2) the said transparent plastic sachet was then brought by PO2 Mendoza to the police station
where he placed his initials "EM";15 (3) thereafter, said sachet was brought to the crime
laboratory for examination;16 and (4) the laboratory examination was conducted by Police
Inspector Abraham Verde Tecson.17
The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride on the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated from
appellant. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.
Appellants defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of
the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases
requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement
agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.18 Bare denials of appellant
cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.19 Moreover, there is no
evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation to falsely testify against appellant.
Generally, factual findings of trial courts especially those which revolve matters of credibility of
witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension
of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from
such findings.20 The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are best
undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnessesdeportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.21
We do not find any cogent reason to reverse the lower courts.
In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellants sold shabu.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death
and fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 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 poppyregardless of the quantity and purity involved. Hence, the trial court, as affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 19 July 2011 of the Court of Appeals affirming the
conviction of appellant Ronaldo Bayan y Neri by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 82 for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.*

Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division Chairperson
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1757 dated 20 August 2014.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rodi! V. Zalameda with Associate Justices Normandie B.
Pizarro and Romeo F. Barza, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-14.
2 Presided by Judge Severino B. De Castro, Jr. Records, pp. 179-189.
3 Id. at 2.
4 TSN, 7 December 2004, pp. 4-5.
5 Id. at 10-11; TSN, 22 March 2006, pp. 3-11.
6 Records, p. 14.
7 TSN, 27 June 2006, pp. 3-6; TSN, 22 January 2007, pp. 3-7.
8 Records, pp. 186-187.
9 CA rollo, p. 30.
10 People v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 177224, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 307, 318-319 citing
People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066, 11 August 2010, 628 SCRA 226, 242.
11 People v. Salak, G.R. No. 181249, 14 March 2011, 645 SCRA 269, 285.

12 People v. Montevirgen, G.R. No. 189840, 11 December 2013; People v. Blanco, G.R.
No. 193661, 14 August 2013; People v. Hambora, G.R. No. 198701, 10 December 2012,
687 SCRA 653, 658.
13 TSN, 22 March 2006, pp. 6-9.
14 Id. at 232.
15 Id. at 234.
16 Id. at 235.
17 Records, p. 14.
18 People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 656.
19 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, 5 June 2013.
20 Quelnan v. People, 553 Phil. 618, 637 (2007).
21 People v. Alunday, 586 Phil. 120, 128 (2008).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 181541

August 18, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff/Appellee,

vs.
MARISSA MARCELO, Accused/Appellant.
DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

It is our commitment to apply the law without compassion against those who engage in illegal
drug trade.1
This is an appeal from the Decision2 dated August 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 00858, which affirmed the Decision3 dated January 26, 2003 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52 of Sorsogon City in Criminal Case No. 2003-5973 finding Marissa
Marcelo y Madronero (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of
Section 5, Article II ofRepublic Act (RA) No. 9165.
Factual Antecedents
On August 4, 2003, an Information4 charging appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of
RA 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended,
was filed in the RTC of Sorsogon City, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 1st day of August 2003 at about 7:30 oclock in the evening at the Visitors
Inn, municipality of Donsol, province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, without any authority of law, did thenand there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, deliver and sell toHenry Tarog METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu) weighing approximately 2.3234 grams contained in a plastic
sachet, in exchange for P1,500.00, comprised of previously marked bills, to the damage and
prejudice of the State and the general public.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.5
During arraignment, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." After the termination of the pre-trial
conference, trial ensued.
The Prosecutions Version
The prosecution presented Police Inspector Perfecto Rabulan (P/Insp. Rabulan), Police Officer 2
Freddie Salvatierra (PO2 Salvatierra), Police Inspector Josephine M. Clemen (P/Insp.
Clemen),Police Officer 2 Russan Jimenez (PO2 Jimenez) and BarangayChairperson Elsa Arbitria
(Arbitria) as witnesses. From their testimonies,6 the following facts emerged:
Imrie Tarog (Tarog) informed P/Insp. Rabulan that appellant would arrive at his rented unit in
Visitors Inn, Brgy.Punta Waling-Waling, Donsol, Sorsogon to deliver and sell an unspecified
quantity of shabu. Prior thereto, there were already reports that appellant and her husband are
engaged in selling shabu. P/Insp. Rabulan thus ordered a surveillance of the area where the
transaction would take place and coordinated the matter with Arbitria, the Barangay Chairperson
of Brgy. Punta Waling-Waling. He subsequently formed a buy-bust team and requested Tarog to
participate in the operation.
On July 31, 2003, at 10 p.m., Tarog told P/Insp. Rabulanof appellants impending arrival. Tarog
was instructed to act asposeur-buyer and was given two 500-peso bills and five 100-peso bills as
marked money.P/Insp. Rabulan then prepared a pre-operation report dated August 1, 2003 and
coordinated the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
On August 1, 2003 at 6 p.m., appellant arrived at the Visitors Inn. Meanwhile, the buy-bust
teamalso arrived and waited in front of the inn until Tarog appeared at the second floor terrace.
He threw the key to the gate which is the pre-arranged signal for the buy-bust team to enter and
proceed to his unit. PO2 Salvatierra caught the key and together with P/Insp. Rabulan used it to
open the gate. They proceeded to Tarogs rented unit and through the slightly opened door, they
had a clear view of the living room. They saw appellant sitting on a couch with her back turned
to the door as she was giving shabuto Tarog who was in turn handing to her the marked money.

The police officers thus immediately entered the unit. PO2 Salvatierra took the shabufrom Tarog
and handed it to P/Insp. Rabulan, while the latter took the buy-bust money.
About an hour later, Arbitria entered the room and saw appellant sitting on a couch with a sachet
containing white crystalline substance beside her. After being asked why she was in the premises,
appellant answered that she was collecting a debt. PO2 Jimenez conducted a body search on
appellant in the comfort room and in the presence of Arbitria, butno prohibited drug was
recovered in her possession. Neither did the search on her wallet yield any illegal substance.
Subsequently, the buy-bust team photographed appellant with the shabu and money and
thereafter brought her to the police station for further investigation. A day later, P/Insp. Rabulan
and a police investigator brought appellant and the specimen confiscated from her to the Crime
Laboratory for examination. The specimen, which weighed 2.3234 grams, tested positive for
shabu.
The Appellants Version
Appellant averred that there was no buy-bust operation conducted against her and that she was
just a victim of a frame-up. She testified that on August 1, 2003, she went to Tarog to collect
from him the payment for the pork that he purchased from her. Tarog saw her but just went
upstairs to the second floor of the apartment. She heard him say: "Here is again the person
collecting the indebtedness from us." A woman by the name of Suyen allowed her to enter the
living room and told her to sit and wait. While waiting, police officers suddenly arrived. They
subjected her to a body search in the comfort room but nothing was recovered from her. PO2
Salvatierra then searched the premises. He saw a pair of short pants, turned its pockets inside out,
and found a sachet of shabuwhich he placed beside appellant on the couch.
A certain PO Militante then searchedappellants bag and asked if she had money. Appellant
replied that she only had P900.00 for her fare, which PO Militante took. When appellant
requested for the return of her money, she was threatened with the filing of a case.
Appellant was thereafter invited to the police station for questioning but was instead
incarcerated. She was brought by the police officers to the crime laboratory for examination but
the results were not given to her. She claimed to have seen the buy-bust money for the first time
only when she was brought to the PDEA to sign a document.
While under detention, appellant learned that Suyen,who turned out to be the wife of Tarog, is a
cousin of PO2 Salvatierra. She theorized that she was framed to prevent her from collecting the
debt of Tarog.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On January 26, 2003, the RTC rendered a Decision7 convicting appellant for violation of Section
5,Article II of RA9165, as amended. The RTC was convinced that the prosecutions
evidenceestablished the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt since (1) appellant was
positively identified by the police officers in open court as the seller of 2.3234 grams of shabu,
and (2) the delivery of the shabuto the poseur-buyer as well as the appellants receipt of the
marked money were attested to by the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, appellants denial and
alibi cannot prevail overthe testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Besides, no improper
motive can be attributed to the police officers in imputing the crime to the appellant. Hence, their
testimonies are worthy of belief coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have
regularly performed their duties. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Marissa Marcelo y Madronero
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and Fine of Five
Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.

The shabu recovered is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government and the same shall be
turnedover to the Board for proper disposal without delay.
The accused having just [given] birth to a child, her immediate transfer to the Correccional
Institution of Women [in]Mandaluyong City is hereby ordered the moment she is already fit for
travel.
SO ORDERED.8
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the RTCs ruling in its Decision9 dated August 31, 2007, viz:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Sorsogon City, Branch 52, in Criminal Case No. 2003-5973, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.10
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
Appellants assignment of errors in her Appellants Brief filed with the CA, which she is
adopting in this appeal per Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief),11 is as follows:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY WITH [SIC] VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165 DESPITE
THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ARREST OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A WARRANT
AUTHORIZING THE SAME.
III.
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED INCONVICTING THE ACCUSED- APPELLANT
ON THE BASIS OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE AND BY RELYING
ON THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY ON THE PART OF THE POLICE OFFICERS
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTY.12
The Parties Arguments
Appellant makes issue on the fact that the poseur-buyer Tarog was never presented in court to
corroborate the other prosecution witnesses testimonies without a plausible reason for Tarogs
non-presentation. She also casts doubt on the integrity of the police officers considering that they
sought Tarogs cooperation in the buy-bust operation in exchange for their help or "assistance" in
Tarogs cases.
Appellant likewise asserts that the shabuwas not confiscated from her as testified by Arbitriathat
she saw the shabuonly on the sofa where the appellant sat. Neither was it shown that appellant
was the one holding the marked money when it was recovered by the police. To her, these prove
that no buy-bust operation was ever conducted.

Appellant further asserts that assuming a surveillance on her which lasted for almost a week was
indeed conducted by the police officers, they should have secured a search warrant, but they did
not. Appellant also contends that she should not have been convicted on the basis of the
weakness of her defense. Further, as the alleged buy-bust operation is shown to berife with
irregularities, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties should not have
been applied to the police officers concerned. She avers that she was a victim of frame-up and
the alleged buy-bust operation was a mere ploy orchestrated by the police.
The appellee People of the Philippines, on the other hand, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), argues that the elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugsare
present in this case; that the presentation of an informant in illegal drug cases is not essential for
conviction nor indispensable for a successful prosecution because an informants testimony
would be merely corroborative and cumulative; that there was no need for the police officers to
secure a search warrant because appellant was caught in flagrante delicto; and that in the absence
of proof to the contrary, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of the police
officers must stand.
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal Sale of Shabu.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(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. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or saleactually took place, coupledwith the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti"13 or the illicit drug in evidence.
In this case, the prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements of the
illegal sale of shabu. Appellant was positively identified by the police officers who conducted the
buy-bust operation as the person who sold the shabupresented in court. P/Insp. Rabulan testified
that Tarog, their informant acting as a buyer, purchased the shabufrom appellant during a
legitimate buy-bust operation.He narrated the circumstances leading to the consummation of the
sale of the shabuand the arrest of appellant as follows:
Q. Before you conducted the operation, what did you do?
A. We prepared the necessary documentary requirements addressed to the local government
executive, the letter of coordination with the PDEA.
xxxx
Q. Now, you said that you made a pre-operational plan and in coordination with the PDEA found
on page 7 of the records is a pre-operational report signed by Police Inspector Rabulan, are you
familiar with this?
A. With [regard] to the pre-operational report[,] x x x Marissa Marcelo was arriving in the area
of Donsol with undetermined quantity of shabu to be delivered to Imrie Tarog of Punta WalingWaling, Donsol, Sorsogon.
Q. That was the basis of your plan?
A. Yes, maam.
xxxx

Q. After making the pre-operational plan and coordination with the PDEA, what did your team
do?
A. I invited this Imrie Tarog. He committed [to help us] in our problem.
Q. Who is this Imrie Tarog?
A. He was the one who helped us [by buying] shabu from the suspect Marissa Marcelo.
Q. Who supplied to you the reliable information as stated in your preoperational report that
Marissa Marcelo is selling shabu?
A. Imrie Tarog.
Q. You said that you invited Imrie Tarog and he committed x x x to cooperate with you, now,
what did you do after hearing the commitment from him?
A. I organized the team. I coordinated with the barangay captain of Walingwaling, Donsol,
Sorsogon which is the place where the transaction will be held.
Q. What about Imrie Tarog, where was he then while you were organizing the team?
A. He was occupying the rented apartment in Visitors Inn, in Walingwaling, Donsol, Sorsogon.
Q. After organizing the team and after that commitment with Imrie Tarog, what did you do next?
A. We focused on surveillance and monitoring ofthe place.
Q. How long did the surveillance and monitoring of the place last [before] the operation was
conducted?
A. More or less, one (1) week.
Q. Previous to that report made by Imrie Tarog that [Marissa] Marcelo will bring shabu to
Donsol, Sorsogon, does your office know this Marissa Marcelo?
A. Yes, maam.
Q. Why?
A. Because she was already reported tous as carrier of shabu with her husband.
Q. What kind of anti-drug operation against Marissa Marcelo were you able to hatch?
A. [A] buy[-]bust operation.
Q. Where was the supposedmoney that will be usedin buying shabu from her?
A. When Imrie Tarog informed x x x us that Marissa Marcelo was in Daraga, x x x during that
time, I instructed him on what to do in the operation and I gave him the amount of [P]1,500.00 to
be used as marked money in the buy[-]bust operation.
Q. Before you gave the money to the team, to Imrie Tarog, what were the distinguishing marks in
that money?
A. Thru the serial numbers.

Q. How did you keynote the serial number, did you write it down?
A. We have the machine copies of the bills.
xxxx
Q. Mr. Witness, after giving these previously marked money to Imrie Tarog and after organizing
the team, where did you proceed?
A. We were still waiting for the information if Marissa Marcelo will arrive. Q. Did she, in fact,
arrive?
A. Yes, maam.
Q. What time did she arrive?
A. More or less, almost 6:00 oclock in the evening at Visitors Inn.
xxxx
Q. After receiving information that Marissa Marcelo will be arriving or after receiving
information that Marissa Marcelo had arrived in Donsol, Sorsogon, whatdid you do?
A. We proceeded to the area.
Q. Together with Imrie Tarog?
A. No, maam, Imrie Tarog was already in the apartment.
Q. What is that apartment where he was?
A. A lodging house, Visitors Inn.
Q. That same apartment where Marissa Marcelo will arrive [sic]?
A. Yes, maam and there were two rooms in that lodging house.
Q. Who occupied those two rooms in that lodging house?
A. Imrie Tarog.
xxxx
Q. After knowing that Marissa Marcelo has arrived, what transpired next?
A. We proceeded to the area with the instruction of our asset that when they were already
transacting business regarding shabu, he will get out and give us the key so that we can enter the
room.
Q. That was the arrangement between you and Imrie Tarog?
A. Yes, maam.
Q. Then, what happened after that?
A. While we were inthe vicinity of the VisitorsInn, Imrie Tarog came out [to] the terrace and
gave us the key.

Q. Is that terrace on the second floor?

A. Yes, maam.
Q. And where were you while Imrie Tarog was in the terrace?
A. In front of the Visitors Inn.
Q. And you were outside?
A. Yes, maam.
Q. And how did Imrie Tarog give you the key?
A. He threw it to my companion, PO2 Salvatierra.
Q. That the key was meant for what?
A. The key was intended to open the gate.
Q. After getting [the] key from Imrie Tarog, what did you do?
A. My companion opened the padlock and proceeded to the second floor, to the room of the
apartment.
Q. And whom did you come upon in that room?
A. Since the door was open, we found out that Marissa Marcelo and Imrie Tarog were actually
transacting business of shabu.
Q. How did you know that they were transacting business of shabu?
A. They were exchangingthe shabu and the money.
Q. Who was giving the shabu to whom?
A. Marissa Marcelo was giving the shabu.
Q. To whom?
A. To Imrie Tarog.
Q. So, Marissa Marcelo gave the shabu to Imrie Tarog?
A. Yes, maam.
Q. And who gave the money to whom?
A. Imrie Tarog gave the money to Marissa Marcelo.
Q. Upon seeing that transaction, what did you do?
A. We immediately apprehended and recovered from Marissa Marcelo the money x x x so we
apprehended her.
Q. What about the shabu?

A. My companion, Freddie Salvatierrarecovered the shabu from Imrie Tarog.

Q. Can you describe to us the appearance of the shabu which your team recovered?
A. It was placed inside a transparent plastic bag, heat[-]sealed.
Q. After seeing [the] transaction taking place and after recovering the marked money from
Marissa Marcelo and the shabu from your asset, Imrie Tarog, what did you do?
A. We photographed the suspect and the shabu and also the marked money.
Q. What about the suspect, how did you deal with [her]?
A. We brought the suspected shabu together with the suspect to the police station for
investigation.
Q. What did you do [to ascertain] thatthe shabu was the one recovered from Marissa Marcelo?
A. On the following day, we brought the suspected shabu to the Crime Laboratory in Legaspi
City togetherwith the suspectfor laboratory testing [and a] drug test.
xxxx
Q. How did you know that it was the shabu that you confiscated from Marissa Marcelo?
A. Through the marking ofmy investigator (witness pointing to the marking on the suspected
shabu).
Q. What kind of markings?
A. The date we had submitted and the initial of the investigator.
Q. Are you referring to the blue markings "RMB"?
A. Yes, maam.
Q. What does "RMB" [mean]?
A. Roel Miranda Briones.
Q. Who actually brought thisto the crime laboratory?
A. I together with my investigator.
Q. So, you were personally present when this was received by the Crime Laboratory?
A. Yes, madam.
Q. What about the shabu seller, Marissa Marcelo, what did you do to her?
A. We also submitted her for drug test.
Q. So you brought her tothe Crime Laboratory?
A. Yes, madam.
Q. After taking her to the Crime Laboratory, whatdid you do to her?

