4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

SECONDDIVISION

JUNIEMALLILLINY.LOPEZ,G.R.No.172953
Petitioner,

Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,
versusChairperson,
CARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,JR.,and
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,BRION,JJ.
Respondent.
Promulgated:

April30,2008

xx

DECISION

TINGA,J.:

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome
overcometheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocence.Evidenceofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt
and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by
bestowing distrust on the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his
culpability.

[1]
InthisPetitionforReview underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,JunieMalillinyLopez
[2]
(petitioner)assailstheDecision of the Court ofAppeals dated 27 January 2006 as well as its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

1/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

[3]
Resolution dated30May2006denyinghismotionforreconsideration.Thechallengeddecision
[4]
[5]
has affirmed the Decision of the RegionalTrial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon City, Branch 52
whichfoundpetitionerguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofillegalpossessionofmethamphetamine
hydrochloride,locallyknownasshabu,aprohibiteddrug.

Theantecedentfactsfollow.

[6]
Onthestrengthofawarrant ofsearchandseizureissuedbytheRTCofSorsogonCity,Branch
52,ateamoffivepoliceofficersraidedtheresidenceofpetitionerinBarangayTugos, Sorsogon
Cityon4February2003.TheteamwasheadedbyP/Insp.CatalinoBolanos(Bolanos),withPO3
RobertoEsternon(Esternon),SPO1PedroDocot,SPO1DaniloLasalaandSPO2RomeoGallinera
(Gallinera)asmembers.Thesearchconductedinthepresenceofbarangaykagawad

DelfinLicupaswellaspetitionerhimself,hiswifeSheilaandhismother,Normaallegedlyyielded
two(2)plasticsachetsofshabuandfive(5)emptyplasticsachetscontainingresidualmorselsof
thesaidsubstance.

[7]
Accordingly,petitionerwaschargedwithviolationofSection11, ArticleIIofRepublic
Act No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in a
criminalinformationwhoseinculpatoryportionreads:

Thatonoraboutthe4thdayofFebruary2003,atabout8:45inthemorninginBarangay
Tugos,SorsogonCity,Philippines,thesaidaccuseddidthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) plastic sachets of
methamphetaminehydrochloride[or]shabuwithanaggregateweightof0.0743gram,andfour
empty sachets containing shabu residue, without having been previously authorized by law to
possessthesame.

[8]
CONTRARYTOLAW.

[9]
Petitioner entered a negative plea. At the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented
Bolanos,ArroyoandEsternonaswitnesses.

Taking the witness stand, Bolanos, the leader of the raiding team, testified on the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

2/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

circumstancessurroundingthesearchasfollows:thatheandhismenwereallowedentryintothe
housebypetitionerafterthelatterwasshownthesearchwarrantthatuponenteringthepremises,
he ordered Esternon and barangay kagawad Licup, whose assistance had previously been
requested in executing the warrant, to conduct the search that the rest of the police team
positionedthemselvesoutsidethehousetomakesurethatnobodyfleesthathewasobservingthe
conductofthesearchfromaboutameterawaythatthesearchconductedinsidethebedroomof
petitioner yielded five empty plastic sachets with suspected shabu residue contained in a denim
bagandkeptinoneofthecabinets,andtwoplasticsachetscontainingshabuwhichfellofffrom
one of the pillows searched by Esternona discovery that was made in the presence of petitioner.
[10]
Oncrossexamination,Bolanosadmittedthatduringthesearch,hewasexplainingitsprogress
to petitioners mother, Norma, but that at the same time his eyes were fixed on the search being
[11]
conductedbyEsternon.

Esternontestifiedthatthedenimbagcontainingtheemptyplasticsachetswasfoundbehind
thedoorofthebedroomandnotinsidethecabinetthathethenfoundthetwofilledsachetsunder
[12]
apillowonthebedandforthwithcalledonGallineratohavetheitemsrecordedandmarked.
Oncross,headmittedthatitwashealonewhoconductedthesearchbecauseBolanoswasstanding
behindhiminthelivingroomportionofthehouseandthatpetitionerhandedtohimthethingsto
[13]
besearched,whichincludedthepillowinwhichthetwosachetsofshabuwerekept
that he
[14]
broughttheseizeditemstotheBalogoPoliceStationforatrueinventory,thentothetrialcourt
[15]
andthereaftertothelaboratory.

