THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LARRY LAVAPIE, SIMEON LACHANO, ARNOLD BUATES, SANTOS SAN PASCUAL, SR., SANTOS SAN PASCUAL, JR., REY SAN PASCUAL,
BENIGNO CATINA, JR. and SEVERAL DOES, accused.
LARRY LAVAPIE and SANTOS SAN PASCUAL, SR., accused-appellants.
BUENA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated December 16, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 36,2 finding accused-appellants
Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim, Sonny Sierva, jointly and severally, the amount of P7,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as death
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Accused-appellants Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr., together with Simeon Lachano, Arnold Buates, Santos San Pascual, Jr., Rey San
Pascual, Benigno Catina, Jr. and several Does, were charged in an information which reads:
"That on or about the 29th day of March, 1989, at Sitio Tastas, Barangay San Vicente, (Buraburan) Municipality of Buhi, Province of Camarines Sur,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with bolos, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident
premeditation, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and hack with said bolos one Sonny Sierva, thereby inflicting upon the latter [a] mortal wound which directly caused his death, to the
damage and prejudice of his heirs in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), plus other forms of damages that may be proven in court.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."3
Upon their arraignment on October 17, 1989, accused Larry Lavapie and Rey San Pascual pleaded not guilty. 4 Subsequently, or on January 29,
1990, the other accused Benigno Catina. Jr., Santos San Pascual, Sr. and Santos San Pascual, Jr. also pleaded not guilty.5 Accused Simeon
Lachano, likewise, pleaded not guilty on July 16, 1991.6 Accused Arnold Buates remained at large.
At the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses against accused Larry Lavapie, Rey San Pascual, Benigno Catina, Jr., Santos San
Pascual, Sr. and Santos San Pascual, Jr. Dr. Alicia M. Mercurio, Jenny Cordial, Enrico Sierva, Domingo Samonte, Rogelio Sierva and Sgt. Jaime
Patiam. The following witnesses, on the other hand, testified against accused Simeon Lachano Erlinda Sierva and Rogelio Sierva. In their
defense, all of the six (6) accused, who were brought before the jurisdiction of the trial court, testified in court, in addition to Felix Lavapie, Juan
Bongais and Loreto Camasis.
For the prosecution, eyewitness Domingo Samonte testified that on March 29, 1989, at around 11 p.m., he came from the dance hall in San Vicente
with Rogelio Sierva and the victim Sonny Sierva.7 While on their way, Rogelio and Sonny talked with some ladies, then, Rogelio went home ahead,
and left Domingo and Sonny behind.8 While approaching Rogelio's house, Domingo and Sonny noticed a group of persons coming towards them.
Domingo stepped backwards towards Sonny. Sonny focused the flashlight, which he was holding, on accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr.
and accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, who was then holding a bolo. Accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr. suddenly held the hands of Sonny
behind his back, while accused-appellant Larry Lavapie hacked Sonny.9 Domingo testified that Sonny was hit on the neck, the same witness
pointing to the left side of his neck.10 When Sonny fell on the ground, Domingo ran towards some pili trees. Then, Domingo saw two (2) persons, a
boy and a girl, who were following them and holding a torch which they used to lighten the fallen body of Sonny. Domingo, however, was not able to
recognize these two (2) persons. On cross-examination, Domingo testified that when he witnessed the hacking incident, there were other persons
at the scene of the crime but he was not able to recognize them.11 Domingo further recounted that after he saw the hacking incident, he ran
towards the back of a pili tree and stayed there until dawn of the following day.12 At dawn, he proceeded to his house in Buraburan.13 He did not
report the incident to anybody else but a certain friend and his wife. Domingo also admitted that when accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr.
held the hands of Sonny behind the latter's back, he did not tell Santos San Pascual, Sr. to stop but just took a step backwards.14
Jenny Cordial, a 15-year-old ward of Sonny Sierva's aunt, testified that on March 29, 1989, at around 11 p.m., she and Rico Sierva15 came from a
dance in San Vicente, Buraburan and were on their way home when they came upon the body of Sonny Sierva lying on the middle of the road.16
They recognized Sonny Sierva because Cordial was then holding a torch.17 Cordial and Enrico Sierva came upon Sonny Sierva, who was lying
prostrate on the road, with a hack wound on the neck, and was almost beheaded.18 At that instance, Cordial saw accused-appellant Larry Lavapie,
who was holding a bolo, standing at a distance of about five (5) to six (6) meters from the body of Sonny Sierva.19 Aside from accused-appellant
Larry Lavapie, Cordial also saw other persons at the scene of the crime but she was not able to recognize them. Thereafter, Cordial and Enrico
Sierva ran away and went home to inform the father of Sonny Sierva of what happened but they were told by his wife that Rogelio Sierva was also
hacked. Incidentally, while on cross-examination, the prosecutor informed the trial court that Cordial actually grew up under the care of Rogelio
Sierva's sister. Cordial testified on cross-examination that when she and Enrico Sierva saw the body of Sonny Sierva lying on the road, they were
only about one (1) meter away from the body. When they saw accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, he was holding a bolo which was pointed
downwards. Cordial clearly recognized accused-appellant Larry Lavapie because she was then holding a torch. Cordial described the bolo held by
accused-appellant Larry Lavapie as "shiny and sharp," and "clear and clean."20 Cordial also noticed that the other persons, who were at scene of
the crime, were standing still, facing the body of Sonny Sierva, about a meter away from accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, and that some of these
persons were smoking.21 Cordial did not recognize these other persons because according to her "it was dark."22 On further cross-examination,
she estimated these other persons at the scene of the crime to number about seven (7) persons.
Enrico Sierva, 15-year-old cousin of the victim, Sonny Sierva, testified that on March 29, 1989, at around 11 p.m., he and Jenny Cordial came from
a dance in San Vicente, Buhi and were on their way home. Near the house of the victim's father, Rogelio Sierva, they saw a man lying prostrate on
the road. They went closer to the body and saw that the said man sustained a hack wound on the neck. They recognized the man lying on the road
as Sonny Sierva.23 Glancing around, Enrico saw accused-appellant Larry Lavapie holding a bolo and standing by the road with accused-appellant
Santos San Pascual, Sr.24 According to Enrico, both accused-appellants were at a distance of about five (5) to six (6) meters away from him when
he saw them. He also saw other persons at the scene of the crime but he was not able to recognize them because they were in a "dark place."25
Thereafter, he and Jenny Cordial ran towards the house of Rogelio Sierva, located about 30 meters away, and informed Rogelio's wife, Erlinda
Velasco, that her son was lying dead on the road. Erlinda Velasco told them that her husband was also hacked and was being brought to a hospital.
On cross-examination, Enrico Sierva testified that he told his uncle, Rogelio Sierva, that it was the group of accused-appellant Larry Lavapie who
hacked Sonny Sierva,26 and that accused-appellants Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr. were there.27 Enrico further testified that the
torch they were carrying on the night of March 29, 1989 was made of a round bottle of gin.
Dr. Alicia M. Mercurio, Municipal Health Officer of Buhi II, Camarines Sur, conducted the autopsy on the body of Sonny Sierva and prepared an
autopsy report28 dated April 25, 1989, with the following findings:
"Lesions:

"Incised wound at the neck, right side cutting the whole neck structure with a portion of the skin only on the left side holding it in place about 3 in.
long.
"Cause of Death Incised wound, neck (almost whole neck) with secondary hemorrhage (massive)."29
Dr. Mercurio explained that due to the hack wound (or incised wound) sustained by the victim, Sonny Sierva, the victim's head was almost severed
from the body, with only three (3) inches of flesh on the left side of the neck, connecting the neck to the body.30 According to Dr. Mercurio, the hack
wound could have been caused by a sharp instrument like a very sharp bolo. Dr. Mercurio further opined that the victim could have died at around 1
or 2 a.m. of March 30, 1989.
Rogelio Sierva, father of the victim, Sonny Sierva, testified that on March 29, 1989, at around 11 p.m., he came from a dance in Buraburan, San
Vicente, together with his son, Sonny Sierva and his brother-in-law, Felix Buendia.31 On their way home, they passed by the house of a certain
Teresita Gaite, where Sonny Sierva was left behind with his friends. Rogelio and Felix proceeded on their way home. When they were already near
his house, Rogelio saw six (6) of the seven (7) identified accused.32 Rogelio continued to testify that he was hacked on his right ear by accused
Arnold Buates. Rogelio and Felix then ran towards Rogelio's house. When Rogelio was about to open the door of his house, he was hacked on the
right arm by accused Santos San Pascual, Jr. Rogelio then entered the house and got a bolo but his assailants already retreated to the place where
he was first hacked. Thereafter, Rogelio sought the assistance of his brother, Silvestre Sierva, whose house was located about 20 meters away,33
and requested that he be brought to a hospital. On their way to the hospital, they saw Sonny Sierva, who was almost beheaded, lying on the road.
When Rogelio discovered that Sonny was already dead, they proceeded to the San Vicente Assistance Center and reported the hacking incident.
Afterwards, they proceeded to the Mediatrix Hospital where Rogelio was treated for his wounds. Rogelio also testified that he spent more or less
P7,000.00 which he incurred due to the death of Sonny Sierva.34 On cross-examination, Rogelio admitted that he was previously charged for the
attempted rape of the daughter of accused Santos San Pascual, Sr.35
Because accused Simeon Lachano was arrested only after the prosecution had already presented the foregoing witnesses against the five (5) other
accused, the prosecution presented anew, Rogelio Sierva and an additional witness, Erlinda Sierva, to testify against accused Simeon Lachano.
Erlinda Sierva, mother of the victim, Sonny Sierva, testified that she spent less than P10,000.00 as burial and funeral expenses on account of the
death of Sonny Sierva.36
Rogelio Sierva, in testifying against accused Simeon Lachano, merely reiterated his previous testimony against the five (5) other accused.
For the defense, on the other hand, all of the six (6) accused, who were brought before the jurisdiction of the trial court, testified together with Felix
Lavapie, Juan Bongais and Loreto Camasis.
Accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, in his defense, interposed denial and alibi. Lavapie testified that on March 29, 1989, at around 8 p.m., he was at a
dance in San Vicente, Buhi,37 with accused Santos San Pascual, Jr., a certain Santiago Sanorjo and Danny Belardo.38 Lavapie, Santos San
Pascual, Jr., Santiago Sanorjo39 and Danny Belardo left the dance hall at past 11:30 p.m. and went to the barn of Santiago Sanorjo, arriving thereat
at around 1 a.m.40 They slept in the said barn and went to their respective houses on the following day.
Accused Santos San Pascual, Jr. corroborated the testimony of accused-appellant Larry Lavapie that they attended a dance in San Vicente, Buhi.
They left the dance hall at past 12 midnight41 and went to the house of Santiago Sanorjo where they slept until 6 o'clock of the following
morning.42
Juan Bongais testified that in the evening of March 29, 1989, he was at a dance in San Vicente, Buraburan. He arrived at the dance at 7 p.m. and
left at about 12:30 a.m. of the following day.43 He left the dance with Jenny Cordial, Rico Sierva and Liza San Pascual.44 On their way home, they
met Rogelio Sierva who was hacked and being carried by Dionesio Coronel and Felicito Conas. They continued walking for several meters until
they came upon the dead body of Sonny Sierva, lying on the road.45 On cross-examination, Bongais testified that when they were about to leave
the dance at around 12:30 a.m. of March 30, 1989, accused-appellant Larry Lavapie and his co-accused Santos San Pascual, Jr. were still at the
dancing hall.46
Accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr., likewise, claimed denial and alibi. San Pascual, Sr. testified that in the evening of March 29, 1989, he
was resting in his house in sitio Tastas, Labawon, Buhi.47 He slept at 7 p.m. and awoke at 5 o'clock of the following day.48 San Pascual, Sr. further
claimed that Rogelio Sierva, father of the victim, was actuated by ill-motive to implicate him in this crime, i.e., he filed a complaint against Rogelio
for the attempted rape of his daughter, Gina San Pascual.49 On cross-examination, San Pascual, Sr. testified that sitio Labawon is adjacent to
barangay San Vicente.
The three (3) other accused, Rey San Pascual, Simeon Lachano and Benigno Catina, Jr., likewise, interposed denial and alibi in their respective
testimonies before the trial court.
On January 23, 1997, the trial court rendered a Decision dated December 16, 1996, finding accused-appellants Larry Lavapie and Santos San
Pascual, Sr. guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The four (4) other accused, Santos San Pascual, Jr., Rey San Pascual, Benigno Catina, Jr. and
Simeon Lachano were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive part of the said Decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds
"1.
The accused, Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal[s] of the crime of murder defined
and penalized under Article [2]48 of the Revised Penal Code, prior to its amendment by Rep. Act No. 7659, as charged in the information, and there
being no generic aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, [the Court] hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua; to pay, jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased, Sonny Sierva, spouses Rogelio and Erlinda Sierva the following:
a)

P7,000.00 as actual damages,

b)

P50,000.00 as death indemnity,

c)

P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs;

"2.
[T]he [other] accused, Santos San Pascual, Jr., Rey San Pascual, Benigno Catina, Jr., and Simeon Lachano, not guilty of the crime
charged in the information and [the Court] hereby acquits them thereof for insufficiency of evidence. The bonds posted for their provisional liberty
are hereby ordered cancelled and released.
"With respect to the accused, Arnold Buates, who was never brought to the jurisdiction of this [C]ourt, let the records of this case be sent to the
archives to be revived as soon as this [C]ourt acquires jurisdiction over [the] said accused.

"SO ORDERED."50
In convicting accused-appellants, Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr., the trial court relied primarily on the testimony of prosecution witness
Domingo Samonte that accused-appellant Larry Lavapie was the one who hacked Sonny Sierva on the neck with the use of a bolo while accusedappellant Santos San Pascual, Sr. was at the back of Sonny Sierva, holding the latter's hands.51 The trial court also relied heavily on the testimony
of prosecution witness Jenny Cordial that she saw accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, standing about five (5) meters away from the dead body of
Sonny Sierva; and on the testimony of prosecution witness Enrico Sierva that he saw accused-appellants, Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual,
Sr., standing five (5) meters away from the dead body of Sonny Sierva.52 The trial court further maintained that Jenny Cordial's description of
Sonny Sierva's body when they came upon it, lying prostrate on the road, was supported by the medical findings stated in the autopsy report of Dr.
Alicia M. Mercurio.53 The trial court rejected the defenses of denial and alibi raised by accused-appellants, and ruled that denial and alibi cannot
prevail over positive identification, and that accused-appellants' alibi was not corroborated by any credible and disinterested witness.54 In ruling that
the killing was qualified by treachery, the trial court explained that accused-appellants awaited, in ambush, for their victim;"55 and that the
suddenness of the attack on Sonny Sierva and the fact that his hands were being held at his back by accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr.
while he was hacked by accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, rendered him "helpless to put up any defense."56 The trial court also found that
conspiracy attended the commission of the crime, based on the fact that ". . .they [accused-appellants] are related to each other (uncle and
nephew) and from their concerted acts in killing Sonny Sierva."57
On February 3, 1997, accused-appellants filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that prosecution witnesses, Jenny Cordial and Domingo Samonte
retracted their respective testimonies.58 However, in an Order dated March 12, 1997, the trial court denied the foregoing motion, for lack of merit.59
Hence, this appeal.
In their appellant's brief, accused-appellants raise a lone assignment of error:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE RETRACTION OF PROSECUTION WITNESS[ES] JENNY CORDIAL AND DOMINGO
SAMONTE [AS] NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH SHALL JUSTIFY THE HOLDING OF A NEW TRIAL.
We find merit in this appeal.
The conviction of accused-appellants by the trial court was predicated primarily on the testimony of prosecution witness Domingo Samonte who
"positively identified [accused-appellant] Larry Lavapie as the one who hacked Sonny Sierva with a bolo at his neck while accused[-appellant]
Santos San Pascual, Sr., was at the rear of Sonny Sierva, holding his hands;"60 and on the testimonies of the two (2) witnesses who arrived at the
scene of the crime shortly after the hacking incident occurred Jenny Cordial, who "saw accused[-appellant] Larry Lavapie standing about five [5]
meters away from the dead body of Sonny Sierva"61 and Enrico Sierva, who "saw and recognized the same accused[-appellant] Larry Lavapie and
accused[-appellant] Santos San Pascual, Sr., standing [five] 5 meters away from the dead body of Sonny Sierva."62 According to the trial court,
Jenny Cordial's description of the condition of Sonny Sierva's body when they came upon it, ". . . is supported by the medical findings" as stated in
the autopsy report.63 Furthermore, the trial court observed that accused-appellants failed to show "any improper motive on the part of the said
witnesses to falsely testify against them."64
While it is settled to the point of being elementary that on the issue of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings arrived at
by the trial court, which was certainly in a better position to rate the credibility of the witnesses after hearing them and observing their deportment
and manner of testifying during the trial; this rule stands absent any showing that certain facts and circumstances of weight and value have been
overlooked, misinterpreted or misapplied by the trial court which, if considered, would affect the result or outcome of the case.65 After a careful
review of the records of this case, particularly, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the Court finds that significant facts and circumstances
were overlooked and disregarded by the trial court, which, if properly considered, would have affected the result of this case. The records show that
there are strong and cogent reasons that justify a departure from the trial court's findings.
In the case at bar, prosecution eyewitness Domingo Samonte testified that accused-appellant Larry Lavapie suddenly hacked Sonny Sierva, hitting
the latter on his neck; Samonte demonstrated by pointing to the left side of his neck, thus:
"PROSECUTOR:
"Q:

All right. You said Larry Lavapie suddenly hacked Sonny Sierva[,] was Sonny Sierva hit?

[WITNESS DOMINGO SAMONTE]:

"A:

Yes, sir.

"Q:

Where was he hit?

"A:

He was hit on his neck. (Witness pointing to the left side of his neck.)

"Q:

After Sonny Sierva was hacked by Larry Lavapie[,] what happened to Sonny Sierva, Mr. Samonte?

"A:

He fell down, sir."66 (Emphasis supplied.)

The foregoing testimony of Samonte is belied by the physical evidence that the deceased, Sonny Sierva sustained an "incised wound at the neck,
right side cutting the whole neck structure with a portion of the skin only on the left side holding it in place about 3 in. long."67 (Emphasis supplied.)
While Samonte categorically testified that Sonny Sierva was hacked on the neck, at the same time, Samonte demonstrated by pointing to the left
side of his neck; the autopsy report clearly revealed that Sonny Sierva was hacked on the right side of his neck and not on the left side. This
material inconsistency, consequently, casts a serious doubt on the testimony of Samonte. As we have ruled in People vs. Vasquez,68 since the
physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, conclusions as to physical evidence should
prevail. It bears reiteration that physical evidence is that mute but eloquent manifestations of truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy
evidence.69 In the light of the physical evidence obtaining in this case, contrary to oral assertions cannot normally prevail. Greater credence is
given to physical evidence as evidence of the highest order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.70
Moreover, Samonte's claim that on March 29, 1989, at around 11 p.m., he came from the dance hall in San Vicente with Rogelio Sierva and the
victim Sonny Sierva,71 and that while on their way, Rogelio and Sonny talked with some ladies, then, Rogelio went ahead, leaving Domingo and
Sonny behind,72 was even contradicted by Rogelio's (one of Samonte's alleged companions on that fateful night) testimony on two (2) different
instances,73 that on March 29, 1989, at about 11 p.m., he was with his son, Sonny Sierva and his brother-in-law, Felix Buendia,74 without any
reference to the alleged presence of Samonte, thus:
"ROGELIO SIERVA'S FIRST TESTIMONY WHICH WAS TAKEN ON AUGUST 16, 1990:

"PROSECUTOR:
"Q:

Mr. Sierva, on March 29, 1990 [should be 1989] at about 11 o'clock in the evening, where were you?

[WITNESS ROGELIO SIERVA]:

"A:

We came from a dance at Sitio Buraburan, San Vicente, Buhi, Camarines Sur.

"Q:

You said we, who were your companions during that time[,] Mr. Sierva?

"A:

My son Sonny Sierva and my brother-in-law, Felix Buendia.

"Q:
While you together with your late son Sonny Sierva and your brother-in-law Felix Buendia were on your way home from centro Buraburan,
Buhi, Camarines Sur, do you recall of any incident that happened?
"A:

Yes, sir."75 (Emphasis supplied.)

"ROGELIO SIERVA'S SECOND TESTIMONY WHICH WAS TAKEN ON AUGUST 5, 1993:

"PROSECUTOR:
"Q:

Mr. Sierva, where were you on March 29, 1989 at about 11 o'clock in the evening?

[WITNESS ROGELIO SIERVA]:

"A:

I was then at San Vicente, Buraburan, Buhi, Camarines Sur.

"Q:

Why did you happen to be there, Mr. Sierva during the aforesaid date and time?

"A:

I accompanied my son to the dancing hall.

"Q:

Where was this dancing hall?

"A:

At Centro San Vicente, Bura-buran.

"Q:

What were you doing at the aforesaid place during the aforesaid date and time?

"A:

I was watching the dance.

"Q:

Who were with you, if any, during that time, Mr. Sierva?

"A:

My son and my brother-in-law.

"xxx

xxx

xxx"

"Q:

After watching the dance, what did you do, if any?

"A:

We went home.

"Q:

You said "we went home". Who were with you?

"A:

My brother-in-law and my son.

"Q:

What is the name of your brother-in-law?

"A:

Felix Buendia.

"Q:
While you were on your way home together with your brother-in-law and your son Sonny Sierva, do you recall of any incident that
happened, Mr. Sierva?
"A:

Yes, sir."76 (Emphasis supplied.)

Certainly, the foregoing testimonies of Rogelio Sierva, which we find to be consistent on material points, further cast serious doubt on the veracity of
Samonte's testimony.
In addition, we find Samonte's response to the occurrence to be contrary to ordinary human experience and behavior. If indeed Samonte was
present at the scene of the crime when the victim, Sonny Sierva, whose hands were held at the back by accused-appellant Santos San Pascual,
Sr., was hacked on the neck by accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, while the other accused, numbering at least five (5), were apparently merely
observing the incident; it was then unnatural and against common experience that Samonte ran away towards some pili trees and simply stayed
there until dawn of the following day, even as he had already seen a boy and a girl discovered the fallen body of Sonny Sierva shortly after the
incident occurred. Considering the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Jenny Cordial and Enrico Sierva, that after discovering the dead body of
Sonny Sierva lying prostrate on the ground, and seeing the several accused standing near the dead body of Sonny Sierva, they were able to run
away and go to Rogelio Sierva's house to report what they saw, without the several accused following them or even attempting to threaten them in
any way, it appears that the several accused posed no threat to Samonte, which could have forced him to remain near some pili trees. It is also
perplexing why Samonte did not see, inform or seek the help of Rogelio Sierva, Felix Buendia, Silvestre Sierva and an unidentified person, who
also happened to come upon the dead body of Sonny Sierva while on their way to the hospital. This Court finds occasion, at this point, to apply a
long-held doctrine that to be credible, testimonial evidence should come not only from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible,
reasonable and in accord with human experience.77 While we take judicial notice that eyewitnesses to a crime are often reluctant to report the
incident, the Court finds the response of Samonte to the occurrence contrary to human experience, and his testimony not credible, thus, we reject
his testimony.