A. When the PNP Crime Laboratory released the result of the laboratory examination of the
shabu, we proceeded to the Provincial Headquarters Office.
Q. For what purpose, Mr. Witness?
A. To file a complaint.14
PO2 Salvatierra corroborated the testimony of P/Insp. Rabulan on material points. He testified as
follows:
Q. Where is that place? Where [was] the supposed operation x x x to take place?
A. At [B]arangay Punta Waling-waling, Donsol, Sorsogon.
Q. Where did it take place, at what particular place?
A. At Visitors Inn.
Q. And, who x x x went [to] the Visitors Inn?
A. The Chief of Police and myself were the ones who entered the Visitors Inn, the others acted
as back[-]up, as security.
Q. Why did you enter that Visitors Inn?
A. Because the asset x x x and/or x x x the Chief of Police was already in the terrace and when
we arrived there, he(asset) threw to us his key; and, that was the appropriate time for us (the
Chief ofPolice and myself) to enter the said premises.
Q. What part of that Visitors Inn did you enter?
A. We went to the second room because [there are still other rooms upstairs].
Q. What did you come upon after you entered?
A. We came upon the exchanging of the marked money by our asset, that is, the giving of the
money; whereas, the suspect in turn delivers the shabu to the asset.
xxxx
Q. What is the name of the asset who gave the marked money?
A. Imrie Tarog.
Q. And who is this Marissa Marcelo whom you said handed the suspected shabu to your asset,
Imrie Tarog?
A. She is the one. (Witness pointed to a pregnant woman who identified herself as Marissa
Marcelo.)
Q. Where were you then in relation to the buyer and the seller when the transaction was taking
place?
A. I was beside the Chief of Police. When we entered[,] the Chief of Police was able to recover
the marked money from Marissa Marcelo while I recovered the suspected shabu from our asset.
xxxx

Q. You said, you were the one who recovered the suspected shabu from the poseur[-]buyer, Imrie
Tarog, if you recall, please describe to us, how that [suspect] shabu look[ed] like?
A. It was placed in a medium-size[d] transparent plastic sachet which weighed around 3
grams.15
Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Clemen examined the confiscated crystalline substance weighing
2.3234 grams and found the same to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
This finding is contained in Chemistry Report No. D-321-03.16
Clearly, the prosecution, through the testimonies of the police officers as prosecution witnesses,
was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu. "Prosecutions involving illegal drugs
depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."17
The Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the said witnesses and their testimonies. The
RTC, as sustained by the CA, found thatthe testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were direct
and definite. Their testimonies were consistenton relevant matters with each other and the
exhibits that were formally offered in evidence.
Moreover, the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve
credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts;
orspeculative, arbitrary,and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The
reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility ofwitnesses,
having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the
Court of Appeals".18
The Presentation of the Poseur-Buyer is not Indispensable.
Appellants insistence that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution fails
to impress. "Therelevant information acquired by the [poseur-buyer] was equally known to the
police officers who gave evidence for the prosecution at the trial.They all took part in the
planning and implementation of the [buy-bust] operation, and all were direct witnesses to the
actual sale of the [shabu, the appellants] arrest immediately thereafter, and the recovery from
[her] x x x of the marked money x x x. The testimony of the [poseur-buyer] was not therefore
indispensable or necessary; it would have been cumulative merely, or corroborative at best."19
His testimony can therefore be dispensed with since the illicit transaction was actually witnessed
and adequately proved by the prosecution witnesses.20
There was no Evidence of Improper
Motive on the Part of the Poseur-Buyer.
Appellant argues thatthe poseur-buyers cooperation in the buy-bust operation was in exchange
for leniency in the serious criminal charges filed against him thereby constituting improper
motive. This argument lacks factual basis. While PO2 Salvatierra admitted that the poseur-buyer
has a pending criminal case, said case was filed after the buy-bust operation.21
The Entrapment Established the Illicit Sale of Shabu.
Appellants contention that there was no direct link between her, the marked money and
shabuagain fails to impress. Inan entrapment operation, the prosecution must establish the
poseur-buyers receipt of the shabufrom appellant and present the same in court.22 The
eyewitness testimonies of P/Insp. Rabulan and PO2 Salvatierra are sufficient to provethe actual
exchange of the marked money and the plastic sachet of shabubetween the poseur-buyer and
appellant.

These objects were presented in evidence during the trial. The existence of the illicit sale is
therefore evident.
A Warrant of Arrest was not Necessary.
Appellants argument that her warrantless arrest was not valid is untenable. We emphasize that
the prosecution proved that appellant was apprehended after she exchanged the shabuin her
possession for the marked money of the poseurbuyer. Having been caught in flagrante delicto,
the police officers were not only authorized but were evenduty-bound to arrest her even without
a warrant.23
There was no Evidence of Denial and Frame-up.
Appellants defenses of denial and frame-up do not deserve credence. Denial cannot prevail over
the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses.24 On the other hand, frame-up is viewed with
disfavor since it can easily be fabricated and is a common ploy in prosecution for violations of
the Dangerous Drugs Law. For this defense to prosper, it must be proved with clear and
convincing evidence. There must also be evidence that the police officers were inspired by
improper motive.25
Here, aside from appellants self-serving testimony, her claim of frame-up is unsubstantiated by
other convincing evidence. It is alsounlikely thata team of police officers would conduct an
entrapment operation and arrest the appellant just to help the poseur-buyer avoid payment of a
debt.
Besides, appellant should have filed the proper charges against the police officers if she was
indeed the victim of a frame-up.1wphi1 The failure to file administrative or criminal charges
against them substantiates the conclusion that the defense of frame-upwas a mere concoction.26
In the absence of evidence that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by improper motive to
testify falsely, appellant failed to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly
performed their duties. There is, therefore, no basis to suspect the veracityof their statements.27
The Proper Penalty
All told, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that
appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Under this law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of
shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. However, with the enactment of RA 9346,28 only life
imprisonment and fine shall be imposed.29 Moreover, appellant is not eligible for parole
pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
Decision dated January 26, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Sorsogon City,
convicting appellant Marissa Marcelo y Madronero for violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay the
fine of P500,000.00, is AFFIRMED with modification that appellant is not eligible for parole.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 See People v. San Juan, 427 Phil. 236, 248 (2002).
2 CA rollo, pp. 127-137; penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and
concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Enrico A.
Lanzanas.
3 Records, pp. 62-67; penned by Judge Honesto A. Villamor. The Decision is dated
January 26, 2003; however, it should be dated January 26, 2004.
4 Id. at 1-2.
5 Id. at 1.
6 TSN, October 29, 2003; TSN November 5, 2003; TSN, November 13, 2003; TSN,
November 25, 2003.
7 Records, pp. 62-67.
8 Id. at 66-67.
9 CA rollo, pp. 127-137.
10 Id. at 137.

11 Rollo, p. 22-25.
12 CA rollo, p. 66.
13 People v. Dilao, G.R. No. 170359, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 427, 442.
14 TSN, October 29, 2003, pp. 8-13.
15 TSN, November 5, 2003, pp, 6-10.
16 Records, p. 8.
17 People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295-296 (2003).
18 People v. Macatingag, 596 Phil. 376, 388 (2009).
19 People v. Dag-uman, G.R. No. 96548, May 28, 1992, 209 SCRA 407, 411-412.
20 People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 622, (1999).
21 TSN, November 5, 2003, pp. 32-33.
22 People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 3004, 430 SCRA 570, 573.
23 People v. Pendatun, 478 Phil. 201, 214 (2004).
24 People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 714.
25 People v. Collado, G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013, 698 SCRA 628, 645.
26 People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 551, 569.
27 People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 270.
28 N ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
PHILIPPINES. Approved June 24, 2006.
29 Peoplev. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 322, 339.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 201111

August 6, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ALFREDO CERDON y SANCHEZ, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 10 November 2011,
affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch

57, of appellant Alfredo Cerdon y Sanchez for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 and the corresponding penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00. Appellant
was charged with the violation following a "buy-bust" operation.
The accusatory portion of the Information against appellant reads:
That on or about the 12th day of July 2003, at Brg. Dau, [M]unicipality of Mabalacat, [P]rovince
of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ, being a person not authorized by law to sell and
deliver, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu), weighing FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT TENTH THOUSANDTH (0.0538) of a
gram, a dangerous drug.3
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the
following points:
1. The identity [o]f the accused;
2. That the accused is also known by the name of Fred;
3. That there was no surveillance conducted prior to the arrest of the accused on July 13,
2003; 4. That there was no photographs taken on the seized confiscated items in the
presence of the accused;
5. That in the confiscation receipt, there was no signature from any public elected
officials, a representative from the media and representative of the DO[J].4
Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses, PO1 Michael Yusi (PO1 Yusi), who acted as poseurbuyer, and PO3 Henry Laxamana (PO3 Laxamana), a back-up operative who assisted PO1 Yusi.
Their testimonies sought to establish the following facts:
Acting on a tip from an asset that a certain "Fred" was selling shabu in his residence at Roxas
Street, Mabalacat, Pampanga, the Chief of Police of Mabalacat Police Station formeda buy-bust
team on 12 July 2003 composed of PO1 Yusi as poseur-buyer, SPO4 Israel Gutierrez as team
leader, PO3 Rodolfo Agustin, Jr. (PO3 Agustin), PO3 Laxamana, and a certain PO1 Basangan.
PO1 Yusi was then given two (2) One Hundred Peso bills to be used as buy-bust money. He
marked his initials "MVY" on the bills.5 A pre-operational coordination sheetwas prepared. At
about 5:00 p.m. of the same day, the team proceededto the target place. PO1 Yusi was introduced
by the asset to a certainFred, who later was identified as appellant. Appellant asked from PO1
Yusi how much shabuthe latter would buy. Appellant then went inside the house and came out a
few minutes later handing one plastic sachet of shabuto PO1 Yusi in exchange for P200.00. After
the exchange, PO1 Yusi made the pre-arranged signal of scratching his head. PO3 Laxamana and
PO3 Agustin rushed to the scene while PO1 Yusi introduced himself as a police officer. PO3
Laxamana confiscated the marked money from appellant. He also noticed that appellant had a
Caliber 22 magnum with eight rounds of ammunition tucked on his waist. PO3 Laxamana
confiscated the same. Appellant was then brought to the barangayhall where the confiscation
receipt was prepared. PO1 Yusi likewise placed his markings on the confiscated shabu.
Thereafter, appellant was brought to the police station. At 10:00 p.m. on the same day, PO1 Yusi
and PO3 Laxamana brought the confiscated evidence to the crime laboratory.6
In his defense, appellant denied the charge against him. He narrated that at around 4:00 p.m. on
12 July 2003, he was having snack with his livein partner Yvette Jose when three male persons
entered his house. He recognized them as PO1 Yusi, PO3 Laxamana and PO3 Agustin. These
three police officers poked their guns onappellant while PO1 Yusi searched his room. While he

was held at the kitchen, appellant heard PO1 Yusi utter the word "bingo." PO1 Yusi emerged
carrying a gun allegedly confiscated from appellant. Appellant was immediately arrested but he
resisted. A commotion ensued before the barangaychairman arrived. The barangay chairman
asked appellant to go with the police officers to the barangayhall. Afterwards, appellant was
brought to the police station.7
On 31 March 2010, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of violation of Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00 fine. The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's
evidence.8 After receiving a copy of the trial court's Decision, petitioner seasonably filed a
Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeals. On 10 November 2011, the appellatecourt
affirmed the judgment of the RTC. The appellate court held that the prosecution was able to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the appellant as the one who sold the shabu to the
poseur-buyer; that the sale that actually took place; and the payment of P200.00. The appellate
court ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish an unbroken chain of custody of
the confiscated illegal drug.
Appellant appealed his conviction before this Court, adopting the same arguments in his Brief
before the Court of Appeals.
Appellant essentially maintains that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
corpus delictiof the offense.1wphi1 Appellant also argues that the prosecution failed to establish
the crucial links in the chain of custody of the shabu.
It is jurisprudential that factual findings of trial courts especially those which revolve on matters
of credibility ofwitnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross
misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions,
can be gleaned from such findings.9 The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses'deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.10
After a painstaking review of the records, we agree with the lower courts findings that the guilt
of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved:
(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.11 Indeed, all these elements were duly established.
Appellant was caught in flagrante delictoselling shabuthrough a buy-bust operation conducted by
members of the Special Operations Group of Mabalacat, Pampanga.
The poseur-buyer, PO1 Yusi, positively testified that the sale took place and appellant was the
author thereof, thus:
Q: Mr. Witness, in the last hearing of this case, you mentioned that when you reached the house
of the target person you were introduced. And you said you were then in front of the house of
Alfred. My next question is: how were you introduced?
A: I was introduced by our asset as his "kumpadre", sir.
Q: And after you were introduced as the assets "kumpadre", what else happened then?
A: Accused Alfredo Cerdon asked me how much will I buy shabu from him, sir.
Q: After that, what else happened?
A: Accused Alfredo Cerdon went inside his house and a few minutes later he went back in front
of his house and gave me one plastic sachet of shabu in exchange for P200.00, sir.

Q: Which came first, the giving of the shabu or the giving of P200.00, sir.
A: It was simultaneous, sir.
Q: You gave him P200.00, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I thought you were buying "aduang pesos"?
A: "Aduang pesos" means P200.00, sir.
Q: At the time that this accused gave you the shabuand you gave him the money, where was the
asset then?
A: We were just beside each other, sir.
Q: How far were you from his house then?
A: In front of the house, sir.
Q: So, you were still outside the house at the time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And after the giving of the money to him, what else happened?
A: I executed the pre-arranged signal by scratching my head, sir.
Q: After executing the pre-arranged signal, what else happened?
A: I introduced myself as a policeman and then PO3 Laxamana and PO3 Agustin rushed to the
scene, sir.
Q: What was the accuseds reaction when you introduced yourself as policeman?
A: When PO3 Laxamana requested him to shell out the contents of his pocket, he was able to
confiscate the marked money from his possession, sir.12
PO3 Laxamana who acted as one ofthe back-up arresting officers testified that appellant
producedthe plastic sachet containing shabu and handed it to the poseur-buyer in exchange for
P200.00. He corroborated PO1 Yusis attestation in his own testimony before the Court:
Q: Last hearing, Mr. Witness, you testified that your confidential informant introduced PO1 Yusi
to a certain Fred in front of his house. Can you please tell us where is this house you are referring
to?
A: At No. 356 Roxas St., Barangay Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, sir.
Q: When Officer Yusi was introducedto this certain Fred, where wer you?
A: We were 10 to 15 meters away from them, sir.
Q: Who were with you?
A: PO3 Agustin, sir.

Q: So, while you were 10 to 15 meters away from Officer Yusi, where is your attention focused?
A: To PO1 Yusi and the suspect, sir.
Q: And what did you observe subsequently?
A: After the confidential informant introduced PO1 Michael Yusi to the suspect, then moments
later, the suspect went inside his house and another moments later, he went back and handed
something to Yusi, simultaneously, Yusi handed something to the suspect, sir.
Q: After that exchange, can you please tell us what happened?
A: Yusi gave the pre-arranged signal to us by scratching his head, sir.
Q: When was this scratching of head agreed as the pre-arranged signal?
A: During the briefing in our office, sir.
Q: What is the significance ofYusi scratching his head?
A: It means when the buy-bust operation is already consummated then he will scratch his head as
pre-arranged signal so that we can arrest the suspect, sir.
Q: So, after seeing Yusi scratching his head, what would you do and the rest of the team?
A: We immediately rushed to the scene and arrested the suspect, sir.13
The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine
hydrochlorideon the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated from
appellant.14 The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of
the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. This was further
corroborated by the presentation ofthe marked money in evidence.15
Appellant avers that there was no testimony which proves that the police officers complied with
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 in effecting his arrest and in the subsequent disposition of
the prohibited drug involved. Appellant asserts that there was no evidence presented to show that
the police officers conducted an inventory, and took photographs, of the confiscated items in his
presence, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Appellant points
out that the confiscation receipt was neither prepared by the police officers in the presence of the
media representative and the DOJ, nor was it signed by the latter. Furthermore, appellant claims
that the police officers presented no valid justification as to their non-compliance with the
procedural mandates of the law.
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the custody and
disposition of the confiscated illegal drugs, to wit:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.
In elaboration of the rule in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of Republic Act No. 9165, viz:

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 inthe
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative orcounsel, 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 suchseizures of and
custody over said items.
The failure of the prosecution toshow that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated in the presence of representatives from the
media and the DOJ pursuant to said guidelines does not automatically render appellants arrest
illegal or the item seized from him inadmissible. A provisowas added in the implementing rules
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."
Pertinently, it is the preservation ofthe integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which
mustbe proven to establish the corpus delicti.
Appellant then contends that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial links in the chain of
custody of shabu, such as: 1) immediate marking of the seized shabu; 2) to whom PO3
Laxamana turned over the sachet at the crime laboratory; 3) the presentation ofthe chemist on the
witness stand; and 4) the identity of the person who had custody over the subject drug pending
its presentation in court.
PO1 Yusi was able to put the necessary markings on the plastic sachet of shabuseized from
appellant at the police station. The general rule is that "marking" of the seized items to truly
ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventuallythe ones offered in
evidence should be done, (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately
upon confiscation. To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required
is that the marking should be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate
confiscation. In People v. Gum-Oyen,16 a testimony that included the marking of the seized
items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing
compliance with the rules on chain ofcustody. Marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.17
The non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecutions case. In People v.
Quebral,18 this Court explained that "the corpus delictiin dangerous drugs cases constitutes the
dangerous drug itself. x x x [I]t has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. In
fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered
prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section
44, Rule 130, of the Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance
of official duty are prima facieevidence of the facts they state."19
The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drug. The
concurrence of all the elements of the illegal sale of shabuwas proven by the prosecution. The
chain of custody did not appear to be broken. The recoveryand handling of the seized drug was
satisfactorily established. As correctly found by the appellate court:
Withal, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the following circumstances showing
anunbroken chain of custody over the shabuthat was seized from herein accused-appellant: (1)
PO1 Yusi, who acted as the poseur buyer during the buy-bust operation, was the one who

received the transparent plastic sachet containing a substance later identified as shabu from the
accused-appellant; (2) the said transparent plastic sachet was then brought to the barangayoutpost
where the same was marked "MVY" and a confiscation receipt was prepared by PO1 Yusi; (3)
thereafter, the said sachetwas turned over to the Mabalacat Municipal Police Station; (4) in the
said station, Chief Inspector Ritchie Duldulao, in behalf of P/Supt. Manulid, prepared the request
addressed to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3 for the laboratory examination of the
substance contained in the said plastic sachet; (5) after preparing the said request, PO1 Yusi
personally delivered the said request together with the substance contained inthe said plastic
sachet to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3; and (6) the laboratory examination was
conducted by P/Insp[.] Agala.20
Appellants defense, which is predicated on bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of
the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases
requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement
agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.21 Bare denial of appellant
cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.22 Moreover, there is no
evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation to falsely testify against appellant.
In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sold shabu.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, "[t]he penalty of Ii fe imprisonment to
death and 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 x x x." Hence, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
correctly imposed upon appellant the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 10 November 2011 of the Court of Appeals affirming the
conviction of appellant by the RTC of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch 57 for violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division Chairperson

C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican with Associate Justices Sesinando E.
Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-16.
2 Penned by Judge Omar T. Viola, Records, pp. 96-104.
3 Records, p. 2.
4 Id. at 17.
5 TSN, 20 November 2003, pp. 4-6
6 TSN, 9 December 2003, pp. 2-4;TSN, 15 August 2006, pp. 6-11; TSN 28 October 2008,
pp. 2-4 and 7.
7 TSN, 10 September 2009, pp. 3-7.
8 Records, pp. 96-104.
9 People v. Ocampo, 503 Phil. 310, 317 (2006).
10 Id.
11 People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 439, 449 citing People v.
Tan, 432 Phil. 171, 183 (2002) citing further People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 131
(2000); People v. Tiu, 460 Phil. 95, 103 (2003).
12 TSN, 9 December 2003, pp. 2-3.
13 TSN, 28 October 2008, pp. 2-3.
14 Records, p. 10.
15 Id. at 7.
16 G.R. No. 182231, 16 April 2009, 585 SCRA 668.
17 Id. at 677-678.
18 G.R. No. 185379, 27 November 2009, 606 SCRA 247.
19 Id. at 255.
20 Rollo, pp. 11-12.