Supt.LorlieArroyo(Arroyo),theforensicchemistwhoadministeredtheexaminationonthe
seizeditems,waspresentedasanexpertwitnesstoidentifytheitemssubmittedtothelaboratory.
Sherevealedthatthetwofilledsachetswerepositiveofshabuandthatofthefiveemptysachets,
[16]
fourwerepositiveofcontainingresidueofthesamesubstance.
She further admitted that all
sevensachetsweredeliveredtothelaboratorybyEsternonintheafternoonofthesamedaythat
the warrant was executed except that it was not she but rather a certain Mrs. Ofelia Garcia who
[17]
receivedtheitemsfromEsternonatthelaboratory.

Theevidenceforthedefensefocusedontheirregularityofthesearchandseizureconducted
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

3/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

by the police operatives. Petitioner testified that Esternon began the search of the bedroom with
Licup and petitioner himself inside. However, it was momentarily interrupted when one of the
policeofficersdeclaredtoBolanosthatpetitionerswife,Sheila,wastuckingsomethinginsideher
underwear.Forthwith,aladyofficerarrivedtoconductthesearchofSheilasbodyinsidethesame
bedroom.Atthatpoint,everyoneexceptEsternonwasaskedtostepoutoftheroom.So,itwasin
his presence that Sheila was searched by the lady officer. Petitioner was then asked by a police
officertobuy

cigarettes at a nearby store and when he returned from the errand, he was told that nothing was
[18]
foundonSheilasbody.
Sheilawasorderedtotransfertotheotherbedroomtogetherwithher
[19]
children.

Petitionerassertedthatonhisreturnfromtheerrand,hewassummonedbyEsternontothe
bedroomandonceinside,theofficerclosedthedoorandaskedhimtoliftthemattressonthebed.
And as he was doing as told, Esternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion of the
headboard. In that instant, Esternon showed him sachet of shabu which according to him came
[20]
from a pillow on the bed.
Petitioners account in its entirety was corroborated in its material
respectsbyNorma,barangay kagawad Licup and Sheila in their testimonies. Norma and Sheila
positivelydeclaredthatpetitionerwasnotinthehousefortheentiredurationofthesearchbecause
atonepointhewassentbyEsternontothestoretobuycigaretteswhileSheilawasbeingsearched
[21]
bytheladyofficer.
Licupforhisparttestifiedonthecircumstancessurroundingthediscovery
oftheplasticsachets.Herecountedthatafterthefiveemptysachetswerefound,hewentoutofthe
bedroomandintothelivingroomandafteraboutthreeminutes,Esternon,whowasleftinsidethe
[22]
bedroom,exclaimedthathehadjustfoundtwofilledsachets.

On 20 June 2004 the trial court rendered its Decision declaring petitioner guilty beyond
reasonabledoubtoftheoffensecharged.Petitionerwascondemnedtoprisonfortwelveyears(12)
[23]
andone(1)daytotwenty(20)yearsandtopayafineofP300,000.00.
Thetrialcourtreasoned
that the fact that shabu was found in the house of petitioner was prima facie evidence of
petitionersanimuspossidendisufficienttoconvicthimofthechargeinasmuchasthingswhicha
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

4/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

personpossessesoroverwhichheexercisesactsofownershiparepresumptivelyownedbyhim.It
alsonotedpetitionersfailuretoascribeillmotivestothepoliceofficerstofabricatechargesagainst
[24]
him.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Notice ofAppeal.

[25]
[26]
In hisAppeal Brief
filed with the

CourtofAppeals,petitionercalledtheattentionofthecourttocertainirregularitiesinthemanner
bywhichthesearchofhishousewasconducted.Foritspart,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral
(OSG)advancedthatonthecontrary,theprosecutionevidencesufficedforpetitionersconviction
andthatthedefenseneveradvancedanyprooftoshowthatthemembersoftheraidingteamwas
improperlymotivatedtohurlfalsechargesagainsthimandhencethepresumptionthattheyhad
[27]
regularlyperformedtheirdutiesshouldprevail.

On 27 January 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming the
judgmentofthetrialcourtbutmodifyingtheprisonsentencetoanindeterminatetermoftwelve
[28]
(12) years as minimum to seventeen (17) years as maximum.
Petitioner moved for
[29]
reconsideration but the same was denied by the appellate court.
Hence, the instant petition
whichraisessubstantiallythesameissues.