In view of the resulting lack of positive identification, accused-appellants' conviction or acquittal would now depend primarily on the sufficiency of the
circumstantial evidence against them, based on the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, particularly, Jenny Cordial and Enrico Sierva.
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In the instant case, prosecution witness Jenny Cordial testified that she saw accused-appellant Larry Lavapie, who was holding a bolo, standing at
a distance of about five (5) to six (6) meters from the body of Sonny Sierva;78 while prosecution witness Enrico Sierva testified that after he
recognized the man lying on the road as Sonny Sierva, he saw accused-appellant Larry Lavapie with a bolo, standing by the road, with accusedappellant Santos San Pascual, Sr.79 The above circumstance, in the absence of other corroborative evidence, does not satisfy the requirements
under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court nor point with moral certainty to the guilt of accused-appellants. As we have consistently held, the
mere presence of accused-appellants at the locus criminis cannot be solely interpreted to mean that they committed the killing. The mere presence
of accused appellants at the crime scene, without more, is inadequate to support the conclusion that, indeed, they committed the crime.80 We also
observe that as testified by prosecution witness Jenny Cordial, the bolo allegedly held by accused-appellant Larry Lavapie was "shiny and sharp,"
and "clear and clean."81 If indeed it was accused-appellant Larry Lavapie who hacked Sonny Sierva on the neck, the bolo, which he allegedly used
in hacking Sonny Sierva, would not have been "clear and clean." It should also be noted that aside from the two (2) accused-appellants, there were
at least five (5) other persons who were at the scene of the crime, and who could have been responsible for the killing, but unfortunately, they were
not recognized by prosecution witnesses, Jenny Cordial and Enrico Sierva. According to Jenny Cordial, the other persons, numbering about seven
(7), who were at the scene of the crime, standing still and facing the body of Sonny Sierva, were only about a meter away from accused-appellant
Larry Lavapie,82 but she was not able to recognize them because "it was dark."83 In corroboration, Enrico Sierva testified that both accusedappellants were at a distance of about five (5) to six (6) meters away from him when he saw them; and that he also saw other persons at the scene
of the crime but he was not able to recognize them because they were in a "dark place."84
In resume, considering the evidence for the prosecution and the attendant circumstances, the Court entertains reasonable doubt as to the
culpability of accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants are guilty of the crime charged, the
Decision dated December 16, 1996, of Branch 36 of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City in Criminal Case No. IR-2639 is hereby REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants are ACQUITTED, and their immediate release from confinement is ordered unless some other lawful cause
warrants their further detention.
The Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to implement this Decision and to report to this Court immediately the action taken hereon within five (5) days
from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 195567

November 25, 1993

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES RAUL and ESPERANZA LEUTERIO, respondents.
The Legal Services Group for petitioner.
Jaime M. Posadas for private respondents.

PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the Decision of the 10th Division of the Court of Appeals ordering the petitioner GSIS to execute
a Final Deed of Sale in favor of the spouses Raul and Esperanza Leuterio involving a house and lot in the GSIS Village, Project 8-C, Quezon City. 1
The facts show that on December 18, 1963, the petitioner GSIS conducted a lottery draw for the allocation of lots and housing units in Project 8-C
of GSIS Village. Private respondent Esperanza Leuterio won and was issued a Certificate of Acknowledgment to purchase the subject house and
lot 2 on December 27, 1963. In 1965, the parties entered into a Deed of Conditional Sale evidencing the conveyance of the subject property and all
improvements thereon to the Leuterio spouses for the purchase price of P19,740.00, payable over a fifteen-year period, in 180 equal monthly
installments of P168.53 each. Paragraph 11 of the Deed of Conditional Sale provides:
Upon the full payment by the Vendee of the purchase price of the lot and dwelling/improvement above referred to together with all the interest due
thereon, taxes and other charges and upon his faithful compliance with all the conditions of the Contract, the Vendor agrees to execute in favor of
the Vendee, or his/their heirs and successors-in-interest a final Deed of Sale of the aforementioned land and dealing/improvements. . . . 3
Three years elapsed before the Deed was notarized, and a copy of the same was given to the private respondents.
After the land development and housing construction of Project 8-C were completed in 1966, petitioner's Board of Trustees increased the purchase
price indicated in the Deed of Conditional Sale covering houses and lots therein. The new price was based on the alleged final cost of construction
of the GSIS Village. It is noted that, on the face of the Leuterio's Conditional Deed of Sale is the marginal notation "subject to adjustment pending
approval of the Board of Trustees." The Leuterio spouses alleged that this notation was not in the Deed when they signed the same in 1965.
Resolving this factual issue, the trial court found that the appended words were inserted into the document without the knowledge or consent of the
Leuterio spouses. This finding of fact went undisturbed on appeal to the respondent court. 4
Sometime in the early 1970's, a group (not including the Leuterios) of conditional vendees of houses and lots in Project 8-C of GSIS Village brought
suit 5 against herein petitioner, questioning the increase in purchase price. They likewise wrote a "A Plea For Justice" to then President Ferdinand
E. Marcos, requesting for a directive to petitioner's management to "accept payments of amortization installments on the original amounts stated in
the Deed(s) of Conditional Sale."
As a result, the Office of the President created a three-man Ad Hoc committee, composed of representatives of the Office of the President, the
petitioner System, and the GSIS Village Association. The committee found that the final cost of the Village justified a higher price range for the
houses and lots in the project.
Based on the ad hoc committee's findings, the petitioner System, with the approval of its Board of Trustees, increased the purchase prices of the
houses and lots in the GSIS Village.
On May 30, 1973, however, then Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave, through a memorandum, advised petitioner that then President
Marcos has approved the "Plea" and wanted its "immediate implementation." The attempt by petitioner to have the presidential endorsement
reconsidered was denied on December 18, 1980.
Meanwhile, after years of diligently paying the monthly amortizations 6 and real estate taxes on the subject property, the private respondents
spouses informed 7 petitioner that the payments 8 for the property had been completed, and hence, the execution of an absolute deed of sale in
their favor was in order. No action on the matter was taken by petitioner.
The instant case was initiated on May 20, 1984 in the RTC of Manila, Br. 11, with the filing of a Complaint for Specific Performance With Damages
to compel petitioner to execute in private respondents' favor, the final Deed of Sale over the subject property. 9 The trial court found for the
Leuterios.
On January 24, 1992, the Court of Appeals 10, in its impugned Decision, upheld the trial court solely on the basis of estoppel. It held that petitioner
cannot increase the price of the subject house and lot after it failed, through the years, to protest against private respondents' P200.00-amortization
or to require the payment by them of bigger monthly installments. 11
Petitioner now urges the setting aside of the impugned Decision of the Court of Appeals, alleging that it erred in:
I.

. . . HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER GSIS IS ESTOPPED FROM ENFORCING THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SELLING PRICE.

II.
. . . NOT HOLDING THAT THE SPOUSES LEUTERIO MUST BE BOUND BY THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE AD HOC
COMMITTEE
III.
UNITS.

. . . FAILING TO CONSIDER THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT IN THE SELLING PRICE OF THE LOTS AND HOUSING

IV.
. . . AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH ORDERED THE PETITIONER GSIS TO EXECUTE THE FINAL DEED
OF SALE. 12
Upon the other hand, private respondents, in their Comment, 13 contend that the Petition only raises in factual issues, which cannot be settled by
this Court in the instant proceedings. They further contend that no reversible errors were committed by the Court of Appeals in its impugned
Decision.
We find no merit in the petition, but for reasons different from those espoused by the respondent Court of Appeals.