21 People v. Chua Uy,384 Phil. 70, 85-86 (2000) citing People v. Dichoso, G.R. No.
101216-18, 4 June 1993, 223 SCRA 174, 187; People v. Constantino, G.R. No. 109119,
16 August 1994, 235 SCRA 384, 391; People v. Tranca, G.R. No. 110357, 17 August
1994, 235 SCRA 455, 462-463.
22 People v. Lee Hoi Ming, 459 Phil. 187, 195 (2003); People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719,
727 (2003).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R No. 189812

September 1, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
REYNALDO BATURI, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the July 7, 2009 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 02929 that affirmed in toto the May 30, 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, in Criminal Case No. 4938-R, finding appellant
Reynaldo Baturi (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of

Republic Act (RA) No. 91653 and imposing upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of P500,000.
Factual Antecedents
The Information4 contained the following accusatory allegations against appellant:
That on or about the 7th day of August, 2005, in the morning, in Brgy. Carmen East,
Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to gain and without being authorized by law to
possess and [sell], did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously[sell] ten (10)
sachet[s] of heat[-]sealed transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline substance known
as "shabu" with a total weight of 49.1 grams, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Article II, Section 5, Republic Act 9165.5
During arraignment, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." After the pretrial conference, trial
ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
From the testimonies6 of PO3 Marlo Velasquez (PO3 Velasquez) and Forensic Chemist P/Insp.
Emelda Besarra-Roderos (P/Insp. Roderos), the following facts emerged:
On August 6, 2005, a confidential informant reported to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) office in Dagupan City the illegal drug activities of appellant, a.k.a. Naldong, in
Brgy.Carmen East, Rosales, Pangasinan. PO3 Velasquez received and relayed the information to
SP02 Pedro Rabago (SPO2 Rabago), the Special Enforcement Team Leader of the PDEA, who,
in turn, ordered the former to conduct a surveillance to verify the information.
Together with SPO1 Flash Ferrer (SPO1 Ferrer) and the confidential informant, PO3 Velasquez
proceeded to Brgy. Carmen East to conduct the surveillance. Upon reaching the area, the
confidential informant introduced PO3 Velasquez to appellant as a buyer of shabu. The two
closed a deal regarding the sale of 10 "bultos" of shabufor the discounted price of P90,000.00
that would transpire the next day in appellants house.
SPO2 Rabago thus immediately formeda team to conduct an entrapment operation where PO3
Velasquez was to act as poseur-buyer and SPO1 Ferrer as back-up. The buy-bust teamthen placed
on top ofa bundle of boodle money a 500-peso bill marked with the initials of PO3 Velasquez
and SPO1 Ferrer which were MMV and FF, respectively. It was further agreed that SPO1 Ferrer
would give PO3 Velasquez a call in his cellularphone as a pre-arranged signal that the sale of
shabuis already consummated.
The next day, August 7, 2005, the buy-bust team coordinated with the police authorities stationed
in the Municipality of Rosales and held a final briefing before proceeding to appellants abode.
Upon arrival thereat, PO3 Velasquez and the confidential informant approached appellant who
was sitting in front of his house while SPO1 Ferrer positioned himself about15 meters away from
them. When PO3 Velasquez informed appellantthat he already had the payment, appellant took
out a carton, opened it and showed the contentsthereof to PO3 Velasquez, who, in turn, gave the
boodle money.
PO3 Velasquez examined the contents of the carton and upon seeing that it contained plastic
sachets with white crystalline granules, he made the pre-arranged signal. SPO1 Ferrer
immediately showed up and recovered the buy-bust money from appellant, while PO3 Velasquez
seizedthe carton containing the sachets of white crystalline granules. After informing appellant of
his rights, the police officers arrested and took him to the PDEA office for further investigation.

A Certificate of Inventory was thenprepared by the police authorities which was signed by two
barangayofficials and a media representative. Appellant was requested to sign the certificate of
inventory which he refused. This whole process was photographed. Thereafter, on the basis of a
formal request,7 the seized shabuwas referred and delivered to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Provincial Crime Laboratory on August 8, 2005. P/Insp. Roderos issued Chemistry Report
No. D-121-2005-U8 stating that the white crystalline substance was positive for shabu. Version
of the Defense Appellant denied selling shabuand claimed that he was a victim of frameup by the
PDEA. He recalledthat on August 7, 2005, he was standing at the street corner near his house
waiting for the funeral processionof his deceased nephew, Ricky Baturi, to pass. Police
operatives arrived shortly and asked if he is Naldong. After he answered in the affirmative, he
was asked as to the whereabouts of a former co-worker, Kamlon Montilla (Montilla). Appellant
replied that he had no knowledge of the present location of Montilla. Dissatisfied with his
answer, the police apprehended and took him inside their van. This was witnessed by his
children. He was brought to Villasis where he was repeatedlyasked at gunpoint about the
whereabouts of Montilla to which he consistently replied that he did not know. He was thereafter
detained. Appellant claimed that it was only during his arraignment that he discovered that hewas
being charged with illegal sale of shabu.9
Appellants daughters Maribel Baturi and Rizalyn Raquedan corroborated his testimony.10
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Giving credence to PO3 Velasquez testimony, the RTC convicted appellant of the crime charged
and disposed of the case in its May 30, 2007 Decision11 as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
REYNALDO BATURIGUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" in violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Considering that the penalty of death was abolished, this Court hereby sentence[s] the accused to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
The sachets of shabu are hereby confiscated in favor of the government. Let the same be turned
over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.12
Appellant filed a notice of appeal,13 which was approved by the RTC. Hence, the entire records
of the case were forwarded to the CA.14
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In his Brief,15 appellant pointed out that the buy-bust team failed to comply with the procedure
governing the handling,custody and disposition of the illegal drugs. Because of this, there was
failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the corpus delicti. Hence, the RTC erred in
finding him guilty of the crime charged.
Negating appellants claims, appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), averred
that the confiscated drug was properly inventoried and this was even witnessed by two barangay
kagawads, a representative of the media and appellant himself. A Certificate of Inventory was
then prepared which was signed by the said two barangay kagawadsand the media representative.
Then, a request letter for laboratory examination was signed by SPO4 Rabago. Contained in the
said letter was the fact that PO3 Velasquez delivered the seized drug to the Crime Laboratory and
that P/Insp. Roderos received the same. To the OSG, these circumstances clearly showedthat the
prosecution was able to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated drug. Moreover,
there was no reason for the police to falsely testify against appellant. In view of these, the
presumption that the police authorities regularly performed their duties must be upheld.16

Finding that the seizure, handling, custody and examination of the seized drug were properly
documented and undertaken in an uninterrupted manner, and the consummation of illegal sale of
shabuduly established by the prosecution, the CA, in its July 7, 2009 Decision,17 ruled as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED, and accordingly, the herein
assailed May 30, 2007 Decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.18
Hence, this appeal.
Assignment of Error
Appellant imputes error upon the RTC19 and the CA20 in finding him guilty of the crime
charged despite the prosecutions failureto prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal Sale of Shabu
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(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. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or saleactually took place, coupledwith the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti"21 or the illicit drug in evidence.
In this case, the prosecution successfully established all the essential elements of the illegal sale
of shabu. PO3 Velasquez, who acted as poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the seller
of the shabuand categorically testified that the shabuwas received by him, and the payment
therefor by appellant, in a legitimate buy-bust operation. He narrated, viz:
A - That on or about 11:00 oclock the morning of August 6, 2005 a certain confidential
informant reported to ouroffice about the illegal activity of one @ "Naldong" of Carmen East,
Rosales, Pangasinan, sir.
Q - Did he give you the real name of that alyas Naldong?
A - No, sir, only a.k.a. Naldong.
Q - To whom did this confidential asset report?
A - To me, sir.
Q - And what action did you take when that information was relayed to you?
A - I relayed the information to our Special Enforcement Team Leader, sir.
Q - Who is your team leader then?
A - SPO2 Pedro S.Rabago, sir.
Q - And what measures did Police Officer Rabago take, if any, upon receiving that information
relayed by you?

A - They tasked us to conduct surveillance, sir.

Q - Did you conduct that surveillance asordered by your superior officer?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - How did you conduct that surveillance?
A - We went to the place and as part ofour surveillance, [I] and the CI went directly to the place
ofa.k.a. Naldong, sir.
Q - Where?
A - In Brgy. Carmen East, Rosales, Pangasinan, sir.
COURT:
Q - What is that CI?
A - Confidential informant, your Honor.
PROSECUTOR MATRO: (CONTG)
Q - Aside from your confidential informant, did you have any companion at that time?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - Who?
A - SPO1 Flash Ferrer, sir.
Q - Did you reach that place of alyas Naldong?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - What transpired, if any, when you reached that place?
A - The confidential informant introduced me as a buyer, sir.
Q - To whom?
A - To a.k.a. Naldong, sir.
Q - How did you know that the CI introduced you to Naldong?
A - The CI said "this is the buyer of shabu" then Naldong said, "I will give a discount if you will
buy a large amount of shabu", sir.
Q- When alyas Naldong told you that, what was your reply?
A- I told Naldong that I am going to buy 10 bultos of shabu, sir.
Q- When you said bultos,what does that mean?
A - It was placed in a shabu [sic] weighing more or less 4.5 grams or 5 grams, sir.
Q - And what else did you talk about?

A - When I told x x x Naldong that x x x I am going to buy 10 bultos, I asked him how much is
the cost of that and he told me P9,500 per bulto but since I ordered large amount of shabu, he
said he will give it for P9,000 or P90,000 for ten (10) bultos, sir.
Q - So do we understand that the cost of one (1) bulto is P9,500 but if you order large quantity
you will be given a discount of P500 per bulto?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - So the 10 bultos you ordered is worth P90,000?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - And was that your final agreement?
A - The CI and I closed the deal and we [had] an agreement that we will come back the following
day to givethe money and pick up the shabu, sir.
Q - And what happened after that?
A - We returned to our office, sir.
Q - When you reached your office, what happened there?
A - We relayed our agreement to our Team Leader, sir.
Q - What did you relay to your Team Leader?
A - We relayed the agreement that the amount of shabu isP90,000 and that we will be returning x
x x the following day at 11:00 A.M. for the payment and to pick up the shabu, sir.
Q - And after you relayed that to your Team Leader, what action did he take?
A - He formed a team to conduct buy[-]bust operation and I was designated as the poseur[-]buyer
and SPO1 Flash Ferrer [as] the immediate back[-]up and then they gave us the buy-bust money
and we prepared the boodle money and we agreed that the pre-arranged signal is by ringing the
cellphone, sir.
Q - So the following day that is August 7, 2005, what happened then?
A - At around 10:30 A. M. of August7, 2005 we coordinated [with] the PNP Rosales and after the
briefing we immediately proceeded to the place of operation, sir.
Q - Before coming to Rosales, what happened [in] your office, if any?
A - We marked the money, sir.
Q - What money did you mark?
A - The P500 bill, sir.
Q - How many P500 bill[s] did you mark x x x?
A - One (1) piece of P500 bill, sir.
Q - Who made the markings, Mr. Witness?

A - [I] and SPO1 Flash Ferrer, sir.

Q - I have here x x x one (1) piece of P500, xerox copy, doyou know where [the original is]?
A - We submitted [it] to the Court, sir.
PROSECUTOR MATRO:
May we ask that the original of the P500 bill be brought out.
Q - You mentioned about the boodle money, what do you mean? We know what is boodle money
but for record purposes?
A - Paper cut[-]outs, sir.
Q - So this P500 plus boodle money was supposed to be the P90,000 to be used in buying the 10
bultos of shabu, is that what you mean?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - After you have coordinated withthe Police Station of Rosales, Pangasinan, what happened
next?
A - We [had] the final briefing and after that we immediately proceeded to the place, sir.
Q - I am showing to you this P500 which was previously submitted to the Clerk of Court of this
Honorable Court, will you please examine if this is the same P500 bill thatyou are referring to?
A - Yes, sir, this is the same money that we used in buying shabu.
Q - Where is the marking?
A - At the right upper corner below the number 500, this is my initial MMV, sir.
Q - What about the markings made by SPO1 Flash Ferrer?
A - This FF at the right lower corner of the money, sir.
PROSECUTOR MATRO:
May we ask the good counsel for the defense to make[a] comparison between the original and
the xerox attached to the record.
ATTY. NGIPOL:
We confirm that the xerox copy attached to the record is a religious reproduction of the original,
your Honor.
PROSECUTOR MATRO:
Q - So after the final briefing madeat the Rosales Police Station, what happened next, Mr.
Witness?
A - We proceeded to the place of operation, sir.
Q - Where you able toreach that place?

A - Yes, sir.
Q - And where was this alyas Naldong when you reached the place?
A - He was in front of the house sitting, sir.
Q - Did he have any companion at that time?
A - None, sir?
Q - And what transpired next?
A - We proceeded directly to where a.k.a. Naldong was, sir.
Q - You said "we", who was your companion?
A - The CI, sir.
Q - How about Police Officer Flash Ferrer, where was he at that time?
A - He was at a distance as myimmediate back[-]up, sir.
COURT:
Q - How far?
A - About 10 to 15 meters, sir.
PROSECUTOR MATRO:
Q - Prior to that, do you have agreement about your signal?
A - Ringing of cellphone, sir.
Q - Who will ring?
A - [I], sir.
Q - And what happened when youapproached alyas Naldong?
A - I told him that I already have the P90,000 then a.k.a. Naldong took a carton of medicine
below and took the shabu and showed it to me, he gave it to me, the medicine box and I handed
to him the money, sir.
Q - After alyas Naldong handed to you that box of medicine where the shabu was placed inside,
what did you do?
A - I examined if it is really shabu and when I found that it is x x x shabu, I gave to him the buybust money and immediately I gave the [prearranged] signal which is the ringingof the cellphone
then I introduced myself as PDEA agent, sir.
Q - After that, whathappened next?
A - When I arrested him, SPO1 Flash Ferrer arrived and we conducted a body search if there is a
bladed weapon, sir.
Q - Who recovered the buy[-]bust money from his possession?

A - It was SPO1 Flash Ferrer, sir.

Q - Did you see him recover that money?
A - Yes, sir.
PROSECUTOR MATRO: (CONTG.)
Q - How about the bulto of shabu, who was in possession?
A - It [was] in my possession, sir.
Q - After you x x x apprehended him, what transpired next?
A - After telling him his constitutional right[s], we brought him to our office, sir.22
During the continuation of his direct examination, PO3 Velasquez identified appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime, viz.:
Q - In the last hearing, you were asked to identify the person of the accused but the accused was
not here. Will you please look around inside the courtroom and see if the accused Reynaldo
Baturi is inside this court?
A - He is here, sir.
Q - Will you please stand and point to the accused?
A - The one wearing a white polo shirt.(Witness pointing to a person who[,] when asked his
name[,] answered Reynaldo Baturi).23 In addition, the white crystalline granules sold by
appellant, when examined by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Roderos, were found positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. This finding is contained in Chemistry Report
Number D-121-2005-U24 and was testified to by P/Insp. Roderos.25
Clearly, the prosecution,through the testimoniesof PO3 Velasquez and P/Insp. Roderos, was able
tosuccessfully establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu.
The Court acknowledges that "[p]rosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility
of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."26 In this case, the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted. Aside from the fact that both lower courts are one in
finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were direct and definite, the said
testimonies are also consistent with each other and with the physical evidence. Besides, "the trial
courts determination on the issue of credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of facts
must be given great weight and respect on appeal x x x. This is so because of the judicial
experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having
heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during
trial."27
The Defenses of Denial and Frame-Up are Unavailing.
In view of the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses, appellants defense of
denialbecomes unavailing. "It has been consistently held that mere denial cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of a prosecution witness. A defense of denial which is unsupported and
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving
no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward
and probable testimony on affirmative matters."28

Appellants defense of frame-up likewisefails. "[F]rame-up is viewed with disfavor since, like
alibi, it can easily beconcocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Law."29 Appellants claim that he was framed by the police officers for
refusing toreveal the whereabouts of a drug pusher by the name of Montilla is not worthy of
belief. For the police officers to frame him, they must haveknown appellant prior to the
incident.30 Here, the police officers do not personally know appellant prior to the incident. In
fact, appellant himself testified that whenthe police operatives approached him, they still asked
him if he is Naldong. Neither did the appellant claim that he knows the police officers who
apprehended him. Also, if appellant was indeed a victim of frame-up by police officers, he
should have filed the proper charges against them. "The fact that no administrative or criminal
charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the alleged frame-up was merely
concocted as a defense scheme. This inaction clearly betrays appellants claim of frame-up."31
Moreover, there is no allegation or evidence whatsoever that the members of the entrapment
team were actuated by improper motive or were not performing their duty in accordance with
law. They are therefore entitled to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions and their testimonies are accorded full faith and credence.32
Failure to strictly comply with the Chain of Custody Rule is not Fatal.
The Court is not persuaded by appellants averment that the prosecution failed to establish that
the shabuallegedly seized from him was the same shabu submitted for laboratory examination.
The following negates appellants claim: (1) the police officers inventoried the confiscated
shabuimmediately after its seizure from appellant. The process was witnessed by
barangayofficials and a media representative who affixed their signatures in the Certificate of
Inventory;33 (2) the inventory-taking was photographed and the photographs show that the
actual conduct of inventory was witnessed by appellant himself;34 (3) it is undisputed that
appellant was asked to affix his signature in the Certificate ofInventory but he refused;35 (4) it
was shown that a PDEA personnel thereafter prepared a formal request and the white crystalline
granules contained in the plastic sachets seized from appellant were indorsed and delivered
promptly by PO3 Velasquez to P/Insp. Roderos to the crime laboratory.36
It is true that the prosecution did not formally offer in evidence the Certificate of Inventory and
the formal request for examination of the confiscated substance. Be that asit may, the Court has
previouslyheld that even if an exhibit is not formally offered, the same "may still be admitted
against the adverse party if, first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and,
second, it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case."37 PO3 Velasquez categorically
testified that an inventory of the seized drugs was performed, a corresponding certificate was
prepared, and a formal request for examination was made. He further narrated that together with
the formal request, he submitted and delivered the confiscated drugs to the crime laboratory. On
the basis of the said formal request, P/Insp. Roderos examined the specimen and she likewise
testified on this. Appellants counsel even asked the saidprosecution witnesses regarding these
documents.38 Considering the said testimoniesand the fact that the documents were incorporated
in the records of the case, they are therefore admissible against appellant.
Besides, the failure of the police officersto comply strictly with the chain of custody rule is not
fatal. Itwill not render the arrestof appellant illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible.39 "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."40
In this case, the Court finds no hiatusor confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and
examination of the shabu.1wphi1 The illegal drug that was inventoried at the PDEA office,
subjected to qualitative examination at the crime aboratory, and finally introduced in evidence
against appellant was the same illegal drug that was confiscated from him when he was caught
injlagrante delicto selling the same. No apparent irregularity is sufficiently shown to have

attended the chain of custody of the shabu. Its identity, integrity and probative value were
preserved and kept intact by the police officers.
Penalty
All told, there is no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that
appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Under this law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of
shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346,41 only life imprisonment
and fine shall be imposed42 upon appellant, without eligibility for parole pursuant to Section 2
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 7, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
02929 which affirmed the Decision dated May 30, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Rosales,
Pangasinan, Branch 53, in Criminal Case No. 4938-R, convicting appellant Reynaldo Baturi for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No.
9346, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he shall not be eligible for parole.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO*
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.**
Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES***
Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1770 dated August 28, 2014
** Per Special Order No. 1767 dated August 27, 2014
*** Per Special Order No. 1776 dated August 28, 2014.

1 CA rollo, pp. 107-121; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and

concurred in by Associate Justices Maritlor P. Punzalan Castillo and Priscilla J. BaltazarPadilla.
2 Records; pp. 109-119; penned by Judge Teodorico Alfonso P. Bauzon.
3 Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4 Records, p. 22.
5 Id.
6 TSN, January 30, 2006, pp. 4-18; TSN, February 15, 2006, pp. 2, 5 and 6.
7 Records, p. 9.
8 Id. at 10.
9 TSN, August 9, 2006, pp. 2-19.
10 TSN, October 2, 2006, pp. 3-7;TSN, January 8, 2007, pp. 3-10.
11 Records, pp. 109-119.
12 Id. at 119.
13 Id. at 120.
14 Id. at 121.
15 CA rollo, pp. 49-64.
16 See Appellees Brief, id. at 89-100.
17 Id. at 107-121.
18 Id. at 120; Emphases in the original.
19 See Brief for the Accused-Appellant, id. at 51.
20 See Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellant, rollo, p. 35.
21 People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 409 (2007).
22 TSN, January 30, 2006, pp. 5-18.
23 TSN, February 27, 2006, pp. 2-3.
24 Records, p. 10.
25 TSN, February 15, 2006, pp. 2-7.
26 People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295-296 (2003).
27 People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 715.
28 Id. at 714.