[30]
InitsComment,
theOSGbidstoestablishthattheraidingteamhadregularlyperformed
[31]
its duties in the conduct of the search.
It points to petitioners incredulous claim that he was
framedupbyEsternononthegroundthatthediscoveryofthetwofilledsachetswasmadeinhis
and Licups presence. It likewise notes that petitioners bare denial cannot defeat the positive
assertions of the prosecution and that the same does not suffice to overcome the prima facie
existenceofanimuspossidendi.

Thisargument,however,hardlyholdsuptowhatisrevealedbytherecords.

Prefatorily,althoughthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactareentitledtogreatweightandwillnot
be disturbed on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been
[32]
overlooked,misapprehendedormisappliedinacaseunderappeal.
Inthecaseatbar,several
circumstances obtain which, if properly appreciated, would warrant a conclusion different from
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

5/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

thatarrivedatbythetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals.

Prosecutionsforillegalpossessionofprohibiteddrugsnecessitatesthattheelementalactof
possessionofaprohibitedsubstancebeestablishedwithmoralcertainty,togetherwiththefactthat
thesameisnotauthorizedbylaw.Thedangerousdrugitselfconstitutestheverycorpusdelictiof
[33]
theoffenseandthefactofitsexistenceisvitaltoajudgmentofconviction.
Essentialtherefore
[34]
inthesecasesisthattheidentityoftheprohibiteddrugbeestablishedbeyonddoubt.
Bethatas
itmay,themerefactofunauthorizedpossessionwillnotsufficetocreateinareasonablemindthe
moralcertaintyrequiredtosustainafindingofguilt.Morethanjustthefactofpossession,thefact
that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as
exhibitmustalsobeestablishedwiththesameunwaveringexactitudeasthatrequisitetomakea
finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
[35]
unnecessarydoubtsconcerningtheidentityoftheevidenceareremoved.

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admissionofanexhibitbeprecededbyevidencesufficienttosupportafindingthatthematterin
[36]
questioniswhattheproponentclaimsittobe.
Itwouldincludetestimonyabouteverylinkin
thechain,fromthemomenttheitemwaspickeduptothetimeitisofferedintoevidence,insucha
way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received,whereitwasandwhathappenedtoitwhileinthewitnesspossession,theconditionin
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
Thesewitnesseswouldthendescribetheprecautionstakentoensurethattherehadbeennochange
intheconditionoftheitemandnoopportunityforsomeonenotinthechaintohavepossessionof
[37]
thesame.

Whiletestimonyaboutaperfectchainisnotalwaysthestandardbecauseitisalmostalways
impossibletoobtain,anunbrokenchainofcustodybecomesindispensableandessentialwhenthe
itemofrealevidenceisnotdistinctiveandisnotreadilyidentifiable,orwhenitsconditionatthe
[38]
timeoftestingortrialiscritical,orwhenawitnesshasfailedtoobserveitsuniqueness.
The
same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
[39]
[40]
contamination
and even substitution and exchange.
In other words, the exhibits level of
susceptibilitytofungibility,alterationortamperingwithoutregardtowhetherthesameisadvertent
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

6/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

orotherwisenotdictatesthelevelofstrictnessintheapplicationofthechainofcustodyrule.

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest
whentheexhibitissmallandisonethathasphysicalcharacteristicsfungibleinnatureandsimilar
[41]
[42]
informtosubstancesfamiliartopeopleintheirdailylives.
Graham vs. State
positively
acknowledgedthisdanger.Inthatcasewhereasubstancelateranalyzedasheroinwashandledby
twopoliceofficerspriortoexaminationwhohoweverdidnottestifyincourtontheconditionand
whereaboutsoftheexhibitatthetimeitwasintheirpossessionwasexcludedfromtheprosecution
evidence,thecourtpointingoutthatthewhitepowderseizedcouldhavebeenindeedheroinorit
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,
[43]
testimonyofthestateastothelaboratorysfindingsisinadmissible.