The decisive issue really involves a question of fact whether or not the spouses Leuterio agreed to the notation "subject to adjustment pending
approval of the Board of Trustees" appearing on the margin of the parties' Conditional Deed of Sale. If there was no agreement, the Leuterio
spouses are only obligated to pay the purchase price of P19,740.00 as stipulated in the main body of the Conditional Deed of Sale.
Trite to state, this Court is not a trier of facts. In a multitude of cases, we have laid down the unbending rule that findings of fact of lower courts are
binding on us unless they are marred by manifest errors. The pleadings before us do not demonstrate that the trial court grossly erred when it found
that the purchase price agreed upon by the parties was P19,740.00 and this agreement was not made subject to any posterior event or condition.
This finding of fact was based on the explicit testimony of private respondent Raul Leuterio that when he and his wife signed the Deed of
Conditional Sale in 1965, the notation "subject to adjustment pending approval of the Board of Trustees" was not in the Deed. 14 Likewise, the
Answer of petitioner to the Complaint of the private respondents admitted the non-existence of this notation at the time the Deed of Conditional Sale
was signed, albeit, it called the omission an honest mistake. 15 We quote paragraph 5 of said answer, viz:
5.
The omission of the marginal notation reading "(x) subject to adjustment pending approval of the Board of Trustees" (Annexes B to B-1-b
of the Complaint) on the Deed of Conditional Sale signed by the plaintiffs, as alleged in paragraph VII of the Complaint, must have been an honest
mistake on the part of the clerk who typed the document.
This was also confirmed by the petitioner in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari where it is alleged that ". . . the respondents-spouses
Leuterio were not required to sign a new contract as provided in Resolution No. 966 but instead, the words 'subject to adjustment pending approval
of the Board of Trustees' were inserted in the Deed of Conditional Sale executed in 1965." Petitioner is bound by these judicial admission.
Quite clearly, therefore, the purchase price mutually agreed upon by the parties was P19,740.00. The spouses Leuterio did not give their consent
for petitioner to make a unilateral upward adjustment of this purchase price depending on the final cost of construction of the subject house and lot.
It is illegal for petitioner to claim this prerogative, for Article 1473 of the Civil Code provides that "the fixing of the price can never be left to the
discretion of one of the contracting parties. . . ."
We also reject petitioner's contention that the spouses Leuterio are bound by the recommendation of the ad hoc committee as this was set aside by
then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. 16 The rejection was communicated by then Presidential Assistant Jacobo Clave to petitioner in a
Memorandum dated May 30, 1973. 17 Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by the former President thru Presidential
Assistant Joaquin Venus, in a letter dated December 18, 1990. 18
Next, petitioner would impress on us the need to adjust the purchase price of the spouses' house and lot in view of the change in the final cost of
construction. If petitioner failed to factor this increase in the cost of the construction in the purchase price of the subject house and lot, it has nobody
to blame but itself and it alone should suffer the loss. To be sure, given the expertise of its technical people, it has no reason to be shortsighted. In
any event, our law on contracts does not excuse a party from specifically performing his obligation on the ground that he made a bad business
judgment.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition for review on certiorari is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 186459

September 1, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
NITA EUGENIO Y PEJER, Appellant.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Nita Eugenio y Pejer (appellant) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City1 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, allegedly committed as follows:2
On or about May 13, 2003 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 Aldrin Mariano, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law. (underscoring supplied)
From the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is culled:
On the night of May 13, 2003, at around 7:30 p.m., a confidential informant reported to PO1 Aldrin Mariano (PO1 Mariano), officer-on-duty at the
Pasig City Hall Detachment, that one alias "Aruba" was selling shabu at Vicper Compound, Malinao, Pasig City.
P/Sr. Insp. Chief Rodrigo Villaruel at once formed a buy-bust team to conduct an operation composed of, among others, PO3 Amilassan Salisa as
team leader, and PO1 Mariano as poseur-buyer. PO1 Mariano, who was given two one hundred peso bills bearing Serial Numbers BT219634 and
XN547078 to be used as buy-bust money, wrote his initials "ARM" thereon at the lower left portion.
The operation was recorded in the police blotter and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) which gave it control
number NOC-1305-03-10.3
At around 8:00 in the evening, the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to the residence of appellant who was standing in front
of her house. The informant at once introduced PO1 Mariano as buyer. As appellant inquired how much, PO1 Mariano handed her the two marked
bills upon which appellant drew out one substance-filled sachet from the "outside wall" of her house. At that instant, PO1 Mariano removed his cap,
the pre-arranged signal for the team members to, as they did, close in.
PO1 Mariano then held appellants arm, identified himself as a police officer, and apprised her of her constitutional rights as he retrieved from her
the buy-bust money. He thereafter marked "EXH-A arm/05/13/03" on the substance-filled sachet "sold" to him by appellant.
The buy-bust team brought appellant to the Rizal Medical Center for physical check-up and later to the police detachment office where P/Sr. Insp.
Chief Villaruel prepared the following memorandum of May 13, 20034 addressed to the Chief of the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office,
requesting the conduct of laboratory examination on the seized substance-filled sachet to determine the presence of dangerous drugs and their
weight:
1. Respectfully forwarded to your good office herewith/attached (sic) submitted specimen for laboratory examination to wit:
NATURE OF OFFENSE
VIOLATION OF RA 9165
NAME OF SUSPECT
NITA EUGENIO Y PEJER,
57 years old, widow,
Res. At Vicper Compound,
Malinao, Pasig City
D.T.P.O. On or about 8:30 PM 13 May
2003 at Vicper Compound,
Malinao, Pasig City
ARRESTING OFFICER
Elements of Mayors Special
Action Team/ City Hall
Detachment, Pasig City
Police Station represented by
PO1 Aldrin Mariano
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED
One (1) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet
containing undetermined
amount of suspected "shabu"
Marked EXH A ARM
05/13/03
2. Request acknowledge (sic) receipt.5 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Acting on the above-quoted memorandum, P/Sr. Insp. Annalee R. Forro, Forensic Chemical Officer of the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory
Office, who received the sachet, conducted on the same night of May 13, 2003, at around 8:33 P.M, a laboratory examination of the contents of the
sachet, the result of which she recorded in Chemistry Report No. D-889-03E6 wherein she concluded that the substance inside the sachet weighed
0.03 gram and was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Hence, the filing of the Information against appellant.
Denying the charge against her, appellant gave the following version:
On May 11, 2003, while fetching water from a nearby well, she was, in the presence of family and neighbors, accosted by police officers who
brought her to the police station. At the station, she was questioned whether she knew one "Baylene Ramba," to which she replied in the negative.
She was later surprised to learn that an Information for violation of R.A. 9165 had been filed against her.