29 Id.
30 People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 589.
31 People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 551, 569.
32 People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719, 727 (2003).
33 Records, p. 7.
34 Id. at 14-16.
35 TSN, February 27, 2006, p. 16.
36 Records, p. 9.
37 Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 51, 56 (1991).
38 See People v. Libnao, 443 Phil. 506, 519 (2003).
39 People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 322, 337.
40 Id.
41 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE
PHILIPPINES.
42 People v. Abedin, supra note 39 at 339.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 206912

September 10, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Twentieth Division of the Court of
Appeals (CA), Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01112 affim1ing in toto the Joint Decision2
in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-74092 and CBU-74093 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 13 of Cebu City. The RTC Joint Decision found Demosthenes Bontuyan (accusedappellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of

Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as thE Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
The accused-appellant was charged with the crimes of violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II
of R.A.No. 9165, in two (2) Informations, both dated 27 July 2005, which respectively read as
follows:
Criminal Case No. CBU-74092 (For violation of Section 11, R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 26th day of July, 2005, at about 4:55 A.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines,
and withinthe jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did
then and there have in his/her (sic) possession and under his/her (sic) control the following:
"Twenty (20) small heat-sealed plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance
having a total weight of 7.04 grams." locally known as "SHABU", containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride a dangerous drug/s, withoutbeing authorized by law.3
Criminal Case No. CBU-74093 (For violation of Section 12, R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 26th day of July, 2005, at about 4:55 oclock A.M., in the City of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with
[deliberate] intent, and without any lawful purpose, did then and there have in his possession and
control the following:
1. one (1) disposable lighter
2. one (1) tinfoil strip
3. two (2) pcs. used candle
4. one (1) long folded tissue paper
fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or introducing any dangerous
drug into the body.4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to said charges.5 Pre-trial followed
limiting the issues to: (1) whether or not in the implementation of the search warrant, the police
officers committed irregularities; and (2) whether or not there were shabuand shabu
paraphernalia recovered from his house. Incidentally, the defense admitted the identity of the
accused-appellant and the fact of the search but not as to the manner it was conducted.6
Thereafter, a joint trial proceeded.
Records reveal that, based on the evidence presented,7 the summary of factual findings shows
various versions of the story:
The Evidence of the Prosecution
The prosecution, through the corroborative testimonies of its two (2) police officer witnesses,
PO2 Jonas Tajanlangit8 [(Tahanlangit) and] SPO1 Alfredo Petallar [(SPO1 Petallar)], was able to
establish the following:
By virtue of Search Warrant No. 07-05-F issued by the court a quo against accused[-appellant], a
team ofPolice Officers headed by P/Supt. Pablo Labra, with members PO2 [Tahanlangit]
designated as the Searcher and SPO1 Petallar as the Recorder, together with some SWAT and

CIIB members implemented the said warrant on July 26, 2005, at around 4:55 early dawn at Sitio
Dita, Barangay Pulangbato, Cebu City.
With the assistance of PO1 Luardo, one of the deponents for the issuance of the Search Warrant,
the team was able to locate the residence of the accused[-appellant]. Upon their arrival, PO2
[Tahanlangit] saw the accused[-appellant] sleeping. He knocked the door calling the accused[appellants] attention; informed him that they have a search warrant; and ordered him to read the
same. After reading the warrant, accused requested that his brother, Barangay Councilor Segundo
Bontuyan, Jr. [(Councilor Bontuyan)], be summoned to witness the search, which the police
officers granted. In less thanone (1) minute and being a neighbour of the accused[-appellant],
Councilor Bontuyan arrived at the subject house and read the search warrant.
Thenceforth, the searcher PO2 [Tahanlangit], together with SPO1 Petallar, witnesses Councilor
Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod [Lucio] Leyson [(Barangay Tanod Leyson)], conducted the
search first in the sala where he found no illicit items. They went to the room where he found one
(1) tin foil, two (2) used candles, one (1) disposable lighter, (and) one (1) folded long tissue
paper found on top of a small wooden stool. When they proceeded to the lower portion ofthe
house, PO2 [Tahanlangit] found a plastic container with a name Centrum. Councilor Bontuyan
opened the container and found therein twenty (20) small packs of white crystalline substance
believed to be shabu.
PO2 [Tahanlangit] turned over the confiscated items to SPO1 Petallar for proper inventory. The
latter, who was designated as the "Recorder" then prepared a Receipt and a Certificate of Good
Conduct of the Search which were duly signed by Councilor Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod
Leyson. Accused refused to sign them.
The police officers then placed the accused under arrest, informed him of his constitutional
rights, and proceeded to the Police Station with the confiscated items. SPO1 Petallar took
custody of the evidence and marked the twenty (20) plastic sachets with SW-DB-1 to SW-DB20.9
xxxx
The Evidence of the Accused-Appellant The defense presented another version of the story. The
corroborative testimonies of accused[-appellant], his brother Councilor Bontuyan and Barangay
Tanod Leyson showed that on July 26, 2004 at around 4 oclock in the morning, accused was
sleeping at the house of his deceased parents when somebody woke him up. He turned the lights
on and saw some police officers in uniform informing him that they are conducting a raid in his
house. Showing no authority to search the house, accused argued that the said search cannotbe
done. He also requested that his brother be ordered to witness the search, which the police
officers acceded.
While accuseds brother was being fetched by one of the implementing officers, he stayed in the
living room. Thereafter, they placed a plastic bottle of Pharmaton vitamins in the table.
Just across the house subject ofthe raid, Segundo Bontuyan, Jr., accuseds brother, was sleeping
in their house when he was awakened by police officers who commanded him to go with them to
witness the search. When he reached his parents house, hesaw his brother being handcuffed in
the nook of the house.
When Councilor Bontuyan arrived, the police officers commanded him to open the plastic bottle
and when he did so, they declared that the small packs inside it were shabu. They then introduced
themselves as police officers and informed the accused that they were conducting a raid. The
accused got scared but did not resistor attempt to run. He was then brought to the police station.
Barangay Tanod Leyson testified that when he arrived at the place of the raid, he saw accused
seated in the house already handcuffed. The police officers then announced that they should start

and subsequently opened the bottle placed on top of the table. When the bottle was opened, the
police officers uttered that there was shabu. Later,he was instructed to sign a piece of document.
He requested permission to go home and left the place.10
The Ruling of the RTC
The RTC rendered a Joint Decision11 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for violations ofSections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which is as
follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Demosthenes Bontuyan GUILTY
of Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 for possession of 7.04 grams of shabu containing
[methamphetamine] hydrochloride and sentences him to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of
from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment plus fine in the amount of
P400,000.00. And for Violation of Sec. 12, Article II, RA 9165 the court sentences him to six (6)
months and one (1) day to two (2) years imprisonment plus fine in the amount of P10,000.00.
The twenty (20) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance locally known
as shabu with a total weight of 7.04 grams and marked as Exhibit "B" for the prosecution and the
shabu paraphernalia marked as Exhibit "H" are hereby ordered confiscated and destroyed
pursuant to RA 9165.12
The trial court relied on the fact that accused-appellant was the lone occupant and thus had full
control of the house where the illegal drugs and paraphernalia were confiscated. Consequently,
everything in it were considered to be his own or under his possession. It likewise explained that
the following established factual circumstances further strengthened the fact of his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt: (a) an inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused and his brother
who is an elected official; (b) the accused-appellant, and the object evidence were brought to the
police station; and (c) the object evidence consisting of twenty (20) packs of shabu were
examined and found to bepositive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Accordingly, the RTC ruled that the chain of custody of the object evidence was substantially
established, and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly
preserved by the apprehending team since there appears no evidence of substitution or tampering
with said evidence.13
The Ruling of the CA
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTCs Joint Decision in convicting the
accused-appellant. It ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently bear out the statutory
elements of the crime, to wit: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified
to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drugs.14 More so, it
elaborated thatpossession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facieevidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of
such possession. In other words, the burden of evidence was shifted to the accused to explain the
absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. Unfortunately, accused-appellant failed to do so in
the instant case since he merely relied on the defense of denialor frame-up, which was weak
without any clear and convincing evidence to back it up.15
In addition, the undisputed fact that accused-appellants witnesses, Councilor Bontuyan and
Barangay TanodLeyson, signed their names on the Receipt of Property Seized prepared by the
police officer, clearly implied their conformity to the contents thereof. Hence, it became apparent
that these two BarangayOfficials, who witnessed the implementation of the subject search
operation, knew that itwas conducted legally. The appellate court further ruled that while there
may be inconsistencies or contradictions on the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses, the
same cannot affect accused-appellants culpability because such inconsistencies have no
relevance with the elements of the offense charged. Thus, inconsistency, which has nothing to do

with the elements of the crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.16 Besides, in criminal
cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed tothe sound discretion of the trial
judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves muchweight and respect, because the judge has the
unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying.17
Moreover, the CA held that the prosecutions evidence clearly established an unbroken link in the
chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that the shabuand shabuparaphernalia
had been altered, substituted or otherwise tampered with. Said unbroken link in the chain of
custody also precluded the possibility thata person, not in the chain, ever gained possession of
the seized evidence.18
Lastly, as regards the violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, it was ruled that the
crime was deemed consummated the moment accused-appellant was found in possession of said
articles without the necessary license or prescription. Whatis primordial isthe proof of the illegal
drugs and paraphernalia recovered from the accused-appellant.19
The Issue
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was
sufficient to convict accused-appellant for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No.
9165.
Our Ruling
We sustain the judgment of conviction.
In resolving the issue, accused-appellant seeks before this Court to delve into the factual matters
of the case. However, settled is the rule that factual findings of the appellate court affirming
those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such
findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.20 Considering that
accused-appellant failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error, or capriciousness on the
findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts, these findings deserve great weight and are
deemed conclusive and binding. Besides, an assiduous review of the records at hand reveals that
the CA did not err in affirming accused-appellants conviction.
By way of emphasis, we have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal possession of
regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.21 In the case at bench, all these elements were duly established by the
prosecution. As aptly pointed out by the appellate court:
Despite the presence of such inconsistencies, the categorical fact remains, as proven by the
implementing police officers, that there were indeed illegal drugs and paraphernalia recovered
from the house of the accused-appellant where he was the sole occupant. With positive and
straight-forward declarations, the police officers proved that the seized items composing the
twenty (20) sachets marked with SW-DB-1 to SW-DB-20 and the shabu paraphernalia one (1)
disposable lighter, one (1) tin foil strip, two (2) used candles and one (1) long tissue paper were
the same illicit items recovered during the implementation of the search warrant issued against
accusedappellant. What assumes primary importance in drug cases is the prosecutions proof, to
the point of moral certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against the
accused is the same item recovered from his possession. In the same vein, the testimonial
evidence coincides and concurs with the pieces of object evidence presented before the Court
affording greater strength to the case of the prosecution.22 (Emphasis supplied) Certainly,
accused-appellant was found to have in his possession 7.04 grams of shabuand some drug
paraphernalia. There was nothing in the records showing that he had authority to possess them.
And jurisprudence is rich in pronouncing that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes

prima facieevidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused inthe

absence of any satisfactory explanation.23 Worst, accused-appellant likewise failed to present
contrary evidence to rebut his possession of the shabuand drug paraphernalia; hence, his guilt
was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.
Also, it is worthy to mention that failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the
inventory of seized drugs does not render the arrest of the accused-appellant illegal or the item
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. The essential thing toconsider 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."24 Thus, applying the foregoing principle
inthe case at bench, the chain of custody25 of the seized prohibited drugs was adequately
established herein.
The CA affirmed that:
In the instant case, the prosecution substantiated beyond an iota of doubt the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as provided for by the rules. Records show
that immediately after the seizure of the illegal items recovered inside the house of the accusedappellant, the designated searcher, PO2 [Tahanlangit], turned them over to SPO1 Petallar who
thereafter prepared the Receipt of Property Seized and the Certification of Good Conduct Search
both duly signed by witnesses Barangay Councilor Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod Leyson. SPO1
Petallar took custody of the seized items and marked them at the police station with SW-DB-1 to
20. The illegal paraphernalia were placed inside a plastic cellophane collectively marked Exhibit
"H".
At the police station, a Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared by Police Chief
Labra.1avvphi1 The request, together with the illegal drugs, were duly delivered bySPO1 Petallar
to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. As per Chemistry Report No. D-1079-2005
duly admitted by the court a quo, the specimen submitted with markings SW-DB-1 to 20 were
positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Under the
circumstance, the prosecutions evidence clearly established an unbroken link in the chain of
custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that the shabu and drug paraphernalia had been
altered, substituted or otherwise tampered with. The unbroken link inthe chain of custody also
precluded the possibility that a person, not in the chain, ever gained possession of the seized
evidence.26 (Emphases supplied)
Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.1wphi1 What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value ofthe seized items.27 Here, there was
substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the seized items from accusedappellant
was preserved.
Accused-appellant further insists thatthe courts relied mainly on the version of the prosecutions
witnesses and placed more weight on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
instead of the accuseds right to be presumed innocent.
In People v. De Guzman,28 we held that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumedto
have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary
suggesting illmotive on the part of the police officers. In this case, accused-appellant failed to
show that the police officers deviated from the regular performance of their duties. His defense
of denial is weakand self-serving. Unless corroborated by other evidence, it cannot overcome the
presumption that the police officers have performed their duties ina regular and proper manner.
The defense simply failed to show any ill motive or odiousintent on the part of the police officers
to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent
person, such as in the case of accusedappellant. Additionally, in weighing the testimonies of the
prosecutions witnesses vis--vis that of the defense,it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of

palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial courts
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.29
While it is true that an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the
evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.30 In this case, the quantum of evidence necessary to prove
accusedappellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt had been sufficiently met. Accordingly, the
prosecution was ableto overcome accused-appellants constitutional right to be presumed
innocent.
Of equal importance is the propriety of the penalties imposed by the trial court against accusedappellant, which we find in accord with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165, the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISL), and in line with recent jurisprudential pronouncements.
In sum, we find no cogent reason to depart from the decisions of the RTC and the CA. Accusedappellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 11and12, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 01112, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGTAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.*
Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO**
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, First Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1772 dated 28 August 2014.
** Per Special Order No. 1771 dated 28 August 2014.
1 Rollo, pp. 3-24; Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan with
Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
2 Records, pp. 135-139; Penned by Presiding Judge Meinrado P. Paredes.
3 Id. at 1.
4 Id. at 12.
5 Id. at 19; Certificate of Arraignment dated 5 September 2005; RTC Order dated 5
September 2005. Id. at 20.
6 Id. at 51; Pre-trial Order dated 29 August 2007.
7 The prosecution proffered the testimonies of Forensic Chemical Officer Pinky SaysonAcog of the PNP Crime Laboratory, PO2 Jonas Tahanlangit, and SPO1 Alfredo Petallar;
while the defense presented as its witnesses accused-appellant Demosthenes Bontuyan
with the testimonies of his brother Councilor Segundo Bontuyan, Jr. and Barangay Tanod
Lucio Leyson as corroborating witnesses.
8 Records, pp. 4 and 15; Witness family name should be spelled "Tahanlangit" as
appearing in his affidavit dated 27 July 2005.
9 Rollo, pp. 6-8.
10 Id. at 8-10.
11 Records, pp. 135-139.
12 Id. at 139.
13 Id. at 138.
14 Rollo, p. 14; CA Decision citing David v. People, G.R. No. 181861, 17 October 2011,
69 SCRA 150, 157.
15 Id. at 15 citing People v. Lorie Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, 1 June 2011, 650
SCRA 256, 274 and People v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 177224, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA
307, 317-318.
16 Id. at 16-17 citing People v. Lorie Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, 1 June 2011, 650
SCRA 256, 276.
17 Id. at 16 citing People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 322,
336 and People v. Miguel, G.R. No. 180505, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 210, 220-221.
18 Id. at 21 citing People v. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 318, 333334.

19 Id. at 22 citing David v. People, G.R. No. 181861, 17 October 2011, 659 SCRA 150.
20 People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 706 citing
Fuentes v. CA, 335 Phil. 1163, 1167-1168 (1997).
21 People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518 citing People
v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 451.
22 Rollo, p. 17; CA Decision citing People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September
2012, 680 SCRA 680, 690-691.
23 People v. Quiamanlon, supra note 20 citing Buenaventura v. People, 556 Phil. 331,
345 (2007).
24 People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583. See also People v.
Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 91-92.
25 Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which
implements R.A. No. 9165 defines "Chain of Custody" as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seizeditem shall include
the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
item, the date and time when suchtransfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
26 Rollo, pp. 20-21.
27 People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, 15 June 2011, 652 SCRA 393, 404-405.
28 564 Phil. 282, 293 (2007).
29 People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing
People v. Lamado, G.R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552 and People v.
Remerata, G.R. No. 147230, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
30 People v. De Guzman, supra note 28 at 294.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 202701

September 10, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
EDILBERTO BALIBAY y LABIS and MARICEL BALIBAY BIJA-AN, DefendantAppellants.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before Us is an appeal, which seeks for the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00630-MIN dated 15 February 2012, which affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 2004-469 to 470 dated 30
August 2007,2 convicting accused EDILBERTO BALIBA Y y LABIS and MARICEL BALIBA