Auniquecharacteristicofnarcoticsubstancesisthattheyarenotreadilyidentifiableasin
fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court
cannotreluctantlycloseitseyestothelikelihood,oratleastthepossibility,thatatanyofthelinks
inthechainofcustodyoverthesametherecouldhavebeentampering,alterationorsubstitutionof
substances from other casesby accident or otherwisein which similar evidence was seized or in
whichsimilarevidencewassubmittedforlaboratorytesting.Hence,inauthenticatingthesame,a
standardmorestringentthanthatappliedtocasesinvolvingobjectswhicharereadilyidentifiable
mustbeapplied,amoreexactingstandardthatentailsachainofcustodyoftheitemwithsufficient
completenessifonlytorenderitimprobablethattheoriginalitemhaseitherbeenexchangedwith
anotherorbeencontaminatedortamperedwith.

Amerefleetingglanceattherecordsreadilyraisessignificantdoubtsastotheidentityof
thesachetsofshabuallegedlyseizedfrompetitioner.Ofthepeoplewhocameintodirectcontact
withtheseizedobjects,onlyEsternonandArroyotestifiedforthespecificpurposeofestablishing
theidentityoftheevidence.Gallinera,towhomEsternonsupposedlyhandedovertheconfiscated
sachetsforrecordingandmarking,aswellasGarcia,thepersontowhomEsternondirectlyhanded
overtheseizeditemsforchemicalanalysisatthecrimelaboratory,werenotpresentedincourtto
establish the circumstances under which they handled the subject items. Any reasonable mind
might then ask the question:Are the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from petitioner the very
sameobjectslaboratorytestedandofferedincourtasevidence?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

7/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

Theprosecutionsevidenceisincompletetoprovideanaffirmativeanswer.Consideringthat
it was Gallinera who recorded and marked the seized items, his testimony in court is crucial to
affirmwhethertheexhibitswerethesameitemshandedovertohimbyEsternonattheplaceof
seizureandacknowledgetheinitialsmarkedthereonashisown.ThesameistrueofGarciawho
couldhave,butneverthelessfailed,totestifyonthecircumstancesunderwhichshereceivedthe
items from Esternon, what she did with them during the time they were in her possession until
beforeshedeliveredthesametoArroyoforanalysis.

Theprosecutionwasthusunsuccessfulindischargingitsburdenofestablishingtheidentity
oftheseizeditemsbecauseitfailedtooffernotonlythetestimonyofGallineraandGarciabutalso
any sufficient explanation for such failure. In effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the
integrity of the exhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the
exhibits,whichcannotbutinuretoitsowndetriment.Thisholdstruenotonlywithrespecttothe
twofilledsachetsbutalsotothefivesachetsallegedlycontainingmorselsofshabu.

Also,contrarytowhathasbeenconsistentlyclaimedbytheprosecutionthatthesearchand
seizurewasconductedinaregularmannerandmustbepresumedtobeso,therecordsdisclosea
seriesofirregularitiescommittedbythepoliceofficersfromthecommencementofthesearchof
petitionershouseuntilthesubmissionoftheseizeditemstothelaboratoryforanalysis.TheCourt
takesnoteoftheunrebuttedtestimonyofpetitioner,corroboratedbythatofhiswife,thatpriorto
thediscoveryofthetwofilledsachetspetitionerwassentoutofhishousetobuycigarettesata
nearbystore.EquallytellingisthetestimonyofBolanos that he posted some of the members of
the raiding team at the door of petitioners house in order to forestall the likelihood of petitioner
fleeingthescene.Bynostretchoflogiccanitbeconclusivelyexplainedwhypetitionerwassent
outofhishouseonanerrandwheninthefirstplacethepoliceofficerswereinfactapprehensive
that he would flee to evade arrest. This fact assumes prime importance because the two filled
sachetswereallegedlydiscoveredbyEsternonimmediatelyafterpetitionerreturnedtohishouse
fromtheerrand,suchthathewasnotabletowitnesstheconductofthesearchduringthebriefbut
crucialinterludethathewasaway.

Itisalsostrangethat,asclaimedbyEsternon,itwaspetitionerhimselfwhohandedtohim
the items to be searched including the pillow from which the two filled sachets allegedly fell.
Indeed,itiscontrarytoordinaryhumanbehaviorthatpetitionerwouldhandoverthesaidpillowto
Esternon knowing fully well that illegal drugs are concealed therein. In the same breath, the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

8/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

mannerbywhichthesearchofSheilasbodywasbroughtupbyamemberoftheraidingteamalso
raisesseriousdoubtsastothenecessitythereof.Thedeclarationofoneofthepoliceofficersthat
hesawSheilatucksomethinginherunderwearcertainlydivertedtheattentionofthemembersof
petitionershouseholdawayfromthesearchbeingconductedbyEsternonpriortothediscoveryof
the two filled sachets. Lest it be omitted, the Court likewise takes note of Esternons suspicious
presence in the bedroom while Sheila was being searched by a lady officer. The confluence of
these circumstances by any objective standard of behavior contradicts the prosecutions claim of
regularityintheexerciseofduty.