Finding for the prosecution, the trial court, by Decision of May 31, 2005, convicted appellant, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused NITA EUGENIO y Pejer @ Aruba GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec. 5, Art.
II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon her the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00
SO ORDERED.7 (underscoring supplied)
By Decision of September 16, 2008,8 the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision.
In affirming the trial courts rejection of appellants defense, the appellate court held:
. . . As correctly observed by the trial court, the claim that accused-appellant was arrested without reason is not supported by evidence. Not one of
the alleged witnesses to the unlawful arrest, including accused-appellants own daughter, was presented to corroborate the claim. Hence, the court
a quo is correct in considering the defense incredible for being self-serving and uncorroborated.9 (underscoring supplied)
In her present appeal, appellant claims, in the main, that there was failure to follow the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, hence, it
compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized item.
Sec. 21 of R.A. No 9165 provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of
all dangerous drugs, plant sources or 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 persons/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 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Appellant specifically claims that no physical inventory and photographing of the specimen took place. Respecting the required conduct of an
inventory, since only one sachet was seized, failure to comply therewith may understandably have been rendered unnecessary.
As for the required photograph of the seized item, a reading of the testimony of PO1 Mariano confirms the prosecutions failure to follow such
requirement:
Atty. Ronatay:
Q: Are you aware that it is required under the dangerous drugs law that in case of the buy-bust operation, the subject specimen their (sic) must be a
picture taken on the subject specimen?
A: What I said is that impossible, we have a buy-bust to verify.
Atty. Ronatay:
Your Honor, I think the answer is not responsive to the question. We moved (sic) to strike that out and the witness to answer the question.
Court: Answer the question.
Witness:
A: Not yet maam.
Atty. Ronatay:
Q: How many times have you been engaged in buy-bust operation?
A: More or less ten maam.
Q: And in those ten cases, was there ever an occasion that the subject specimen, there was a picture taken on that subject specimen?
A: None, maam.
Q: Are you also aware Mr. witness that under the dangerous drugs law, it is standard operating procedure that in cases of operation specifically in a
buy-bust operation, there has also be (sic) a presence of the media?
A: I do not know, maam.
Q: In this case was there a media present at the time of the operation?
A: None maam.
Q: Are you also aware that under the dangerous drugs law, it is required that there has to be coordination with the Local Brgy.?
A: None maam.10 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Failing to comply with the provision of Section 2 of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily doom the case for the prosecution, however. People v.
Pringas enlightens:
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will
not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 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.11
(citation omitted, emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
The Courts pronouncement in Pringas is based on the provision of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations12 of R.A. No. 9165
reading:
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items; (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Clearly, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu was preserved.
As reflected in the above-quoted Memorandum of P/Sr. Insp. Chief Villaruel, the time of operation was "on or about 8:30 P.M., 13 May 2003." If the
allegedly seized substance-filled sachet was confiscated at 8:30 p.m., it is highly improbable that it was received at the Crime Laboratory at 8:33
P.M or a mere three minutes after the seizure, given that appellant was after his arrest first brought to a hospital for physical check-up.
Doubt is thus engendered on whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court is the same as that allegedly
"sold" by appellant. In fine, the prosecution failed to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the 0.03 gram specimen.
Parenthetically, unlike in Pringas, the defense in the present case questioned early on, during the cross examination of PO1 Mariano, the failure of
the apprehending officers to comply with the inventory and photographing requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. And the defense raised it
again during the offer of evidence by the prosecution, thus:
Atty. Ronatay:
xxxx
Exh. C - we object to its admission as well as the purpose for which they are being offered for being planted evidence, your honor. 13 (underscoring
supplied)
The prosecution having failed to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of the evidence
did not shift to the defense to thus leave it unnecessary to pass upon the defense evidence even if it were considered weak. Appellants acquittal
based on reasonable doubt is then in order.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant, Nita Eugenio y Pejer, is ACQUITED for
failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections for Women, Mandaluyong City who is directed to cause the
immediate release of appellant, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken within ten (10) days
from notice.
SO ORDERED.

10

G.R. No. 181037

January 19, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG y NAMRI alias SAI, Appellant.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01487, which affirmed in toto the June 16, 2005 Decision2 of the
Regional Trial Court of San Pablo, Laguna, Branch 32 in Criminal Case No. 14730-SP(04), finding appellant Saidamen Macatingag y Namri guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002."
In its Brief for the Appellee,3 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecutions version of the facts as follows:
On January 17, 2004, about 8:00 oclock in the morning, the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp Vicente Lim in Canlubang,
Calamba City formed a buy-bust team because of a report from a confidential informant about the drug pushing activities of a certain "Sai," who
later turned out to be appellant. The team was composed of P/Sr. Insp. Julius Cesar V. Ablan, as leader, and PO3 Marino A. Garcia as the poseurbuyer and PO3 Danilo Leona as the arresting officer, as well as two police officers. After discussing the buy-bust procedure including the prearranged signal which is the removal of PO3 Garcias cap, and the preparation of two P500.00 bills initialed with "MAG," the police authorities
immediately proceeded to the target area at the vicinity of Phase I, Villa Antonio, San Pablo City.
Upon arriving thereat about 11:30 oclock in the morning of that day, PO3 Garcia and the confidential informant waited for appellant at the entrance
gate of Villa Antonio Subdivision in San Pablo City. Some twenty (20) minutes later, appellant arrived sporting black pants and dark gray t-shirt. PO3
Garcia was introduced to appellant as the prospective buyer. Appellant, on the other hand, asked PO3 Garcia about the money amounting to
P52,500.00. PO3 Garcia then pulled out an envelope containing the two P500.00 bills with the boodle money from his pocket, and demanded the
drugs. Appellant thereafter pulled out from his pocket one plastic sachet and handed it to PO3 Garcia. Immediately upon giving appellant the
marked money, PO3 Garcia lost no time in giving the pre-arranged signal to PO3 Leona. PO3 Leona thereupon hurriedly seized from appellant the
marked money, while PO3 Garcia recovered the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from appellant. The policemen thereafter brought
appellant to their station in Canlubang, Calamba City. PO3 Garcia marked the seized plastic sachet with markings "A" and "MAG" representing his
initials, and the date and time of arrest. After making an inventory on the seized suspected shabu, the police authorities requested for the laboratory
examination thereof with the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The seized suspected sachet of shabu was shown positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 25.23 grams per Chemistry Report No.
D-54-04 issued by P/Insp. Lorna R. Tria, Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime Laboratory.4
On January 19, 2004, appellant was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,5 in an Information6 that reads:
That on or about January 17, 2004, in the City of San Pablo, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused above-named, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell 25.23 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug, without being authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.8 He maintained that he was at home with his wife on January 17, 2004 when four armed men
suddenly entered their house, seized his money, placed handcuffs on his wrists, and forcibly brought him to the police headquarters in Bgy.
Canlubang. He averred that he was not allowed to talk with anybody when he was incarcerated for two days and that he was alone during the
preliminary investigation. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in San Pablo City, where he was
formally charged with selling shabu.
On June 16, 2005, the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive portion
of which reads:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, accused SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG Y NAMRI alias "SAI" is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 also known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002", and there being no mitigating circumstance, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), and to pay the costs.
The effects of the crime are ordered confiscated in favor of the government. The custodian of the shabu subject of the case is hereby ordered to
submit the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition within 48 hours from receipt of a copy of this judgment and the latter is given
48 hours from receipt of the same to submit an acknowledgment receipt to this Court to form part of the records of this case.
SO ORDERED.9
The trial court found that all the elements of the crime charged were present and proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the
prosecution and the testimonies of the poseur-buyer and the arresting officer who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. It
disregarded the allegations of the defense that appellant was a victim of a frame-up and that he was not arrested pursuant to a valid buy-bust
operation.
On July 31, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision which affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court. The appellate court held
that the constitutional right of appellant against warrantless arrest and search was not violated; that appellant failed to assail the legality of the arrest
and the seizure of the sachet of shabu prior to his arraignment or at any stage in the proceedings of the trial court; that the arrest was pursuant to a
buy-bust operation which is a valid form of entrapment of felons in the execution of their criminal plan; and that the search conducted on appellant
was incidental to a lawful arrest.10 The appellate court also gave more weight and credence to the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust
team because they were not shown to have been impelled by ill-motives in testifying against appellant.
Hence, this petition.11
Appellant avers that the trial court and the Court of Appeals gravely erred in giving undue credence to the testimonies of the police officers and in
upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions. He also assails the validity of his arrest because the police

11

officers were not armed with any warrant when he was arrested. Finally, he assails the propriety of the chain of custody of the shabu allegedly
seized from him due to the non-observation of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.12
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that
the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.13
These elements have been proven to be present in the instant case. PO3 Garcia who acted as the poseur-buyer, categorically testified about the
buy-bust operation from the time he was introduced by the informant to appellant as the buyer of the shabu; to the time when appellant agreed to
the sale; to the actual exchange of the marked money and the heat-sealed sachet containing a white crystalline substance; and until the
apprehension of appellant, to wit:
A I myself together with confidential informant just walked, as well as the area and waited the poseur at the agreed place situated at the vicinity of
entrance of Villa Antonio, San Pablo City.
Q You were waiting for the suspects at the entrance of Villa San Antonio and then what else transpired next?
A After more or less 20 minutes of waiting maam we saw a man wearing a black pants and dark gray t-shirts arrived in our position, it was
introduced our confidential informant, he was introduced our confidential that as the poseur, likewise I was also introduced as the seller, [sic] I was
also introduced by the confidential informant as the buyer.
Q Who are the supposed to be the buyer, you were introduced as a buyer?
A Yes, maam.
FISCAL LAGMAN
Q And this suspect who was the seller, is he present in Court today?
A Yes, maam.
Q Would you kindly point to him?
A The 6th man from the Steel Cabinet.
INTERPRETER
Makikitayo, anong pangalan mo?
ACCUSED
Saidamen Macatingag po.
xxxx
FISCAL LAGMAN
Q So, after the introductions were made what happened?
A The seller identified the money, maam, which is amounting to P52,500.00.
FISCAL LAGMAN
Q What did you do?
A I immediately pull out from my pocket the envelope which is contained the 2 pieces of P500 bills and the bodol money as agreed amount of
P52,500. Likewise as also the seller if it has a dangerous drugs, maam.
Q And then what happened?
A I immediately pulled out 1 plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it over to me maam.
Q One (1) plastic sachet was handed to you?
A Yes, maam.
Q After you handed that money?
A No, maam we handed first to me the sachet and he demanded the payment of sachet, maam.
xxxx
FISCAL LAGMAN
Q What happened after the exchanged of the money and plastic sachet?
A After I gave him the buy bust money as agreed upon before we discovered as the bodol money, I immediately executed the pre-arranged signal
which is remove my cap, maam.
Q After you removed your cap, what happened?
A I saw PO3 Leona arrived and assisted me, after the arresting.