Y y BIJA-AN for violation of Article II, Section 5, Paragraph 1, in relation to Section 263 and
accused MARICEL BALIBAY y BIJA-AN for violation of Article II, Section 11,Paragraph 3 of
Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165),4 otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002".
The Information
Accuseds conviction stemmed from two (2) sets of Information, with the following allegations:
Criminal Case No. 2004-469:
The undersigned Asst. City Prosecutor accuses EDILBERTO BALIBAY Y LABIS and
MARICEL BALIBAY y BIJA-AN for Violation of Paragraph 1, Section 5 in relation to Section
26, both of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about June 16, 2004, at more or less 1:30 oclock in the afternoon, at Barra,
Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused (EDILBERTO BALIBAY y LABIS and MARICEL BALIBAY
y BIJAAN), conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, without being
authorized by law to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
criminally and knowingly sell and/or offer for sale, and give away to a poseur buyer/decoy One
(1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride,
locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.09 gram, accused knowing the same to be
a dangerous drug, in consideration of Two Hundred Pesos (Php200.00) consisting of One (1) pc.
Php200.00 bill, which was previously marked with "CLT" initials for the purpose of the buy-bust
operation.5
Criminal Case No. 2004-470
The undersigned Asst. City Prosecutor accuses Maricel Balibay y Bija-An for violation of
Section 11, Paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about June 16, 2004, at more or less 1:30 oclock in the afternoon, at Barra,
Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or use any
dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly have in her
possession, custody and control One (1) rectangular heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug,
weighing 0.10 gram; accused well-knowing that the substance recovered from her possession is a
dangerous drug.6
When arraigned, accused entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Evidence of the Prosecution
During trial, the prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: Senior Police Officer 1 Mariano
Durango (SPO1 Durango), the Receiving Clerk of the Crime Laboratory, Philippine National
Police (PNP), Patag, Cagayan de Oro City; Police Officer 3 Danilo Radam (PO3 Radam), who
after seeing the accused hand one (1) sachet containingwhite crystalline substance to PO1 Cotta
Tanggote7 (PO1 Tanggote), arrested the accused, informed them of their constitutional rights and
conducted a body search and recovered the P200.00 marked money; and PO1 Tanggote, who
acted as poseur-buyer, conducted a body search on accused Mariceland recovered one (1) sachet
containing white crystalline substance.
Acting as poseur-buyer, PO1 Tanggote,together with a confidential agent, proceeded to the house
of the accused to conduct buy-bust operation. While there, accused Edilberto called her daughter,
accused Maricel, who was at the second floor of the house. After a while, accused Maricel went

downstairs and handed one (1) sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO1 Tanggote,
who immediately called the back-up police officers. Immediately, the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) personnel rushed to the scene and arrestedboth the accused. PO3
Radam, after informing the accused their constitutional rights, conducted a body search on
accused Edilberto and recovered the marked money of P200.00. PO1 Tanggote, on the other
hand, conducted a body search on accused Maricel and recovered one (1) transparent sachet
containing white crystalline substance.
Both the accused were brought to the PDEA Office at Velez Street, Cagayan de Oro City for
booking and inventory. The investigation was conducted by SPO1 Benjamin Amacanim (SPO1
Amacanim). While conducting the investigation, SPO1 Amacanim requested PO1 Tanggote to
mark the specimen, which PO1 Tanggote marked as:
EXH "B" One small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
with makings (sic) "CLT Buy-bust"
EXH "B-1" One unsealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with
marking "CLT possession"8
After the investigation, the specimens were returned to PO3 Radam, who drafted the request for
laboratory examination and brought the specimens to the laboratory for testing. In the PNP
Crime Laboratory, the seized specimens together with the sample urine from both the accused,
were received by the receiving clerk SPO1 Durango, and turned over to Chemist April Grace
Carbajal Madroo (Madroo), who conducted the laboratory tests, which all tested positive for
Methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Evidence of the Defense
On 16 June 2004, at 1:30 p.m., Jonjong Abonitalla (Abonitalla), friend of accused Edilberto,
requested accused Edilberto to buy for him shabu from a certain Elsa Budiongan (Budiongan),
an alleged shabu supplier, but accused Edilberto refused. Insistent, Abonitalla instead sought the
help of accused Maricel, daughter of accused Edilberto, to buy shabu for him. Accused Maricel
agreed and proceeded to the house of Budiongan. When she returned, she handed to Abonitalla a
sachet containing white crystalline substance. Thereafter, Abonitalla disclosed to accused
Maricel that the PDEA was behind the request to entrap Budiongan.
After a while, PO1 Tanggote and PO3 Radam arrived, ordering her to point the location of the
house of Budiongan. Upon arrival at the house, Budiongan was nowhere to be found.
Due to accused Maricels failure to divulge the whereabouts of Budiongan, the police officers
arrested her and her father instead.
The Ruling of the Lower Courts
The RTC and the CA rejected the defenses allegation of planting of evidence. According to the
lower courts, there was no evidence that points to any irregularity in the arresting officers
exercise of duty except for the accuseds bare denials of the accusationsagainst them. It was
pointed out that the arresting officers do not know the accused before their arrest and have no
motive to implicate them. The CA, affirming the ruling of the RTC, relied on the principle of
presumption of regularity. Such that absent illmotive or deviation in the exerciseof their duty,
police officers are presumed to have exercised their duty regularly; their testimony shall prevail
over the accuseds allegation of frame-up.
Our Ruling
The accused contended that due to the failure without any justification of the arresting officers to
substantially comply with the requirements provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such as

conducting an inventory and taking photographs of the specimen, the integrity of the corpus
delicti has not been properly established. Further, it argued that there is a break in the chain of
custody of the evidence as the prosecution failed to establish how SPO1 Amacanim preserved the
specimen. The accused emphasize that SPO1 Amacanim did not testify in court.
The Corpus Delicti
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and payment therefor.9 The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must
present in evidence the corpus delictiof the case. The corpus delictiis the seized illegal drugs.
This is to establish withunwavering exactitude that the seized illegal drugs from the suspect is
the verysame substance offered in court as exhibit.10
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish that the seized substance from the accused is
the same substance offered in court. As shown during the cross examination of PO1 Tanggote, he
failed to identify that the evidence offered in court is the same substance he seized from the
accused as the substance he marked contained markings he had no knowledge of:
Q: Who put this PDEA below of these two sachets of shabu?
A: I do not know, sir.
Q: You do not know?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: It was only in your station that these items were marked?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And it was your Investigator SPO1 Amacanim who made the markings
A: He requested me to put a marking while he11 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxxx
Q: Mr. Witness, when you recovered these two sachets of shabu at the alleged crime scene, did
you attempt to open this one to confirm what is this inside?
A: No, sir.
Q: Could you tell the Court who attached this paper tape to that long sachet? Marked Exh. B-1?
A: I cannot recall.
Q: Could you also recall who attached this paper tape to the short sachet of shabu marked
Exhibit B? you cannot recall also?
A: I think, the investigator who attached it.
Q: It is you presumption that this paper tape was attached by your investigator because you
turned it over these items to him?
A: Yes, sir.12 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
xxxx

Q: Mr. Witness, you said that you recovered in the possession of the accused the long one which
contained in a plastic rectangular sachet, at the time you recovered this it was placed in along
sachet of shabu of long shabu?
A: I do not know. This is only important that we delivered this to the crime laboratory.
Q: To you you (sic) placed that in a plastic container containing shabu because that is not
important to youin this case that is why you discarded it?
A: I cannot recall because I only noticed the one sachet of shabu was recovered from her
possession sir. I dont care.
Q: You dont care as to the whereabout (sic) of the cellophane container?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you turned over these two sachets of shabu to Officer Amacanim because he was your
evidence custodian that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you turned over this long sachetof shabu was still contained in that rectangular plastic
cellophane?
A: I cannot recall. I only noticed and turned over these two sachets of shabu recovered from the
possession of Maricel Balibay?
A: I cannot recall whether it was placed in the cellophane or not.13 (Emphases supplied and
underscoring supplied)
The prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime; the prosecution failed to establish
the identity of the corpus delicti, much less, the identity of the corpus delictiwith moral certainty.
As We already held, when there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same
substance examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal
possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug.14 Such is the case at bar. Failure to prove thatthe
specimen allegedly seized from the accused was the same one presented incourt is fatal to the
prosecutions case.
Chain of Custody
Besides its failure to identify the corpus delictiwith moral certainty, the prosecution also failed to
establish an unbroken chain of custody. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.
1, Series of 2002, which implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines
"chain of custody" as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs
or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court and destruction. Such record of movements and custody of the seized item
shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
item, the date and times when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping
and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.15
The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labelling and recording,
and mustexist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.16
Besides the fact that PO1 Tanggote failed to ascertain the identity of the seized substance, the
prosecution also failed to establish how SPO1 Amacanim, the investing officer, and Chemist

Madroo, the laboratory technician, preserved the integrity of the substance. The prosecution
failed to establish the manner of handling, storage, labelling and recording of the substance from
the time it was seized until it was offered as evidence in court as the substance contained
unidentified markings and sealing.17 Assuming that PO1 Tanggotes allegation that SPO1
Amacanim labeled the substance is truthful, SPO1 Amacanim and other officers who held
custody of the substance should have been presented in the court to attest to such fact. Further,
all other police officers who had custody of the substance, may it be briefly or otherwise, must
bepresented in court to attest to the allegation of PO1 Tanggote. Our ruling in People v.
Habana,18 is instructive:
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present
every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of
custody, no matter how briefly ones possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the
substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care.19
Since the evidence custodian, SPO1 Amacanim, was not presented in court, we cannot be sure
and certain that the substance offered as evidence in court was the same substance seized from
the accused.
The purpose of the law in requiring the prosecution to present the testimony of the police officers
who handled the substance in court is to ascertain that the integrity and identity ofthe substance
is preserved; that the police officers and laboratory technicianwho handled the seized substance,
undertook precautionary measures to preserve the identity and integrity of the substance.
The prosecution failed to show how the seized shabuchanged hands. Given the unique character
of shabu, and the unavoidable multiple transmittal of the specimen to differenthands, it is
imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the accused to place his marking on its
plastic container and seal the same, preferablywith adhesive tape that cannot be removed without
leaving a tear on the plastic container, which the arresting officer failed to comply.20 The police
officers failure to properly seal the seized shabu, coupled with the failure of the prosecution to
present the officer who had custody of the seized substance deprived the court of the means to
ascertain the corpus delictiin drugs cases.1wphi1
Indeed, where, as here, there was non-compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 21
of R.A. No. 9165, there can be no presumption that the official duties have been regularly
performed by the police officers. Our discussion in People v. Lim21 is apropos:
x x x [A]ny apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or
paraphernalia, shouldimmediately after seizure and confiscation, have the same physically
inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there beany, and or his
representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.1wphi1 The failure of the agents to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt
whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually
recovered from the appellants. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly
performed by the PAOC-TF agents.22 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
In resume, PO1 Tanggote, the arresting officer, failed to identify with moral certainty the corpus
delicti. Second, the prosecution failed to establish the presence of an unbroken chain of custody
of the seized substance. Despite the failure to properly seal the seized substance, the prosecution
also failed to present the testimony of the officers who held custody of the seized substance
including the handling, storage, labelling and recording of the seized substance from the time it
was seized until it was offered as evidence in court to establish that there is an unbroken chain of
custody of the seized substance. Third, without any justifiable reasons, the arresting officers
failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Thus, taken altogether, We cannot discount the arresting officer's utter disregard of the
procedural requirements, failure to establish with moral certainty the identity and integrity of the

corpus delicti, and hiatus in the chain of custody under the cloak of the presumption of regularity.
WHEREFORE, We SET ASIDE the 15 February 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 00630-MIN affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro, Misamis Oriental in Criminal Case Nos. 2004-469 and 2004-470
dated 30 August 2007. We ACQUIT accused-appellants EDILBERTO BALIBA Y y LABIS and
MARICEL BALIBAY y BIJA-AN based on reasonable doubt and we ORDER their immediate
release from detention, unless they are detained for any other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.*
Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, First Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1772, dated 28 August 2014.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan with Associate Justice
Edgardo A. Carmello and Pedro B. Corales concurring; CA rollo, pp. 76-93.
2 Penned by Judge Noli T. Catli; records, pp. 372-377.
3 People v. Edilberto Balibay y Labis and Maricel Balibay y Bija-An, Case No. 2004469; id. at 2.

4 People v. Maricel Balibay y Bija-An, Crim. Case No. 2004-470; id. at 13.
5 Id. at 2.
6 Id. at 13.
7 Also referred as PO2 Tanggote in TSN and Records.
8 Records, p. 287.
9 People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 184760, 23 April 2010, 619 SCRA 389, 400.
10 Sales v. People, 602 Phil. 1047, 1056 (2009).
11 TSN, PO1 Tanggote, 20 February 2007, p. 24.
12 Id. at 25.
13 Id. at 21-22.
14 Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934, 951-952 (2007).
15 People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285, 294 (2009).
16 Valdez v. People, supra at 954.
17 TSN, PO1 Tanggote, 20 February 2007, pp. 21-22.
18 G.R. No. 188900, 5 March 2010, 614 SCRA 433.
19 Id. at 441.
20 Id. at 440.
21 435 Phil. 640 (2002).
22 Id. at 659-660.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 199898

September 3, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
LEO DELA TRINIDAD y OBALLES, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal assailing the 24 March 2011 Decision1 of the Court of. Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04288. The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 25, Naga City, Camarines Sur finding the accused guilty of violating
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
On 22 October 2008, an Information was filed against accused Leo Dela Trinidad yOballes
(appellant) before the RTC, Naga City, Camarines Sur for violation of Section 11, Article II of
R.A No. 9165, to wit:

That on or about October 21, 2008, in the City of Naga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
thisHonorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, custody and control nine and onehalf (9 ) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops weighing more or less
475 grams including its (sic) wrapper; two (2) big bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves
with fruiting tops weighing more or less 550 grams including its (sic) wrapper; four (4) pieces of
medium size cubes of suspected dried marijuana leaves weighing more or less 41.1 grams
including its (sic) plastic containers; eighteen (18) pieces of small cubes of suspected dried
marijuana leaves with fruiting tops weighing more or less 55.4 grams including its (sic) plastic
container; and seventy[-]seven (77) pieces of small empty transparent plastic sachet, with a total
weight of more or less 1,121.5 grams, which is a dangerous drug, inviolation of the above-cited
law.2
Version of the Prosecution
On 27 September 2008, the Office of the Intelligence Section of the Naga City Police
(Intelligence Section) received an information concerning a certain Leo De la Trinidad who was
allegedly involved in drug trafficking. Police Senior Inspector Benigno Albao, Sr. (PSI. Albao),
Chief of the Intelligence Section, interviewed the informant and after having been convinced that
the information was true,3 he referred the matter to Senior Police Officer 1 Feliciano Aguilar
(SPO1 Aguilar) and SPO1 Fersebal Abrantes (SPO1 Abrantes) for the conduct of a surveillance
operation for further details.4
The surveillance operation confirmed the identity and exact location of appellant. The police
operatives also observed during the surveillance that some suspected drug pushers visited the
residence of appellant.5
After having verified the report thatappellant is indeed involved in drug trade, a test-buy was
conducted on 10 October 2008.6 The test-buy brought forth positive result as the police asset
was able to buy marijuana cubes, dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops worth P100.00 from
appellant. After the initial test-buy, the informant was directed by the police operatives to
continue monitoring appellant because there was a report that the latter is in possession of
quantities of marijuana by the kilo.7
On 13 October 2008, a discussion onthe use of code names was made by the members of the
team in order to conceal the identity of appellant and to secure their operation.8 The code name
is "Leonidas de Leon" and the name of the plan is "Code Plan Sativa."9
On 16 October 2008, around 5:30 P.M., another test-buy took place through SPO1 Aguilar and
SPO1 Abrantesand again, the asset was able to purchase one brick of dried marijuana leaves
from appellant.10
On 17 October 2008, the bricks of marijuana purchased from appellant on 10 October 2008 and
16 October 2008 were submitted to the Camarines Sur Police Provincial Office.11
On 20 October 2008, the police operatives applied for two search warrants from the RTC,
Branch 25 in Naga City.12 One search warrant was applied for violation of Section 11, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165 while the other one was for violation of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A.
No. 8294 or for illegal possession of firearmsand ammunitions because during the second testbuy, the police asset saw appellant with a gun which was tucked in his waist.13 Upon receipt of
the search warrants, the team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), as shown by the Certificate of Coordination. A pre-operation report was then submitted
to the PDEA.14
The police operatives proceededto conduct a briefing for the execution of the search warrants.
The said briefing was made at the Conference Room of the Naga City Police Office on 21
October 2008, at about 4:10 A.M.15 The briefing of the teamwas photographed. Among those

present are the members of the raiding team16 and the mandatory witnesses, i.e.representative
from the DOJ, Carlo Lamberto Tayo; media representative, Roy Ranoco; elected punong
barangayof Sabang, Naga City Jose Jacobo and Kagawad Eugene Froyalde of Sabang, Naga
City.
Around 5:10 AM of 21 October 2008, the group proceeded to the residence of appellant. They
wereaccompanied by the DOJ and media representatives together with the local
barangayofficials. Upon reaching appellants house, the raiding team knocked at his door and
identified themselves as police officers from the Naga City Police Office and informed him that
they are executing the search warrants issued by Judge Jaime Contreras. They told appellant that
they have witnesses with them, and read to him the contents of the warrants and apprised him of
his constitutional rights.17 PO2 Quintin Tusara took picturesof everything that transpired while
the operatives were executing the warrants.18
When appellant was asked to produce the items enumerated in the search warrant, if indeed he
really had them, appellant voluntarily presented the items which he took under his pillow. The
items consisted of nine and a half (9 ) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves sealed with
packaging tape, two (2) big bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves sealed with packaging
tape, four (4) medium sizecubes of suspected dried marijuana leaves placed inside the small
transparent plastic sachet, and eighteen (18) pieces of small cubes of suspected dried marijuana
leaves placed inside the small transparent plastic sachet.19 Also found were seventy-seven (77)
pieces of empty transparent plastic sachets. SPO1 Aguilar, placed his initial, "FBA," in the said
items.20
No firearm was found at the residence of appellant. An inventory was then conducted right inside
the house of appellant and a certificate of inventory was prepared by SPO1 Louie Ordonez.21
The Certificate of Inventory and Certification of Orderly Search were duly signed by the
witnesses in the presence of appellant.22
After making the necessary markings, appellant and the items seized from him were brought to
the Naga City Police Station.23
The seized items were returned to the court of origin but were subsequently withdrawn for
laboratory examination.24 A request to the Camarines Sur Provincial Office was subsequently
madeby SPO1 Aguilar and the seized items were immediately brought to the Crime Laboratory
for field test examination.25 The seized items were duly received by P/Insp. Edsel Villalobos
(P/Insp. Villalobos).26
When subjected to both initial and final test examinations by P/Insp. Villalobos, the seized items
were found positive for the presence of marijuana.27
Version of the Defense
In the early morning of 21 October 2008, appellant was in his house located in Sabang, Naga
City together with his wife and children. Somebody knocked at their door, so hepeeped through
the window and asked who was knocking. He noticed a lot of people outside and asked them
who were they. Somebody answered that he was Kapitan, so the witness opened the door. They
entered appellants house and immediately took pictures of it. He was told to just stay at the side
and asked him to bring out the gun and the illegal drugs. When asked to bring out the illegal
drugs, he heard somebody shouted, "I have already found it." They went near the table, but he
was not able to see whatthey were doing because the table was surrounded by men. At that time,
the appellant was seated on a bamboo chair with his hands placed on his nape. Thereafter, he was
called and asked to sign on a piece of paper. When he asked what was that for, they told him that
they were for the things found inhis house. A man approached him and read to him the contents
of the warrant. Then, he was handcuffed and brought to the police station.28
Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision dated 16 November 2009,the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense charged. The RTC found that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.
Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00).
The RTC ruled that the evidence presented during the trial adequately proved all the elements of
the offense.It held that appellant, not being authorized by law, with full knowledge that the items
were dangerous drugs, had actual and exclusive possession, control and dominion over the drugs
found in his house.29 It likewise held that the officers strictly complied with the guidelines
prescribed by law on how drug operations should be conducted by law enforcers and in
takingcustody and control of the seized drugs.30 On the other hand, accused failed to present any
substantial evidence to establish his defense of frame-up. The RTC placed more weight on the
affirmative testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, rather than the denials of the accused
because positive testimonies are weightier than negative ones.31 With the positive identification
made by the government witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime, his self-serving denial is
worthless.32 Since there was nothing in the record to show that the arresting team and the
prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motives, their affirmative statements proving
appellants culpability were respected by the trial court.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, upon a finding that all of the elements of illegal sale of
dangerous drug have been sufficiently established by the prosecution. It found credible the
statements of prosecution witnesses about what transpired during and after the test-buy, service
of search warrant, and arrest of the accused. Further, it ruled that the prosecution has proven as
unbroken the chain of custody of evidence. The CA likewise upheld the findings of the trial court
that the entire operation conducted by the police officers enjoyed the presumption of regularity,
absent any showing of illmotive on the part of those who conducted the same.
The CA likewise found appellants defenses of denial and frame-up unconvincing and lacked
corroboration. Itnoted that appellant did not even present his wife, who was allegedly present
during the search, to corroborate his claim.33
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
Appellant raised in his brief a loneerror on the part of the appellate court, to wit:
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the
prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Appellant submits that the trial court overlooked and misapplied some facts of substance, which
if considered, could have altered the verdict. He maintains that he has no knowledge as to where
the illegal drugs were found as he was not in possession of the same, and alleged thatthe bricks
of marijuana were merely planted by the police operatives.34
Appellants contention is belied by the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution. It bears
to stress that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with
disfavor by this Court for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most
prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.35 They are self-serving evidence, and

unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot be given weight over the positive
assertions of credible witnesses.36
In the prosecution of illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements
must beestablished: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which isidentified to be
prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the drug.37 As correctly ruled by the CA, these elements were
duly established by the prosecution. Jurisprudence is consistent in thatmere possession of a
prohibited drug constitutes prima facieevidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to
convict an accused inthe absence of any satisfactory explanation.38
The ruling of this Court in People v. Lagman39 is instructive.1wphi1 It held that illegal
possession ofregulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential
element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus
posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession
or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists whenthe drug is
under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found.Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The
accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place
where the contraband is located, is shared with another.
It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building
owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession
thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.40 Here, accused-appellant failed to
present any evidence to overcome such presumption. He merely insisted that he was framed and
had no knowledge of where the prohibited drugs came from. In the absence of any contrary
evidence, he is deemed to be in full control and dominion of the drugs found in his house.
Accused-appellant argues that the corpus delictihas not been clearly established. He points out
that although SPO1 Aguilar allegedly placed his markings on the confiscated items, no such
marking was indicated in the certificate of inventory, nor were the weight of the said specimens
indicated thereon. He further argues that the markings allegedly placed on the specimens seized
were not even indicated in the return of the search warrant.41 Thus, he centers his argument on
the contention that the integrity of the dangerous drugs was not ensured and its identity was not
established with moral integrity.
Relevant to appellants case is the procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of the
seized dangerous drugs as outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, which
reads:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/orseized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof[.]
This provision is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same inthe
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative orcounsel, 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, thatthe 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 asthe integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
Strictly speaking, the aforecited provision of the IRR does not even require that the certificate of
inventory must indicate the markings and the weight of the seized items. In fact, the rule even
sanctions substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody, as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are property preserved by the
apprehending officers. In People v. Pringas,42 the Court recognized that the strict compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the
police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the
procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of corpus
delictiand the unbroken chain of custody. Aptly noting the findings of the trial court:
It was sufficiently established that representatives from the media and Department of Justice and
even two (2) barangay local officials were present during the briefing and even until the conduct
of the inventory. And that immediately after seizure and confiscation of the dangerous drugs, the
same were inventoried and photographed in the presence of appellant and said persons, who even
signed copies of the inventory. The seized illegal drugs were marked at accuseds residence and
in his presence. P/S Insp. Villalobos testified that the seized items he received from Aguilar
already contained the markings, "FBA". Besides, he also placed his own initials and signatures in
blue markings to preserve and maintain the integrity of the specimens. Thus, there was no cogent
reason why the court should doubt the trustworthiness and credibility of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.43
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of
bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bear the
burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the
presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that
public officers properly discharged their duties.44 Accused-appellant in this case failed to present
any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the
testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit.45 In fact, accusedappellant
did not even question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He anchored his appeal solely
on his allegation of frame-up and denial and on the alleged broken chain of the custody of the
seized drugs.
In sum, we find no reason to modifyor set aside the decision of the CA. Accused-appellant was
correctly found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIEDand the 24 March 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04288 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.*
Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO**
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, First Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes
* Per Special Q,dec No. 1772 dated 28 August 2014.
** Per Special Order No. 1771 dated 28 August 2014.
1 Rollo, pp. 105-118; Penned by Associate Justice Maritlor P.. Punzalan Castillo with
Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring.
2 Rollo, p. 3.
3 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 4.
4 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 4.
5 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 5.
6 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 7.
7 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 9.
8 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 8.
9 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 10.
10 Id. at 9
11 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 9.

12 Id. at 10.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 11.
15 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 16.
16 Members of the Intelligence Section who participated in the operation were SPO1
Aguilar, SPO1 Abrantes, PO3 Quintin Tusara, PO1 Louie Ordonez, and PO1 Albao.
17 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 20.
18 Id. at 21.
19 Id. at 29-30.
20 Id. at 31.
21 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 19.
22 TSN, 12 February 2009, pp. 25-26.
23 TSN, 19 March 2009, pp. 25-26.
24 Id. at 26-27.
25 TSN, 12 February 2009, pp. 33-34.
26 Id. at 37.
27 Id.
28 CA rollo, p. 49; Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
29 Records, pp. 143-144.
30 Id. at 144 citing Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165.
31 Id. citing People v. Macario, 310 Phil. 581 (1995).
32 People v. Aquino, 379 Phil. 845, 853 (2000).
33 CA rollo, p. 10.
34 Id. at 50.
35 People v. Ulama, G.R. No. 186530, 14 December 2011, 662 SCRA 599, 613.
36 People v. Bagares, G.R. No. 99026, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA 30, 35.
37 People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011, 640 Phil. 697, 716 citing
People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, 4 December 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 390-396
further citing People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 846.
38 Id. citing Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 171578, 8 August 2007, 529 SCRA 500,
513.

39 593 Phil. 617, 625 (2008) citing People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004, 430
SCRA 134.
40 Id. citing People v. Torres, 533 Phil. 227 (2006).
41 CA rollo, p. 52.
42 G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007, 531 SCRA 828.
43 Records, p. 144.
44 People v. Miranda, 560 Phil. 795, 810 (2007).
45 See People v. Macabalang, 538 Phil. 137, 155 (2006).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 198314

September 24, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal filed by herein accused Richard Guinto y San Andres (Guinto) from the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 31 January 2011, affirming the decision of
conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165.2
The Facts
The prosecution presented a buy-bust case.
As narrated by Police Officer 1 Melvin Jesus S. Mendoza (PO1 Mendoza), the operation was
conducted on 20 January 2004 at around 1:00 oclock in the morning by the members of AntiIllegal Drugs Special Task Force (AIDSTF), Pasig City Police Station. It was prompted by an

information given by a female caller received by AIDSTFs Team Supervisor Senior Police
Officer 3 Leneal Matias (SPO3 Matias), who in turn, coordinated with Police Inspector Melbert
Esguerra (P/Insp. Esguerra), the head of AIDSTF. According to the female caller, a certain
"Chard" was selling shabu in a place located at 137 MC Guinto, Barangay Pinagbuhatan, Pasig
City. Based on the information, P/Insp. Esguerra instructed the team to verify the call from their
civilian informant residing also in Barangay Pinagbuhatan. Upon positive verification, P/Insp.
Esguerra formed a buybust team composed of SPO3 Matias, SPO2 Braulio Basco (SPO2 Basco),
PO1 Michael Familara (PO1 Familara), PO1 Alan Mapula, and PO1 Porferio Bansuelo (PO1
Bansuelo) and designated PO1 Mendoza to act as the poseur-buyer. In turn, SPO3 Matias
prepared the pre-operation report and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) on the buy-bust operation. PO1 Mendoza, as the poseur-buyer, was given two (2) pieces
of marked P100.00 bills as buy-bust money by P/Insp. Esguerra.3
After the briefing, the team including the informant proceeded to the target area at around eleven
oclock in the evening of 19 April 2004. Upon arrival, PO1 Mendoza and the informant
positioned themselves outside the house of this certain "Chard" (later identified as the accused
Richard S.A. Guinto) and waited for him to step out. Meanwhile, the rest of the team stood
nearby and waited for PO1 Mendozas pre-arranged signal of raising of hand to indicate that the
sale transaction was already consummated. After two hours, Guinto finally went out of the
house. The informant approached Chard and introduced PO1 Mendoza as a person in need of
illegal drugs worth P200.00. PO1 Mendoza then gave buy-bust money to Guinto as payment.
Guinto, in turn, drew two (2) plastic sachets containing shabu and gave them to PO1 Mendoza.
Guinto then put the money on his left pocket. To indicate consummation of illegal sale, PO1
Mendoza made the prearranged signal to the other members of the team and introduced himself
to Guinto as a police officer. The other members of the team responded and arrested Guinto.
Immediately, PO1 Mendoza confiscated the marked money from the left pocket of Guinto and
marked the plastic sachet containing shabu with the markings "RSG/MJM."4
Afterwards, the buy-bust team brought Guinto to Pasig City Police Station and turned him over
to SPO2 Basco for investigation. PO1 Mendoza turned over the confiscated drugs toSPO2
Basco. Consequently, SPO2 Basco asked for a laboratory examination request to determine the
chemical composition of the confiscated drugs.5 Thereafter, confiscated drug was brought by
PO1 Noble to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.6
The prosecution also presented PO1 Familara as its second witness to corroborate the statements
given by PO1 Mendoza. However, several inconsistencies were apparent in his testimony.
When asked during his direct examination on who gave the buy-bust money to PO1 Mendoza,
PO1 Familara answered that it was SPO3 Matias.7 Likewise, the pre-arranged signal was
differently described as scratching of the nape instead of raising of hand.8 He also testified that
their asset arrived at around one oclock in the morning to accompany them to Pinagbuhatan.9
Another inconsistency which surfaced was when PO1 Familara testified that upon the
consummation of illegal sale, he went to the place of the arrest and saw PO1 Mendoza arresting
Guinto. PO1 Mendoza then positively identified Guinto as the one who sold one (1) plastic
sachet of illegal drug instead of two (2) sachets.10
Finally, the last witness presented by the prosecution was Police Officer 2 Richard Noble (PO2
Noble).11 He corroborated the statements given by his fellow police officers but again, presented
an inconsistency as to the time of the assets arrival compared to the one narrated by PO1
Familara. A conflict came out as to the time of the teams arrival to the target area and as to how
long they waited for the accused to go out. In his direct, he testified that the asset arrived at the
police station before eleven oclock in the evening prior to the buy-bust operation.12 Afterwards,
they had a briefing on the operation. He recalled that they waited for around 15 to 20 minutes
before the accused came out13 while PO1 Mendoza testified that they waited for the accused for
two hours. When asked again by the Court on the time of their arrival, he answered that it was at
around one oclock in the morning.14

The defense interposed denial.

Guinto narrated that at the time ofthe arrest at 10:00 oclock in the evening of 19 January 2004,
he was in their house cooking with his family. Several men suddenly entered the house, grabbed
his arm and searched the premises. When asked why the men entered their home, the men did not
give them any reason. Afterwards, Guinto was brought to the police headquarters and
investigated by the police.15
Jane P. Guinto (Jane), the wife of the accused Guinto, corroborated the statements of her
husband. She recalled that several armed male persons entered their house while she and her
family were cooking to celebrate fiesta the next day. The men were not authorized to search nor
arrest the person of his husband and failed to introduce themselves to them. Thereafter, these
male persons frisked her husband, handcuffed him and brought to the police station. Meanwhile,
Jane left her two children under the care of her aunt to follow her husband. It was there at the
station where the police officers tried to extort money from her in the amount of P50,000.00.16
Finally, John Mark P. Guinto (John Mark), one of the two children of Guinto, affirmed the
narration of his parents on material points. He testified that he and his younger brother were
watching television at the time of the illegal arrest of his father. His parents were then cooking
when some uniformed police officers arrested his father and brought him to the police station.
However, he testified that he went to their neighbors house and hid there out of fear, contrary to
the statement of his mother that she brought them to her aunt.17
Guinto was eventually charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs punishable under Section 5
of Article II of R.A. No. 9165:
On or about January 20, 2004 in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Melvin Santos Mendoza, a police poseur buyer,
two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag each containing two centigrams (0.02 gram) of white
crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug, in violation of said law.18
When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Based on the Pre-Trial Order,19 the prosecution and defense stipulated that Forensic Chemist
Annalee R. Forro (Forro) of the PNP Crime Laboratory conducted an examination on the
samples submitted and they yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride
commonly known as shabu.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court on 8 October 2008 rendered a Decision20 finding Guinto guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged and imposed upon him the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of P500,000.00 for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with all the
accessory penalties under the law. It held that all the elements to constitute illegal sale was
present to convict the accused of the offense. Likewise, it affirmed the testimonies of the police
officers on the conducted buy-bust operation and the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties as against the claim of unsubstantiated denial of Guinto.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It ruled that all the elements of illegal
sale of dangerous drug wereproven as testified by the police officers PO1 Mendoza and PO1
Familara. It found credible the straight forward and categorical statements of the prosecution
witnesses on what transpired during the buy-bust operation.21 Further, it held that the
prosecution has proven as unbroken the chain of custody of evidence and the regularity of

performance of the police officers who conducted the operation. Finally, it affirmed that the noncompliance of the strict procedure in Section 21 (a), ArticleII of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 did not invalidate the seizure and custody of the seized items as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
operatives.22
Our Ruling
After a careful review of the evidence, we reverse the finding of the trial courts. We find that the
prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti. This is fatal in establishing illegal
sale. Moreover, the conflicting statements of the policemen on material points tarnished the
credibility of the testimony for the prosecution.
Primarily assailed by the accused are the inconsistent statements of the apprehending police
officers with respect to the circumstances of his illegal arrest and the broken chain of custody
which would warrant his acquittal.
We are convinced.
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.23 Hence, to establish a concrete case, it is an utmost importance to prove the identity of
the narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delictiof the offense and the fact of
its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore imperative for the
prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug before
asserting other arguments.24
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that each and every element that constitutes an illegal
saleof dangerous drug was present to convict the accused. Upon evaluation ofthe testimonies of
PO1 Familara and PO1 Mendoza, it is apparent that there is an inconsistency on the identity and
number of plastic sachets bought from the accused. In his statement, PO1 Familara recalled that
upon arrival at the place of arrest, PO1 Mendoza told him that he was ableto buy one plastic
sachet of shabu from Guinto. On the other hand, PO1 Mendoza recalled that he was able to buy
two plastic sachets instead of one. The pointed inconsistency is not a minor one that can be
brushed aside as the discrepancy taints the very corpus deliciti of the crime of illegal sale. A vital
point of contention, the prosecutions evidence places in reasonable doubt the identification of
the dangerous drug that was presented in court.
We likewise see that the conflicting statements of the police officers defeat the presumption of
the regularity of their performance of duties ordinarily accorded by the lower courts.
We find several inconsistencies on points materialto the credibility of the buy-bust operation.
Among those are the inconsistencies on the pre-arranged signal, length of time the police officers
spent in waiting for the accused and the exact time of the arrest.
Aside from those alleged by defense,this Court found several more evident inconsistencies,
which when put together, erodes the presumption of regularity of performance of duty.
We discuss.
First, as already pointed out, as to identity of the corpus delictiof the crime.
PO1 Mendoza and PO1 Familara fatally contradicted each others testimony as to the number of
sachets bought from Guinto. In his direct testimony, PO1 Mendoza positively identified that the
accused gave two plastic sachets in exchange of the P200 marked money.25 However, the same

identification was refuted when PO1 Familara testified that PO1 Mendoza informed him that he
(Mendoza) successfully bought one plastic sachet of shabufrom Guinto.26
Second, as to where the marked money was recovered after the buybust operation.
According to PO1 Mendoza, he was able to obtain possession of the buy-bust money from the
left front pocket of Guinto as transcribed in his direct testimony dated 19 August 2004. However,
in his direct testimony dated 18 August 2005, Mendoza testified that he was able to recover the
buy-bust money from the right hand of Guinto, as opposed from his previous narration that he
recovered the money from Guintos left pocket.27
Third, conflicting circumstances before the arrest.
In his first testimony, PO1 Mendoza recalled that upon their arrival at the target area at around
eleven oclock in the evening, the team waited for almost two hours for the accused to come out
from his house.28 However, PO1 Familara testified that they arrived at the target area at around
one oclock in the morning of 20 January 2004.29 Witness PO1 Noble, on the other hand,
recalled that they left for the area at around eleven in the evening30 and waited for 15 to 20
minutes31 for Guinto to come out but contradicted his former statement and testified that they
arrived at around one oclock in the morning.32
Fourth,as to the pre-arranged signal.
PO1 Mendoza testified that the agreed upon signal will be the raising of hand to signify the
consummation of illegal sale.33 Again, it was contradicted by PO1 Familaras statement that
what was agreed upon during the meeting was the scratching of the nape as the pre-arranged
signal of PO1 Mendoza.34
Finally,the source of the buy-bust money.
During his direct examination, PO1 Mendoza was asked on who gave him the buy-bust money.
In his answer, he identified that it was P/Insp. Esguerra35 as the source. On the contrary, PO1
Familara identified SPO3 Matias as the one who gave PO1 Mendoza the marked money during
their meeting.36
We find support in several jurisprudential rulings.
In People v. Roble,37 the Court ruled that generally, the evaluation of the trial court of the
credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great weight and generally not
disturbed upon appeal. However, such rule does not apply when the trial court has overlooked,
misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of weight or substance. In this present case, the
contradictions, numerous and material, warrant the acquittal of accused-appellant.38
Similarly, one of the means used by the Court in determining the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses is the objective test.1wphi1 Following this test, in order to establish the credibility of
prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation, prosecution must be able to
present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operationfrom the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration,
until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by
which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buybust
money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to
insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.39 In light of
these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to present a clear picture on what
really transpired on the buy-bust operation.
In People v. Unisa40 this Court held that "in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drug
Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumedto

have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidenceto the contrary
suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers."
True, the absence of ill motive or ill will is ordinarily considered by this Court as proof that the
statements of the police officers is credible. As maintained by the People, through the Office of
the Solicitor General, in the absence of any improper motive, presumption of regularity of
performance of duty prevails. However, it must be similarly noted that the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty of public officers does not outweigh another recognized
presumption - the presumption of innocence of the accused until proven beyond reasonable
doubt.41
In several occasions, the Court had declared that the presumption of regularity of performance of
duties must be harmonized with the other interest of the State which is the interest of adherence
to the presumption of innocence of the accused.
However in case of conflict between the presumption of regularity of police officers and the
presumption ofinnocence of the accused, the latter must prevail as the law imposes upon the
prosecution the highest degree of proof of evidence to sustain conviction.42
In conclusion, this case exemplifies the doctrine that conviction must stand on the strength of the
Prosecutions evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. Evidence proving the guilt of the
accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt.1wphi1 If the evidence of guilt falls short of
this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal
should come as a matter of course.43
The present case shows that the prosecution fell short in proving with certainty the culpability
ofthe accused and engendered a doubt on the true circumstances of the buy-bust operation. In
dubio pro reo.When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on
reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.44
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 31 January 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals
inCA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03844 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 8 October 2008 of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 164 of Pasig City is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant RICHARD GUINTO y SAN ANDRES is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered
immediately released from detention unless his continued confinement is warranted for some
other cause or ground.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Juan Q.
Enriquez, Jr. and Fiorito S. Macalino, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 108-119.
2 An Act Instituting The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing
Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known As The Dangerous Drugs Act Of 1972, As
Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes.
3 TSN, PO1 Melvin Mendoza, 19 August 2004, pp. 2-8.
4 Id. at 9-13.
5 TSN Mendoza, 18 August 2005, pp. 6-7.
6 Id. at 7 and 16.
7 TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 4.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 6.
11 Referred to as PO1 Noble in 18 August 2005 TSN.
12 TSN Noble, 23 January 2006, p. 4.
13 Id. at 5.
14 Id. at 12.
15 TSN, Direct of Richard S.A. Guinto, 8 February 2007, pp. 2-5.
16 TSN, Jane Guinto, 5 July 2007, pp. 2-7.
17 TSN, John Mark P. Guinto, 22 November 2007, pp. 2-5.
18 Records p. 1.
19 Id. at 17-18.
20 Id. at 164-170.
21 CA Decision; CA rollo, pp. 108-119.
22 Id. at 114-118.