[44]
Moreover, Section 21
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165
clearly outlines the postseizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In a language too
plain to require a different construction, it mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of
drugs under a search warrant must conduct the photographing and the physical inventory of the
itemattheplacewherethewarranthasbeenserved.Esternondeviatedfromthisprocedure.Itwas
elicitedfromhimthatatthecloseofthesearchofpetitionershouse,hebroughttheseizeditems
immediatelytothepolicestationfortheallegedpurposeofmakingatrueinventorythereof,but
thereappearstobenoreasonwhyatrueinventorycouldnotbemadeinpetitionershousewhenin
fact the apprehending team was able to record and mark the seized items and there and then
prepareaseizurereceipttherefor.Lestitbeforgotten,theraidingteamhashadenoughopportunity
tocausetheissuanceofthewarrantwhichmeansthatithashadasmuchtimetoprepareforits
implementation. While the final proviso in Section 21 of the rules would appear to excuse non
compliancetherewith,thesamecannotbenefittheprosecutionasitfailedtoofferanyacceptable
justificationforEsternonscourseofaction.

Likewise,Esternonsfailuretodelivertheseizeditemstothecourtdemonstratesadeparture
fromthedirectiveinthesearchwarrantthattheitemsseizedbeimmediatelydeliveredtothetrial
[45]
[46]
courtwithatrueandverifiedinventoryofthesame,
asrequiredbyRule126,Section12
[47]
oftheRulesofCourt. People v. Go
characterized this requirement as mandatory in order to
[48]
preclude the substitution of or tampering with said items by interested parties.
Thus, as a
[49]
reasonable safeguard, People vs. Del Castillo
declared that the approval by the court which
issued the search warrant is necessary before police officers can retain the property seized and
without it, they would have no authority to retain possession thereof and more so to deliver the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

9/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

[50]
sametoanotheragency.
Meretolerancebythetrialcourtofacontrarypracticedoesnotmake
thepracticerightbecauseitisviolativeofthemandatoryrequirementsofthelawanditthereby
[51]
defeatstheverypurposefortheenactment.

Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon from the standard and normal
procedureintheimplementationofthewarrantandintakingpostseizurecustodyoftheevidence,
theblindreliancebythetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsonthepresumptionofregularityin
theconductofpolicedutyismanifestlymisplaced.The presumption of regularity is merely just
thatamerepresumptiondisputablebycontraryproofandwhichwhenchallengedbytheevidence
[52]
cannotberegardedasbindingtruth.
Sufficeittosaythatthispresumptioncannotpreponderate
over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable
[53]
doubt.
In the present case the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly
seizedfrompetitioner,coupledwiththeirregularityinthemannerbywhichthesamewereplaced
underpolicecustodybeforeofferedincourt,stronglymilitatesafindingofguilt.

Inourconstitutionalsystem,basicandelementaryisthepresuppositionthattheburdenof
provingtheguiltofanaccusedliesontheprosecutionwhichmustrelyonthestrengthofitsown
evidenceandnotontheweaknessofthedefense.Theruleisinvariablewhatevermay

bethereputationoftheaccused,forthelawpresumeshisinnocenceunlessanduntilthecontrary
[54]
is shown.
In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance,
acquittalonreasonabledoubtinevitablybecomesamatterofright.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27 January 2006
affirmingwithmodificationthejudgmentofconvictionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof Sorsogon
City, Branch 52, and its Resolution dated 30 May 2006 denying reconsideration thereof, are
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.PetitionerJunieMalillinyLopezisACQUITTEDonreasonable
doubtandisaccordinglyorderedimmediatelyreleasedfromcustodyunlessheisbeinglawfully
heldforanotheroffense.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to implement this Decision and to
reporttothisCourttheactiontakenhereonwithinfive(5)daysfromreceipt.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

10/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

SOORDERED.

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESPRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

11/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
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
CourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.822.

[2]
InCAG.R.No.28915.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRenatoC.Dacudao and concurred in byAssociate Justices Lucas P.
BersaminandCeliaC.LibreaLeagogo.CArollo,pp.8190.