12

Q While you were arresting this Saidamen, this accused, what did you do as a matter of procedure, what did you tell him?
A We informed him the constitutional rights, maam. PO2 Leona was able to recovered this custody control of bodol money.
xxxx
Q So, after that, where did you bring Saidamen?
A We immediately brought him at our office at Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna together with confiscated pieces of evidence for proper
disposition.
Q You said that you were able to buy 1 plastic sachet of shabu that was supposed to be worth of P52,500, would you be able to identify the plastic
sachet if you will be shown to you?
A Yes, maam.
Q What markings did you place if any?
A I put my exhibit A, my initials, the date and time of arrest included the month and year, maam.
Q I am showing to you exhibit F, would you kindly tell us if this is the one that you brought from Saidamen Macatingag?
A Yes, maam.14
PO3 Leona, the back-up arresting officer during the buy-bust operation corroborated PO3 Garcias testimony, thus:
Q After you placed yourself 10 meters a way from the house, from the site and likewise Marino Garcia and the informant and the fence near the site,
what happened thereafter?
A I saw a person came out from that way near the hollow blocks fence wearing black pants and green t-shirt and I saw they were talking with our
confidential informant.
FISCAL COMILANG
Q Could you see the person who just arrived and talked with your confidential informant on said occasion, is he in Court?
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you please point to him if he is present?
INTERPRETER
Witness pointed to a person who gave us his name as Saidamen Macatingag.
FISCAL COMILANG
Q Now, Mr. Witness after the confidential informant and the accused had a conversation what did if any transpired after this conversation?
A After 30 minutes I saw the pre-arranged signal that this PO3 Marino Garcia will remove his cap.
Q You mean to say or to impress this court that Mr. Witness that the informant and Mr. Garcia were together when they had a transaction with the
accused?
A Yes, sir because the confidential informant introduced Mr. Marino Garcia to the accused.
xxxx
FISCAL COMILANG
Q After you saw PO3 Marino Garcia removed his cap, what did you do after that?
A I went to the area to help PO3 Garcia.
Q What if any did you find out after helping PO3 Marino Garcia?
A I arrested Saidamen and I removed from him the 2 pieces of P500 the bodol money.
xxxx
Q Now after recovering that 2 P500 bills from the accused what will be, were you able to recover?
A I recovered from the accused the money and it was SPO3 Marino Garcia who recovered the 25 grams of shabu conducted.15
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.16 It is a
fundamental rule that 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; or speculative, 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 of witnesses, 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.17
The testimonies of police officers Garcia and Leona, and the sachet of shabu sold by appellant sufficiently proved the crime charged. Moreover, the
prosecution was able to establish that the substance recovered from appellant was indeed shabu.18

13

In view of these testimonies and evidence of the prosecution, appellants denial must fail. The Court has consistently stressed that denial, like alibi,
is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses.19 Moreover, appellant
failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. It was not
shown, by any satisfactory degree of proof, that said policemen were impelled by ill-motives to testify against him. There is, therefore, no basis to
suspect the veracity of their testimonies.
With regard to the validity of his arrest, evidence shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation. In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a
buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been
proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.20 It catches the violator in flagrante
delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for
anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.21
Finally, this Court likewise finds no merit in appellants contention that the police officers failed to comply with the guidelines on the chain of custody
and disposition of the seized sachet of shabu as provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses
convincingly state that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item was properly preserved by the apprehending officers. P03 Garcia
testified that he marked the sachet of shabu with his initials, and the date and time of appellants arrest.22 PO3 Leona confirmed that he had seen
PO3 Garcia mark the same sachet of shabu sold by appellant; that a letter of request for the examination of said sachet was made; and such
request was received by the regional crime laboratory office. Thus:
Q Were you able to see that the shabu was actually was you said that recovered PO3 Marino Garcia from the accused?
A Yes, sir.
COURT
Q Did you put your initial in the specimen?
A I was only accompanied Marino Garcia in bringing to the crime lab.
FISCAL COMILANG
Q Since you have seen Mr. Witness the actual shabu was taken from the accused, do you know if Mr. Garcia placed any reference on the said
article, if any?
A Yes, sir, the initial of Marino Garcia.
Q What is that initial?
A MAG.
Q Mr. Witness, why do you know that police officer Marino Garcia actually placed his initial on the said specimen or item?
A Everytime that we conducted the buy bust, it is our SOP to place the marking.
Q Mr. Witness I will show you that item confiscated Marino Garcia from the accused on the alleged of the item, could you identify it?
A Yes, sir.
Q I will show to you now the plastic sachet big plastic sachet which contained white crystalline substance, could you please tell us what is the
relationship of this item from that item allegedly taken by Marino Garcia from the accused on which marking was placed?
A This is the item which is recovered from the accused. Mr. Garcia placed his initial.
Q What is MAG?
A MAG referred to Marino A. Garcia.
xxxx
Q After the specimen and the accused were transferred to the investigator of Regional director what happened to the accused and the specimen?
A The investigator prepared a paper for the filing of theand prepared a letter request for the examination.
Q Would you specify what are those documents prepared by the investigator as pre-requisite of filing of this case?
A We prepared the letter request for the crime lab request for the accused we first report to the effectdid not suffer physical injury.
xxxx
Q Do you know if this document was actually received by the addressee?
A Yes, sir, because I was with them.
Q What proof that this document was actually received by the addressee?
A There was a stamp marked of receipt, sir.23
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the seized sachet of shabu was immediately marked for proper identification and, thereafter, forwarded to the
Crime Laboratory for examination. The Chemistry Report of the Regional Crime Laboratory Office stated that the specimen submitted by the
apprehending officers indeed bore the marking "Exh A MAG 171200-01-14" and that the same gave positive result to the tests for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Forensic Chemical Officer Tria confirmed on the witness stand that she examined the specimen submitted by the
PDEA and that she was the one who prepared the Chemistry Report No. D-54-04.24

14

It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been 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. The
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 discharge their duties.25 Appellant failed to discharge such
burden.
This Court has held that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 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.26
In People of the Philippines v. Del Monte,27 it was held that:
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. One example is that provided in Section 31 of Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court wherein a party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to be altered after its execution, in a part
material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. His failure to do so shall make the document inadmissible in evidence. This is
clearly provided for in the rules.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility 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.28
All told, We see no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of a dangerous
drug, as defined and penalized in Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Under said provision, the illegal sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of
its quantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00.
For illegally selling 25.23 grams of shabu, and there being no modifying circumstance alleged in the Information, the trial court, as sustained by the
Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment in accordance with Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code29 and a fine of
P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01487 dated July 31, 2007, sustaining
the conviction of appellant Saidamen Macatingag y Namri for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing upon him the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

15

G.R. No. 181831

March 29, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee - versus - RODNIE ALMORFE y SEDENTE and RYAN ALMORFE y VALLESTER, Appellants.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Appellants Rodnie Almorfe y Sedente (Rodnie) and Ryan Almorfe y Vallester (Ryan) were convicted of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 70. Appellant Rodnie was further convicted
of violation of Section 11 of the same law.