23 People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 324; People v.
Manlangit, G.R. No. 189806, 12 January 2011, 639 SCRA 455, 463.
24 People v. Gatlabayan, G.R. No. 186467, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 803, 815, citing
People v. Frondozo, G.R. No. 177164, 30 June 2009, 591 SCRA 407, 417.
25 TSN Mendoza, 19 August 2004, pp. 11-12.
26 TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 6.
27 TSN Mendoza, 18 August 2005, p. 4,
28 TSN Mendoza, 19 August 2004, p. 9.
29 TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 5.
30 TSN Noble, 23 January 2006, p. 3
31 Id. at 5.
32 Id. at 12.
33 TSN Mendoza, 19 August 2004, p. 10
34 TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 4.
35 TSN Mendoza, 19 August 2004, p. 6.
36 TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 4.
37 G.R. No. 192188, 11 April 2011, 647 SCRA 593.
38 Id. at 602-603, citing People v. Casimiro, 432 Phil. 966, 974-975 (2002).
39 People v. Clara, G.R. No. 195528, 4 July 2013, 702 SCRA 273, 292, citingPeople v.
Ong, 568 Phil. 114, 122 (2008); People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 621 (1999).
40 G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 336, citing People v. Gaspar,
G.R. No. 192816, 6 July 2011, 653 SCRA 673, 688; People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282,
293 (2007).
41 People v. Clara, supra note 38, at 295, citing People v. Robelo, G.R. No. 184181, 26
November 2012, 686 SCRA 417, 428; Dimacuha v. People, 545 Phil. 406, 420 (2007);
People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 327, 338.
42 Id.
43 Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 180177, 18 April 2012, 670 SCRA 148, 164165.
44 Zafra v. People, G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 396, 409, citing Malillin
v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205821

October 1, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN, Accused-appellant.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
"Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of
custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a
miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused."1
This resolves an appeal from a conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On September 15, 2004, accused-appellant Garry dela Cruz (dela Cruz) was charged with illegal
sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs in two separate informations,2 as follows:
Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920)

VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, A[R]TICLE (sic) II K OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)
That on or about September 14, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to
sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drugs, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL AND DELIVER to PO1 WILFREDO BOBON y
TARROZA, a member of the PNP, who acted as buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent
plastic pack containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0120 gram which
when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for the presence of
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu) knowing the same to be a dangerous
drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921)
VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)
That on or about September 14, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession and under his custody
and control six (6) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline
substance, each weighing as follows: 1) 0.0135 gram; 2) 0.0183 gram; 3) 0.0542 gram; 4) 0.0197
gram; 5) 0.0100 [gram]; and 6) 0.0128 gram or a total of 0.1285 gram; which when subjected to
qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu) knowing same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 (Citations omitted)
As alleged by the prosecution, dela Cruz was arrested in a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust
operation was allegedly conducted after a civilian informant (the informant) tipped the
Zamboanga City Police Office that a certain "Gary" was selling illegal drugs at the parking area
for buses behind Food Mart, Governor Lim Street, Sangali, Bunguioa, Zamboanga City (the
target area).4
The buy-bust operation team included PO1 Wilfredo Bobon (PO1 Bobon), as poseur-buyer, and
SPO1 Roberto Roca (SPO1 Roca), as back-up arresting officer. It was agreed that "PO1 Bobon
would remove his bull cap once the sale of illegal drugs was [consummated]." The buy-bust team
prepared a _100.00 bill with serial number KM 776896 as marked money.5
At around 11:00 a.m. of September 14, 2004, the buy-bust operation team, accompanied by the
informant, went to the target area. The informant initially brokered the sale of shabu. It was PO1
Bobon who handed the marked money to dela Cruz in exchange for one (1) heat-sealed plastic
sachet of suspected shabu. After which, he removed his bull cap. SPO1 Roca then arrested dela
Cruz.6
Upon frisking dela Cruz, PO1 Bobon supposedly recovered six (6) more heat-sealed sachets of
suspected shabu. PO1 Bobon placed the sachet he purchased from dela Cruz in his right pocket
and the six (6) other sachets in his left pocket. SPO1 Roca recovered the marked _100.00 bill.7

Dela Cruz and the seven (7) sachets seized from him were then brought to the Zamboanga City
Police Station.8 There, PO1 Bobon taped the sachets. He then marked the sachet from his right
pocket with his initials, "WB."9 He marked the sachets from his left pocket as "WB-1," "WB-2,"
"WB-3," "WB-4," "WB-5," and "WB-6."10
On the same day, the seven (7) sachets were turned over to SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr., the
investigating officer, who prepared the request for laboratory examination. Subsequently, the
tests yielded positive results for shabu.11
During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO1 Bobon, SPO1 Roca, and forensic
chemist Police Inspector Melvin L. Manuel. The sole witness presented for the defense was dela
Cruz himself.12
For his part, dela Cruz acknowledged that on the morning of September 14, 2004, he was in the
target area. As he was leaving the comfort room, someone embraced him from behind, while
another poked a gun at him. He was then handcuffed and brought to an L-300 van which was
parked in front of Food Mart. Inside the van, he was asked if he was Jing-Jong, alias Jong-Jong.
Despite his denials, he was brought to the police station. It was when he was already detained
that he learned that he was charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.13
On August 19, 2010, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Zamboanga City, convicted dela Cruz
for violating Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and
sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of _500,000.00. He was also convicted for
violating Article II, Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and
sentenced to 12 years and one day up to 14 years imprisonment and a fine of _300,000.00. The
dispositive portion of this decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds:
1. In Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920), accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency;
2. In Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921), accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY to
FOURTEEN YEARS of imprisonment and pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered
confiscated to be turned over to the proper authorities for disposition.
SO ORDERED.14
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, dela Cruz assailed the prosecutions failure to establish the
chain of custody of the seized sachets of shabu. He also assailed the validity of the buy-bust
operation and the prosecutions failure to present the informant in court.15
On May 31, 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision16 affirming dela Cruz conviction in
toto. Thereafter, dela Cruz filed his notice of appeal.17
In the resolution18 dated April 15, 2013, this court noted the records forwarded by the Court of
Appeals and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs.

On June 6, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion,19 on
behalf of the People of the Philippines, noting that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as
the brief it filed with the Court of Appeals had adequately addressed the arguments and issues
raised by dela Cruz.
On August 7, 2013, dela Cruz filed a manifestation20 indicating that he, too, would no longer file
a supplemental brief and that he was instead re-pleading, adopting, and reiterating the defenses
and arguments in the brief he filed before the Court of Appeals.
For resolution is the issue of whether dela Cruzs guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating
Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was established.
Subsumed in the resolution of this issue are the issues raised by dela Cruz in the brief he filed
with the Court of Appeals, foremost of which is whether the prosecution was able to establish
compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs are settled:
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown
that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or
regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the
corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.21
With respect to the element of corpus delicti, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 provides for the custody and disposition of
confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Particularly on the
matter of custody before a criminal case is filed, Section 21, as amended, provides:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, 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 dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the
National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to
the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by
the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the
subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the
completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall
be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be
examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be
issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification;
....
The significance of complying with Section 21s requirements cannot be overemphasized. Noncompliance is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element
of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an
element of these offenses, non-compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused.
We reiterate the extensive discussion on this matter from our recent decision in People v.
Holgado:22
As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish
the identity of the corpus delicti."23 It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized
paraphernalia]."24
The significance of ensuring the integrity of drugs and drug paraphernalia in prosecutions under
Republic Act No. 9165 is discussed in People v. Belocura:25
Worse, the Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the
corpus delicti itself. The omission naturally raises grave doubt about any search being actually
conducted and warrants the suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.
In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for
the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the
moment it is offered in evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not enough
that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also be
sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely
because it is available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved and with
the parties thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the
introduction of evidence are important.26 (Emphasis supplied)
In Malilin v. People,27 this court explained that the exactitude required by Section 21 goes into
the very nature of narcotics as the subject of prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when
the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in
form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham vs. State positively
acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance later analyzed as heroinwas handled
by two police officers prior to examination who however did not testify in court on the condition
and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possessionwas excluded from the
prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed
heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by
records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came

into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratorys findings is inadmissible.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact
they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court
cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the
links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or
substitution of substances from other casesby accident or otherwisein which similar
evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in
authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects
which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of
custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original
item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.28
(Emphasis supplied)
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the
integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4)
respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of
the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident
allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the
person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this
requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in
any manner.
By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a
failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that
this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v.
Lorenzo:29
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if
there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be
established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are
present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of
certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.30 (Emphasis supplied)
The prosecutions sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug
paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. Not even the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the
regularity of the manner by which officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is
"negated."31 Republic Act No. 9165 requires compliance with Section 21.
Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply
with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice. In People v. Magat,32 for instance, this
court had occasion to emphasize the inadequacy of merely marking the items supposedly seized:
"Marking of the seized drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough to comply with the clear
and unequivocal procedures prescribed in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165."33
The exactitude which the state requires in handling seized narcotics and drug paraphernalia is
bolstered by the amendments made to Section 21 by Republic Act No. 10640. Section 21(1), as
amended, now includes the following proviso, thereby making it even more stringent than as
originally worded:
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:

In People v. Nandi,34 this court explained that four (4) links "should be established in the chain
of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court."35
In Nandi, where the prosecution failed to show how the seized items were handled following the
actual seizure and, thereafter, turned over for examination, this court held that the accused must
be acquitted:
After a closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of custody of the subject item
were not clearly established. As can be gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1 Collado
failed to provide informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately after the
seizure. He just claimed that the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the
transaction and, thereafter, he handed it to the investigator.
There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. PO1
Collado could not even provide the court with the name of the investigator. He admitted that he
was not present when it was delivered to the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist
Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who identified the person who delivered the specimen to the crime
laboratory. He disclosed that he received the specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even
a member of the buy-bust team. Per their record, PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-request with
the attached seized item to the CPD Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2 Semacio
recorded it and turned it over to the Chemistry Section.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered view that chain of custody of the illicit
drug seized was compromised. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties
cannot be applied in this case.
Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the
obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute
authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance
thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers
deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is
irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the
lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty.
With the chain of custody in serious question, the Court cannot gloss over the argument of the
accused regarding the weight of the seized drug. The standard procedure is that after the
confiscation of the dangerous substance, it is brought to the crime laboratory for a series of tests.
The result thereof becomes one of the bases of the charge to be filed.36 (Citations omitted)
As Holgado emphasized, "[e]ven the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but
do not actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice."37 In People v.
Garcia,38 this court noted that the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, unsupported by a
physical inventory and taking of photographs, and in the absence of the persons required by
Section 21 to be present, does not suffice:
Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity
was not disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items
was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. We
observe that while there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the

police station, no mention whatsoever was made on whether the marking had been done in the
presence of Ruiz or his representatives. There was likewise no mention that any representative
from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during
this inventory, or that any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory.39
(Citations omitted)
In this case, the Regional Trial Court acknowledged that no physical inventory of the seized
items was conducted.40 Similarly, there is nothing in the records to show that the seized items
were photographed in the manner required by Section 21. Likewise, none of the persons required
by Section 21 to be present (or their possible substitutes) have been shown to be present.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals assert that dela Cruz must nevertheless be
convicted as "it had been clearly established that the identity of the items were [sic] properly
preserved."41 They anchor this conclusion on PO1 Bobons having supposedly kept the seized
sachets in his own pockets: one (1) sachet in his right pocket and six (6) sachets in his left
pocket.
The Court of Appeals reasons:
We found no gap in the prosecutions presentation of the chain of custody. There was a seizure of
seven (7) heat-sealed sachets of shabu as a result of a valid buy-bust operation. PO1 Bobon and
SPO1 Roca testified how the seizure was conducted. PO1 Bobon was able to identify the shabu
which were involved in the illegal sale vis-a-vis the one involved in illegal possession because he
knowingly put them in different pockets. The seized drugs were marked at the police station
which was only 200 meters away from the area where the arrest was made. The identity of these
seized items were secured as PO1 Bobon placed tapes on the respective heat-sealed sachets of
shabu and marked them with his initials which he later identified in court.42 (Citation omitted)
The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own pockets precisely underscores the
importance of strictly complying with Section 21. His subsequent identification in open court of
the items coming out of his own pockets is self-serving.
The prosecution effectively admits that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation
until the seized items turnover for examination, these items had been in the sole possession of a
police officer. In fact, not only had they been in his possession, they had been in such close
proximity to him that they had been nowhere else but in his own pockets.
Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful
and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals
finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not
dubious.
Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a
single police officers act of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized
under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not
engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to view with
distrust the items coming out of PO1 Bobons pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the
Court of Appeals both failed to see through this and fell hook, line, and sinker for PO1
Bobons avowals is mind-boggling.
Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even offering the slightest justification for dispensing with
the requirements of Section 21.
Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a proviso
to the effect that "noncompliance of (sic) these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said

items." Plainly, the prosecution has not shown that on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz was
arrested and the sachets supposedly seized and marked there were "justifiable grounds" for
dispensing with compliance with Section 21. All that the prosecution has done is insist on its
self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized sachets has, despite all its lapses,
nevertheless been preserved.
Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets, it is also
admitted that no physical inventory and taking of photographs in the presence of dela Cruz or of
any of the other persons specified by Section 21 were conducted.43
As in People v. Garcia, the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, will not suffice to sustain a
conviction in this case.
The miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly seized from dela Cruz amplifies the doubts on
their integrity.1wphi1 In total, the seven (7) sachets supposedly contained all of 0.1405 gram of
shabu. This quantity is so miniscule it amounts to little more than 7% of the weight of a fivecentavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams).
As we have discussed in People v. Holgado:
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this
circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Malilin v.
People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an
exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible
in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives."
....
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of
Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced
narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent
with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule
amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. . . . 44 (Citations omitted)
As the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crimes for which dela Cruz is charged has not been
established, it follows that there is no basis for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is
proper that dela Cruz be acquitted.
We close by hearkening to the same words with which we ended in Holgado:
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No.
9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions
involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have
been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small
retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law
enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus
resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all
these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram
of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It
might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the
causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs
and the leadership of these cartels.45
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated May 31, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00869-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Garry
dela Cruz y de Guzman is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt

beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is

confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa
City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to
report to this court within five days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies
shall also be furnished the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director
General of the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous
Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
MARVIC M.V. LEONEN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

JOSE C. MENDOZA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VlII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/august2014/207992.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
2 Rollo, p. 3.
3 Id. at 4.
4 Id. at 6.
5 Id.
6 Id.

7 Id. at 7.
8 Id.
9 CA rollo, p. 41.
10 Id.
11 Rollo, p. 7.
12 Id. at 5.
13 Id. at 78.
14 Id. at 8.
15 Id. at 9.
16 Id. at 318.
17 Id. at 1920.
18 Id. at 25.
19 Id. at 2728.
20 Id. at 3031.
21 People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 235 [Per J. Del
Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. Darisan et al., 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per
J. Corona, First Division] and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009) [Per J. Tinga,
Second Division].
22 G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/ jurisprudence/2014/august2014/207992.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
23 People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 236 [Per J. Del
Castillo, Second Division].
24 People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], as cited
in People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758 [Per J. Tinga,
Second Division].
25 G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 318 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
26 Id. at 337338.
27 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
28 Id. at 588589.
29 G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 389 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
30 Id. at 401.

31 People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 609, 618 [Per J.
Carpio-Morales, Third Division]. See also People v. Ulat, G.R. No. 180504, October 5,
2011, 650 SCRA 607 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
32 588 Phil. 395 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
33 Id. at 97.
34 G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
35 Id. at 133, citing People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610
SCRA 295 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
36 Id. at 133134.
37 People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/august2014/207992.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
38 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
39 Id. at 429.
40 CA rollo, p. 41.
41 Id.
42 Rollo, p. 14.
43 CA rollo, p. 41.
44 G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/august2014/207992.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
45 Id.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 208169

October 8, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
EDWARD ADRIANO y SALES, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
PEREZ, J.:
For review is the conviction of Edward Adriano y Sales (Adriano) for the crime of illegal sale of
shabu punishable under Section 5, Article II of the Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165),
otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (CDDA) of 2002, by the Court of
Appeals (CA) in a Decision1 dated 29 October 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05182, which
affirmed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dated 23 August 2011 in "People of
the Philippines v. Edward Adriano y Sales", docketed as Criminal Case No. 16444-D.
The Information
That on or about 25th day of October 2008, in the City of Taguig, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being authorized by law,
sell, deliver, and give away to a poseur buyer, zero point twelve (0.12) gram of a white
crystalline substance, commonly known as "shabu" which is a dangerous drug, in consideration

of the amount of Two Hundred Pesos (Php200.00) and in violation of the above cited law.3
When arraigned, Adriano pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. During the pre-trial conference
on 13 July 2009, the parties stipulated on the following:
1. The identity of the accused as the same person named in the information;
2. The existence of the specimens and documents marked as evidence but with a counterproposal that the forensic chemist has no personal knowledge as to the source of the
specimen; 3. The qualification of the forensic chemist, P/Sr. Insp. Yelah Manaog;
4. The existence and due execution of the Physical Science Report No. D-334-08;
5. The due execution and genuineness of the FINDINGS on the qualitative examination
conducted on the specimens gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;4
During trial, the prosecution presented Police Officer 1 Teodoro Morales (PO1 Morales), who
testified that acting on a report received from a barangay official and an informant that Adriano
was selling drugs in North Daang Hari, Taguig City, Police Chief Inspector Porfirio Calagan
formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation to entrap Adriano, designating PO1 Morales as
the poseur-buyer, and marking the buy-bust money consisting of ten P100.00 bills with the
initials "PC". After briefing, PO1 Morales, together with the informant and his team, proceeded
to North Daang Hari where PO1 Morales bought P200.00 worth of shabu from Adriano. Upon
giving Adriano the marked money and after receiving a plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, PO1 Morales signaled his team to arrest Adriano. PO2 Ronnie Fabroa
immediately arrested Adriano.5 The marked money confiscated from Adriano was brought to the
police station for investigation, while the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance,
which was marked with "ESA-251008"6 at the crime scene was brought to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory by PO2 Vergelio Del Rosario, who also prepared the
letter-request.7
In the PNP Crime Laboratory, the result of the laboratory examination conducted by
Police/Senior Inspector Yelah Manaog confirmed the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride.8
On the other hand, the defense presented Adriano, who testified that on 22 October 2008, at
around 10:00 p.m., he was at home, putting his nephews and nieces to sleep when suddenly two
(2) armed men barged into the house and dragged him outside and forcibly took him to the police
station in Taguig City. It was only whenthey arrived at the police station when he learned that he
was arrested for illegal sale of shabu.9
The Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision dated 23 August 2011, the RTC found Adriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charged.1wphi1 The RTC gave credence to the testimony of PO1 Morales based on
the presumption that police officers perform their duties in a regular manner because the defense
failed to establish any ill-motive on the part of the arresting officers to at least create a dent in the
prosecutions case. The positive identification of Adriano as the perpetrator of the crime charged
without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness testifying on the matter, prevails
over Adrianos alibi and denial. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the accused Edward Adriano y Sales is hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime, as charged, and is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (PHP500,000.00).10 x x x x