[3]
Id.at109.

[4]
InCriminalCaseNo.20035844.Records,pp.114119.

[5]
PresidedbyJudgeHonestoA.Villamor.

[6]
Records,pp.1112.

[7]
Sec.11.PossessionofDangerousDrugs.The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousandpesos(P500,000.00)toTenmillionpesos(P10,000,000.00)shallbeimposeduponanyperson,who,unlessauthorizedbylaw,
shallpossessanydangerousdruginthefollowingquantities,regardlessofthedegreeofpuritythereof

(1)10gramsormoreofopium
(2)10gramsormoreofmorphine
(3)10gramsormoreofheroin
(4)10gramsormoreofcocaineorcocainehydrochloriede
(5)50gramsormoreofmethamphetaminehydrochlorideorshabu
(6)10gramsormoreofmarijuanaresinormarijuanaresinoil
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

12/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

(7)500gramsormoreofmarijuanaand
(8)10gramsormoreofotherdangerousdrugssuchas,butnotlimitedto,methylenedioxymethamphetamine(MDMA)
or ecstasy, paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD),
gammahydroxybutyrate(GHB),andthosesimilarlydesignedornewlyintroduceddrugsandtheirderivatives,without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and
promulgatedbytheBoardinaccordancetoSection93,ArticleXIofthisAct.

Otherwise,ifthequantityinvolvedislessthantheforegoingquantities,thepenaltiesshallbegraduatedasfollows:

(1)LifeimprisonmentandafinerangingfromFourhundredthousandpesos(P400,000.00)toFivehundredthousand
pesos(P500,000.00),ifthequantityofmethamphetaminehydrochlorideorshabuisten(10)gramsormorebutlessthan
fifty(50)grams

(2) Imprisonmentoftwenty(20)yearsandone(1)daytolifeimprisonmentandafinerangingfromFourhundred
thousandpesos(P400,000.00)toFivehundredthousandpesos(P500,000.00),ifthequantitiesofdangerousdrugs
are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride,marijuanaresinormarijuanaresinoil,methamphetaminehydrochlorideorshabu,orotherdangerous
drugssuchas,butnotlimitedto,MDMAorecstasy,PMA,TMA,LSD,GHB,andthosesimilarlydesignedornewly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far
beyondtherapeuticrequirementsorthreehundred(300)gramsormorebutlessthanfivehundred(500)gramsor
marijuanaand

(3) Imprisonmentoftwelve(12yearsandone(1)daytotwenty(20)yearsandafinerangingfromThreehundred
thousandpesos(P300,000.00)toFourhundredthousandpesos(P400,000.00),ifthequantitiesofdangerousdrugs
are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuanaresinoil,methamphetaminehydrochlorideorshabu,orotherdangerousdrugssuchas,butnotlimitedto,
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
requirementsorlessthanthreehundred(300)gramsofmarijuana.

[8]
Records,p.2.

[9]
Id.at41,43.

[10]
TSN,22April2003,pp.69.

[11]
Id.at1516.

[12]
TSN,23July2003,pp.67,10.

[13]
Id.at1617.

[14]
TSN,23July2003,pp.1315.

[15]
Id.at9.

[16]
TSN, 28 May 2003, p. 14. The results of the chemical analysis are embodied in Chemistry Report No. D03703. See
records,p.18.

[17]
Id.at3.

[18]
TSN,2December2003,pp.610.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

13/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

[19]
Id.at13.

[20]
Id.at1112.

[21]
TSN,11November2003,p.3TSN,23March2004,p.4.

[22]
TSN,4February2004,pp.45,9.

[23]
Records,p.119.Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Junie Malillin y Lopez guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as the
ComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002andheisherebysentence[d]tosufferthepenaltyofTwelve(12)
yearsandone(1)daytoTwenty(20)yearsandfineofP300,000.00.

Theshaburecoveredisherebyorderedforfeitedinfavorofthegovernmentandthesameshallbeturned
overtotheBoardforproperdisposalwithoutdelay.

SOORDERED.

[24]
Id.at117118.

[25]
Id.at121.

[26]
CArollo,pp.3547.

[27]
Id.at6573.

[28]
Id.at89.TheCourtofAppealsdisposedoftheappealasfollows:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the
judgmentappealedfromisherebyAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONinthesensethattheaccusedappellantis
herebysentencedtosufferanindeterminateprisontermrangingfromtwelve(12)years,asminimum,toseventeen
(17)yearsasmaximum.Inallotherrespects,thejudgmentappealedfromisherebyMAINTAINED.Costsagainst
accusedappellant.

SOORDERED.

[29]
Id.at109.

[30]
Rollo,pp.102112.

[31]
Id.at107.

[32]
Peoplev.Pedronan,G.R.No.148668,17June2003,404SCRA183,188Peoplev.Casimiro,G.R.No.146277,20June
2002,383SCRA390,398Peoplev.Laxa,G.R.No.138501,20July2001,361SCRA622,627.

[33]
Peoplev.Simbahon,G.R.No.132371,9April2003,401SCRA94,100 Peoplev.Laxa,G.R.No.138501,20July2001,
361SCRA622,634Peoplev.DismukePeoplev.Mapa
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

14/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

[34]
Peoplev.Simbahon,G.R.No.132371,9April2003,401SCRA94,100 Peoplev.Kimura,G.R.No.130805,27April
2004,428SCRA51,70.

[35]
AnAnalyticalApprocahtoEvidence,RonadJ.Allen,RichardB.Kuhns,byLittleBrown&Co.,USA,1989,p.174.

[36]
UnitedStatesv.HowardArias,679F.2d363,366UnitedStatesv.Ricco,52F.3d58.

[37]
EVIDENCELAW,ROGERC.PARK,DAVIDP.LEONARD,STEVENH.GOLDBERG,1998,610OPPERMANDRIVE,
ST.PAULMINNESOTA,p.507.

[38]
EVIDENCELAW,ROGERC.PARK,DAVIDP.LEONARD,STEVENH.GOLDBERG,1998,610OPPERMANDRIVE,
ST.PAULMINNESOTA,p.50729AAM.JUR.2DEVIDENCE946.

[39]
29AAM.JUR.2dEvidence946.

[40]
SeeGrahamv.State,255N.E.2d652,655.

[41]
Grahamv.State,255N.E2d652,655.

[42]
Grahamv.State,255N.E2d652.

[43]
Grahamv.State,255N.E2d652,655.

[44]
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
DangerousDrugs,ControlledPrecursorsandessentialChemicals,Instruments/Paraphernaliaand/orLaboratoryEquipment.xxx

(a) Theapprehendingofficer/teamhavinginitialcustodyandcontrolofthedrugsshall,immediately
afterseizureandconfiscation,physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthepresenceofthe
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representativeorcounsel,arepresentativefromthemediaandtheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ),and
anyelectedpublicofficialwhoshallberequiredtosignthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivena
copythereof:Providedthatthephysicalinventoryandphotographshallbeconductedattheplace
wherethesearchwarrantisservedoratthenearestpolicestationoratthenearestofficeoftheof
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures
Provided,further,thatnoncompliancewiththeserequirementsunderjustifiablegrounds,aslongas
theintegrityandtheevidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditemsareproperlypreservedbytheapprehending
officer/team,shallnotrendervoidandinvalidsuchseizuresofandcustodyoverthesaiditemsxxx
(emphasisours).

[45]
Records,p.12.

[46]
SEC.12.Deliveryofpropertyandinventorythereoftocourt.Theofficermustforthwithdeliverthepropertyseizedtothe
judgewhoissuedthewarrant,togetherwithatrueinventorythereofdulyverifiedunderoath.

[47]
G.R.No.144639,12September2003,411SCRA81.

[48]
Id.at101.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

15/16

4/18/2016

G.R.No.172953

[49]
G.R.No.153254,20September2004,439SCRA601,citingPeoplev.Gesmundo,219SCRA743(1993).

[50]
Id.at619.

[51]
Peoplev.Gesmundo,G.R.No.89373,9March1993,219SCRA743,753.

[52]
Peoplev.Ambrosio,G.R.No.135378,14April2004,427SCRA312,318citingPeoplev.Tan,382SCRA419(2002).

[53]
Peoplev.Ambrosio,G.R.No.135378,14April2004,427SCRA312,318citingPeoplev.Tan,382SCRA419(2002).

[54]
Peoplev.Laxa,id.at627Peoplev.Diopita,4December2000Peoplev.Malbog,12October2000Peoplev.Ferras,289
SCRA94.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172953.htm

16/16