On appeal, Adriano argued that the shabu allegedly seized from his possession is inadmissible
because of the following reasons: (1) the warrantless arrest on his person is invalid; and (2) the
arresting officers violated Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Adriano asserted that the warrantless
arrest was illegal because there was no reason why the police officers could not have obtained a
judicial warrant before the arrest.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA ruled that the prosecution established the
elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu. Even if the prosecution failed to comply with the
requirements provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such noncompliance did not render the
seized items inadmissible in evidence. Further, the CA rejected the defenses attempt to debunk
PO1 Morales testimony based on the defenses failure to substantiate its allegation of ill-motive
on the part of the arresting officers.
The appeal before us maintained thatthe lower courts gravely erred in not finding the warrantless
arrest on the person of Adriano as illegal and in convicting Adriano despite the police officers
noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
We rule in the negative.
Our Ruling
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following two (2) elements must be duly
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.11
In the case at bar, the prosecution duly established the two (2) elements: (1) to account that the
transaction or sale indeed took place, PO1 Morales narrated the transaction in a clear and direct
manner; and (2) the seized illegal drugs and marked money were presented before the trial court
as proof of the identity of the object of the crime and of the corpus delicti.12
The argument on the arresting officers noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 deals
with the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized or surrendered
dangerous drugs. The law reads:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well
asinstruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to
the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done
under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24)

hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
However, it has been repeatedly noted by the Court, the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165
offer some measure of flexibility through the proviso, "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". Otherwise stated, non-compliance does not invalidate
the seizure or render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible
as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
To prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the
Implementing Rules allow the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the
seized item, which in this case, has been duly established by the prosecution. "Chain of custody"
means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.13
The details of the unbroken chain of custody as found by the CA: The first link in the chain of
custody is from the time PO1 Morales took possession of the plastic sachet of shabu from
accused-appellant and marked the same with the initials "EAS", to the time the plastic sachet of
shabu was brought to the Police Station. The Certificate of Inventory for the items seized from
accused-appellant was signed by PO1 Morales, PO2 Ronnie Fabroa, and the accused-appellant.
The second link in the chain of custody is from the time the plastic sachet of shabu was brought
from the Police Station, to the PNP Crime Laboratory. A letter-request was made for the
laboratory examination of the contents of the plastic sachet of shabu seized from accusedappellant. The letter-request, and plastic sachet of shabu, were delivered to the PNP Crime
Laboratory by PO2 Del Rosario. Per Chemistry Report No. D-334-08 prepared by Police Senior
Inspector Yelah Manaog, the contents of the plastic sachet tested positive for shabu.14
Thus, despite the arresting officersfailure to strictly observe the requirements of Section 21 on
the custody and disposition of the seized items, the violation of the CDDA of 2002 was duly
proven. The arresting officers duly recorded the movements and custody of the seized items from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt by the forensic laboratory to safekeeping up to
presentation in court.
With regard to the warrantless arrest, the defenses contention that the buy-bust team should have
procured a search warrant for the validity of the buy-bust operation is misplaced. Warrantless
arrests are allowed in three (3) instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
warrant, arrest a person:

A peace officer or a private person may, without a

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, oris attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Based on the above provision, Adriano was arrested pursuant to Section 5(a), which provides that
a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense." In the case at bar, Adriano was caught in the act of committing
an offense, in flagrante delicto, when Adriano was caught selling illegal shabu through a buybust operation, within the plain view of the arresting officers.
A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante
delictoand the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-boundto
apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the
commission of the crime."15 In People v. Agulay,16 we discussed buy-bust operation as a form
of a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers:
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid
and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a
crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the
offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust
operation deserves judicial sanction.17
Finally, the arresting officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their
official duties. The presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. However,
in the case at bar, the defense failed to present any proof to substantiate its imputation of illmotive on the part of the arresting officers. Contrarily, the prosecution duly proved the existence
of the two elements ofthe crime of illegal sale of shabu and established the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items. The presumption of regularity in favor of the arresting
officers prevails. WHEREFORE, we find no cogent reason to reverse the finding of the lower
court which found Edward Adriano y Salesguilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
sale of shabu. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Court of Appeal's decision in "People of
the Philippines v. Edward Adriano y Sales", docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05182 is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions
in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Isaias
P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 81-94.
2 Penned by Pcesiding Judge Louis P. Acosta; cecocds, pp.122-124.
3 Id. at 2.
4 Pre-Trial Order; id. at 59.
5 Id. at 6-7.
6 Exhibit "I"; id. at 7 and 91.
7 CA rollo, pp. 55-57; records, p.12.
8 Chemistry Report No. D-334-08; records, pp. 8; 83 and 91.
9 CA rollo, p. 83.
10 Id. at 124.
11 People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 205227, 7 April 2014.
12 Formal Offer of Evidence, exhibits "C," "C-1," and "J"; records, pp. 92-94.
13 People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285, 294 (2009).
14 Rollo, pp. 13-14.
15 People v. Mateo, 582 Phil. 390, 410 (2008), citing People v. Ong, 476 Phil. 553, 571
(2004), and People v. Juatan, 329 Phil. 331, 337-338 (1996).
16 588 Phil. 247 (2008).
17 Id. at 272.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 183700

October 13, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
PABLITO ANDAYA y REANO, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness does not ordinarily weaken the
State's case against the accused. However, if the arresting lawmen arrested the accused based on
the pre-arranged signal from the confidential informant who acted as the poseur buyer, his
nonpresentation must be credibly explained and the transaction established by other ways in
order to satisfy the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt because the arresting lawmen did
not themselves participate in the buy-bust transaction with the accused.
Antecedents

On February 7, 2003, an information for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 91651 (RA
9165) was filed charging Pablito Andaya y Reano (Andaya). The accusatory portion of the
information reads:
That on or about December 16, 2002 at around 9:50 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. San Jose
Sico, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, sell, dispense or deliver, more or less 0.09 gram(s) of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.2
Upon arraignment,3 Andaya pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued.
The CA summed up the versions of the parties, as follows:4
Five (5) witnesses were presented by the prosecution, namely: SPO4 Delfin Alea, SPO3 Nelio
Lopez, SPO2 Danilo Mercado, SPO4 Protasio Marasigan and Jupri Delantar.
SPO2 Delfin Alea testified that at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of December 16, 2002, their
asset who was conducting surveillance of Pablito Andaya in Barangay San Jose Sico, Batangas
City, arrived at their station. Said asset reported that he had arranged to buy shabu from Pablito.
A team composed of SPO1 Aguila, SPO1 Cabungcal, Eric de Chavez, PO1 Lindberg Yap,
Edwalberto Villar and asset Bagsit was constituted to conduct a buy-bust. Two (2) pieces of
P100.00 bills both duly marked "X" were recorded in the police blotter. Alea gave the marked
bills to the asset. Upon reaching the designated place, the team members alighted from their
vehicles and occupied different positions where they could see and observe the asset. The asset
knocked on the door of Pablito's house. Pablito came out. Pablito and the asset talked briefly.
The asset gave Pablito the marked money. The asset received something from appellant. The prearranged signal signifying consummation of the transaction was given. The team members
approached Pablito and the asset, introduced themselves as police officers and arrested accused.
He was brought to the police station. The arrival of the team was recorded in the police blotter.
The merchandise handed by accused to the asset was sent to the Regional Crime Laboratory in
Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna. The specimen was positive for methampethamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.
SPO2 Lopez received the person of the accused, the marked money and the item accused handed
to the asset. Lopez prepared the request for laboratory examination. He also prepared the
documents required for filing of the case with the Public Prosecutor.
SPO2 Danilo Mercado recorded the marked bills in the police blotter before the buy-bust. Upon
the team's return, the marked money and the merchandise from accused were turned over to
SPO2 Mercado. He prepared a complaint sheet. Thereafter, he turned over accused and the
evidence to the Police Investigator.
SPo4 Protacio Marasigan received a written request for laboratory examination of the subject
merchandise. He brought the request to the crime laboratory in Laguna.
Jupri Delantar, a Forensic Chemical Officer in Camp Vicente Lim, Laguna, conducted the
examination. The merchandise tested positive for shabu.
Accused-appellant denied the charge. He stated that at about 9: 15 in the evening of December
16, 2002 he was at home watching TV with his family when police officers arrived. When he
opened the door, a police officer poked his gun at him. Somebody else held a long firearm.
Pablito was handcuffed and brought outside. He refused to negotiate and asked for a warrant.
The policemen searched the house, turned over the beddings and uncovered their furniture. No

gun nor shabu was found. Pablito was brought to the police station and detained. After three (3)
days he was released. He received a subpoena from the Public Prosecutor afterwards.
His wife Crisanta, corroborated appellants' testimony. She added having told her husband about
the loss of their cellphone and the money in his wallet. She was asked to produce P5,000.00
which she was unable to do. She was able to raise only P2,000.00.
Judgment of the RTC
On February 21, 2006, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, in Batangas City (R TC) rendered its
judgment convicting Andaya as charged, and meted him the penalty of life imprisonment,5 viz:
In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation conducted on the night of December 16, 2002 is
supported by the police blotter wherein not only was the depaiiure and arrival of the operatives
have been duly recorded but also the two (2) pieces of marked one hundred peso bills. The arrest
of the accused was made after the police asset had given the pre-arranged signal outside his
house. The marked money was recovered from the very hand of the accused while the deck of
crystalline substances given to the asset upon the latter's handing over to the accused the marked
money has been turned over to the police by the asset. The crystalline substance when examined
at the police crime laboratory was found to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride a dangerous
and prohibited drug and weighed 0.09 gram.
These foregoing facts have been clearly testified to by the Prosecution witnesses who are
members of the Philippine Integrated National Police Force stationed at Batangas City. No illmotive has been imputed to any of these police officers prior to and at the time the herein
accused was arrested on the night of December 16, 2002.
The accused and his wife as a defense denied the sale of shabu that fateful night. There were
allegations in their testimonies that the police demanded money from them. The wife of the
accused even testified that she gave P 1,500.00 to the police officer who then eventually released
said accused. And early on, she even claimed money and a cellphone were missing after the
accused was arrested in their house.
The testimonies of the accused and his wife are bereft of any corroborating evidence emanating
from a disinterested source. It is no less than self-serving devoid of any credence considering the
following circumstances:
1. Scrutinizing the entirety of the testimony of the accused and his wife Crisanta Andaya,
there are material variances gleaned therefrom. The accused himself never testified that
he was pushed to a chair and yet witness Crisanta Andaya said she saw her husband
pushed to a chair. Also, the accused said there were two guns poked at him when he
opened the door but his wife said only one was holding a gun while another had a long
firearm on his shoulder.
2. The testimony of the accused was that only P500.00 was taken by the police before his
release. But the wife said P1,500.00 was given to the police before the accused was
released. 3. The accused and his wife never made any complaint to the proper authorities
as regards the alleged loss of money and cellphone when the accused was arrested on
December 16, 2002. Neither was there any complaint filed by them for the alleged
P500.00 or Pl1500.00 demanded from and given by them to the police.
4. The accused was a resident of Barangay San Jose Sico, Batangas City since the 1980's
why was it that it was at Rosario, Batangas where the accused was arrested. The Defense
gave no evidence to contest the presumption of guilt based on flight.
5. It is significant to note also that the accused never bothered to ask who was knocking
at his door past 9:00 o'clock in the evening. While his family was already lying in bed to

sleep he was still watching T.V. These actuations of the accused tend to support the fact
that the police asset had made a deal with the accused for the sale of shabu and was
expecting the asset to come that night.
In the light of all foregoing considerations, the Court is left with no alternative than to find the
herein accused criminally liable for the offense charged in the information.
Wherefore, accused Pablito Andaya y Reano is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is therefore sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay the costs of this action. The 0.09 gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride subject of this case is confiscated and directed to be proceeded against pursuant to
law.
The accused may be credited with his preventive imprisonment if he is entitled to any.
SO ORDERED.6
Decision of the CA
In his appeal, Andaya contended:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT'S SEARCH AND ARREST AS ILLEGAL.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAIL URE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.7
On February 11, 2008, the CA promulgated its assailed decision affirming the conviction,8 viz:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of Branch IV,
RTC, Fourth Judicial Region, Batangas City, in Criminal Case No. 12771 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.9
Issues
Hence, Andaya appeals, insisting that the search of his house and his person and his arrest by the
police officers violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and
that the Prosecution's nonpresentation of the confidential informant was adverse to the
Prosecution, indicating that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
To secure the conviction of the accused who is charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
as defined and punished by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002), the State must establish the concurrence of the following elements, namely:
(a) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur buyer; and ( b) that
the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the
corpus delicti.10

We reiterate that a buy-bust operation is a valid and legitimate form of entrapment of the drug
pusher.11 In such operation, the poseur buyer transacts with the suspect by purchasing a quantity
of the dangerous drug and paying the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug pusher turns over or
delivers the dangerous drug subject of their agreement in exchange for the price or other
consideration. Once the transaction is consummated, the drug pusher is arrested, and can be held
to account under the criminal law. The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the buy-bust
operation is that the suspect is arrested in jlagranti delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed,
or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence of the
arresting police officer or private person.12 The arresting police officer or private person is
favored in such instance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In every criminal prosecution, it is the
State, and no other, that bears the burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond
reasonable doubt.13 This responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence until and unless the
presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome by sufficient and competent
evidence.14
Here, the confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated to be the poseur
buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on the basis
of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the
members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had been consummated between the poseur
buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not present the confidential informant/poseur buyer
during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had taken place.
There would have been no issue against that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust
team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer due to
their being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the
supposed transaction.
The CA did not find anything wrong or odd in the non-presentation of the poseur buyer as a
witness against the accused. In fact, it justified the non-presentation as follows:
Appellant also questioned the failure of the prosecution to present the informer. The court is
aware of the considerations why confidential informants are usually not presented by the
prosecution. There is the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the
police. (People v. Khor, 307 SCRA 295 [1999], citing People v. Gireng, 241 SCRA 11 [1995].)
Foremost is the desire to protect them from being objects or targets of revenge by the criminals
they implicate once they become known. (People vs. Ong, G.R. No. 137348, June 21, 2004.)
In People vs Lopez (214 SCRA 323), it was held that there was no need for the prosecution to
present the confidential informer as the poseur buyer himself positively identified the accused as
the one who sold to him one deck of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu." The trial court
then properly relied on the testimonies of the police officers despite the decision of the
prosecution not to present the informer.15
The foregoing justification by the CA was off-tangent and does not help the State's cause
any.1wphi1 It is obvious that the rulings cited to supp01i the need to conceal the confidential
infonnants' identities related to the confidential informants who gave information against
suspected drug dealers. The presentation of the confidential informants as witnesses for the
Prosecution in those instances could be excused because there were poseur buyers who directly
incriminated the accused. In this case, however, it was different, because the poseur buyer and
the confidential informant were one and the same. Without the poseur buyer's testimony, the
State did not credibly incriminate Andaya.
Indeed, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 punishes "any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless

of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions." Under
the law, selling was any act "of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical whether for money or any other consideration;"16 while delivering was any
act "of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any
means, with or without consideration."17 Given the legal characterizations of the acts
constituting the offense charged, the members of the buy-bust team could not incriminate
Andaya by simply declaring that they had seen from their positions the poseur buyer handing
something to Andaya who, in turn, gave something to the poseur buyer. If the transaction was a
sale, it was unwarranted to infer from such testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team that
what the poseur buyer handed over were the marked P100.00 bills and that what Andaya gave to
the poseur buyer was the shabu purchased.
Another mark of suspicion attending the evidence of guilt related to the reliance by the members
of the buy-bust team on the pre-arranged signal from the poseur buyer. To start with, the record
does not show what the prearranged signal consisted of. It is fundamental enough to expect the
State to be clear and definite about its evidence of guilt, particularly here where the conviction of
Andaya would require him to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. Nothing less should
be done here. Secondly, the reliance on the supposed signal to establish the consummation of the
transaction between the poseur buyer and Andaya was unwarranted because the unmitigatedly
hearsay character of the signal rendered it entirely bereft of trustworthiness. The arresting
members of the buy-bust team interpreted the signal from the anonymous poseur buyer as the
sign of the consummation of the transaction. Their interpretation, being necessarily subjective
without the testimony of the poseur buyer, unfairly threatened the liberty of Andaya. We should
not allow that threat to perpetuate itself. And, lastly, the reliance on the signal would deprive
Andaya the right to confront and test the credibility of the poseur buyer who supposedly gave it.
We should look at the situation of Andaya with utmost caution because of what our judicial
experience through the years has told us about unscrupulous lawmen resorting to stratagems of
false incrimination in order to arrest individuals they target for ulterior reasons. In this case, the
arrest did not emanate from probable cause, for the formless signal from the anonymous poseur
buyer did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.1wphi1
In affirming the RTC's conviction of the accused, the CA observed that the defense of frame-up
put up by the accused was discredited by the absence of proof of "any intent on the paii of the
police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty stands."18 Such outright rejection by the lower courts of
Andaya's defense of frame-up is not outrightly binding. For sure, the frame-up defense has been
commonly used in prosecutions based on buy-bust operations that have led to the an-est of the
suspects.19 Its use might be seen as excessive, but the failure of the accused to impute any ill
motives to falsely incriminate them should not deter us from scrutinizing the circumstances of
the cases brought to us for review. We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the
accused committed the crimes they have been charged with. The State must fully establish that
for us. If the imputation of ill motive to the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them, then
that would be the end of our dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests and
wrongful incriminations. We are aware that there have been in the past many cases of false
arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that should heighten our resolve to strengthen the
ramparts of judicial scrutiny.
Nor should we shirk from our responsibility of protecting the liberties of our citizenry just
because the lawmen are shielded by the presumption of the regularity of their performance of
duty. The presumed regularity is nothing but a purely evidentiary tool intended to avoid the
impossible and time-consuming task of establishing every detail of the performance by officials
and functionaries of the Government. Conversion by no means defeat the much stronger and
much firmer presumption of innocence in favor of every person whose life, property and liberty
comes under the risk of forfeiture on the strength of a false accusation of committing some
crime.20 The criminal accusation against a person must be substantiated by proof beyond

reasonable doubt. The Court should steadfastly safeguard his right to be presumed innocent.
Although his innocence could be doubted, for his reputation in his community might not be lilywhite or lustrous, he should not fear a conviction for any crime, least of all one as grave as drug
pushing, unless the evidence against him was clear, competent and beyond reasonable doubt.
Otherwise, the presumption of innocence in his favor would be rendered empty.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on February
11, 2008; ACQUITS accused Pablito Andaya y Reano for failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate release from confinement at the National
Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City.
The Court DIRECTS that the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to implement the immediate
release of Pablito Andaya y Reano, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause; and to report
his compliance within ten days from receipt.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
2 Records, p. 1.
3 Id. at 17-18.
4 Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5 CA rollo, pp. 36-42.
6 Id. at 40-42.

7 Id. at 23.
8 Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, with the
concurrence of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a Member of the Comi)
and Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza.
9 CA rollo, p. 93.
10 People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123, 130; People v.
Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 303.
11 People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 159, 173.
12 Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
xxxx
13 People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 233, 242-243.
14 People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 207.
15 Rollo, p. 7.
16 Section 3 (Definitions), ii, of Republic Act No. 9165.
17 Section 3 (Definitions), k, of Republic Act No. 9165.
18 Rollo, p. 9.
19 Cacao v. People, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010, 610 SCRA 636, 650.
20 People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185175, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 233, 252.