The Information against appellants for violation of Section 5 (Crim. Case No. 13116-D) reads:[1]
xxxx
On or about November 27, 2003 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 one another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Janet Sabo y Ampuhan, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing three (3) centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of said law.
xxxx

The Information against appellant Rodnie for violation of Section 11 of the same law (Crim. Case No. 13117-D) reads:[2]
xxxx
On or about November 27, 2003 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law
to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control two
(2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing two (2) centigrams (0.02 gram) each, of white crystalline substance, which were found positive
to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of said law.
xxxx
Culled from the records of the case is the following version of the prosecution:
At about 7:00 oclock in the evening of November 27, 2003, an informant personally reported to the Pasig Police Station about the rampant selling of
shabu in Callejon 64, Purok 6, Villa Antonio, Brgy. Bambang, Pasig by a certain Taga, prompting a team belonging to the Mayors Special Action
Team of Pasig City to conduct a buy-bust operation at the target area.
The team was composed of PO1 Aldrin Mariano, P01 Roland Panis, PO2 San Andres, PO3 Salisa and PO1 Janet Sabo (Janet).
Together with the informant, the team members, in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, repaired to and arrived at the target
area at around 8:30 p.m. of the same day, November 27, 2003. After the service vehicle bearing the team members parked along Akasya St., in a
vacant lot,[3] a lengthy street [with many alleys intersecting it],[4] Janet, together with the informant, at once proceeded to the target address about
50 meters away, leaving behind the other team members inside the vehicle.
On reaching the target address, the informant nodded at one of two men standing in front thereof who turned out to be Rodnie a.k.a. Taga. Rodnie
at once asked the informant what their purpose was, to which the informant replied Iiskor kami. Rodnie then asked Magkano?, and the informant
answered Dos, pare which means P200 in the drug trade.
Janet, who was designated as poseur-buyer, gave the pre-marked P200 (in five P20 and two P50 bills) to Rodnie who placed them inside his
pocket. Rodnie thereupon took out a black plastic container[5] from his pants back pocket from which container he drew two plastic sachets which
he, however, returned to the container.
Rodnie thereafter parted with some of the money bills to his companion who turned out to be his co-appellant Ryan, whom he asked Akina yung
binigay ko sa yo kanina. Ryan at once gave Rodnie a sachet of shabu which Rodnie in turn gave to Janet. At that instant, Janet executed the prearranged signal to the other members of the team who swooped down on appellants and arrested them. Janet then and there seized the money
and the two plastic sachets inside the black plastic container in Rodnies possession, and affixed her signature thereon, as well as on the plastic
sachet subject of the sale.
The contents of the three sachets were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride by the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office,
[6] hence, the indictment of appellants.
During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on, inter alia, the existence but not the source of the three plastic sachets; and the due execution and
genuineness of the result of the examination of the specimens to thus dispense with the testimony of the Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Lourdeliza
Gural-Cejes[7] who examined and found the contents of the sachets to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[8]
Upon the other hand, appellants gave the following version:
On November 27, 2003, as he was assisting his wife who was about to give birth, Rodnie saw his cousin Ryan being pushed by Janet and four
other companions towards his house. Once inside the house, Janet frisked Ryan and Rodnie. The members of the team soon took money inside
Rodnies pocket and searched his house which yielded nothing. Appellants were, however, handcuffed and brought to the police station.[9]

16

Appellants neighbor, Aida Soriano (Aida), corroborated appellants version.[10]

By Decision of July 29, 2005,[11] Branch 70 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig convicted both appellants in the first case and appellant Rodnie in
the second case, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 13116-D filed against Rodnie Almorfe and Ryan Almorfe for violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (Illegal Sale of
Shabu), they are hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to solidarily pay a Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 13117-D filed only against Rodnie Almorfe for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (Illegal Possession of
Shabu), said accused is hereby sentenced to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years and to pay a Fine of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). (underscoring supplied)

On appeal, the appellate court, by Decision of August 30, 2007,[12] affirmed that of the trial courts. It discredited appellants claim of frame-up in the
absence of proof of ill-motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely accuse them, aside from the fact that the officers are presumed to have
regularly performed their official duty.
The appellate court discredited too the testimony of Aida which it found to be laced with several inconsistencies vis--vis those of appellants.
Hence, the present appeal, appellants assigning as sole error of the appellate court their conviction despite the failure of the prosecution to prove
that the shabu submitted for laboratory examination is the same one allegedly taken from them.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 charts the procedure on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, given
the severity of the penalties imposed for violations of said law, viz:
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered 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;
During the cross-examination of Janet, appellants counsel elicited the following testimony:[13]
Q: Now, madam witness, these two (2) accused were being charged of violating Section 5 and Section 11, of Republic Act 9165. And it is presumed
that you know R.A. 9165?
A: Section 5 is the only case we filed against them, sir.
Q: During the inventory, did you secure the presence of the media team?
A: We did not conduct an inventory, sir.
Q: You did not conduct an inventory with regard to this case?
A: We just marked the sachets right then and there for purposes of not alternating the sachets we recovered from them, sir.
[Defense counsel]
Atty. Sorongon:
But the law provides, your Honor, that it should be inventoried.
COURT:
Let the Court decide on that matter. You have already established that there was no inventory.
x x x x (italics and underscoring supplied)
Oddly, from the above-quoted testimony of alleged poseur buyer Janet, she clarified that they filed a case against appellants only for violation of
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. Appellant Rodnie was, however, additionally indicted for violation of Section 11.
Respecting the teams non-compliance with the inventory, not to mention the photograph, requirement of R.A. No. 9165, the same does not
necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom,
and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.[14]
For the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses[15] and that the integrity
and value of the seized evidence had been preserved:
x x x [N]on-compliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case; police procedures in
the handling of confiscated evidence may still have lapses, as in the present case. These lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in
terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. [16] (italics
in the original)

17

The presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the offenses,[17] calls for the necessity of proving beyond doubt that they are the
same seized objects. This function is performed by the chain of custody requirement as defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,[18] which requirement is necessary to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its
movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.[19]

In the present case, even if the requirement to conduct an inventory were to be excused, given that there were only three sachets confiscated, the
prosecution just the same failed to discharge its burden. Although Janet identified Exhibits C-1, C-2 and C-3 as the drugs seized from appellants
which she claimed to have marked immediately after the bust, she did not disclose the name of the investigator to whom she turned them over. And
there is no showing if that same investigator was the one who turned the drugs over to the forensic chemist, or if the forensic chemist whose name
appears in the physical science report[20] was the one who received them from that investigator, or where the drugs were kept for safekeeping after
the chemical test was conducted up to the time they were presented in court.

It bears recalling that while the parties stipulated on the existence of the sachets, they did not stipulate with respect to their source.

People v. Sanchez[21] teaches that the testimony of the forensic chemist which is stipulated upon merely covers the handling of the specimen at
the forensic laboratory and the result of the examination, but not the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the
forensic chemist and after it left his possession.

While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the
prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.[22] Hence, every
link must be accounted for.

In fine, the prosecution failed to account for every link of the chain starting from its turn over by Janet to the investigator, and from the latter to the
chemist.

As for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty relied upon by the courts a quo, the same cannot by itself overcome the
presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[23]

Parenthetically, the following testimony of Janet raises a nagging doubt regarding the buy-bust version of the prosecution:

Q: So, you were fifty (50) meters away from your companions, where did you meet the accused?
A: We entered Callejon 64, and they were standing by in front of their house where there was a lighted post, sir.
Q: Madam witness, you stated that you entered Callejon 64, which is an alley, and you left your vehicle fifty (50) meters away from Callejon 64. Was
your vehicle parked perpendicularly to Callejon 64 or, was it parked parallel to Callejon 64?
A: We parked in one of those alleys named Akasya, when you make a turn, there was a creek. And after that, there were several other alleys, and
there is a two-way street and then after that, there were alleys again, sir.
Q: From the place where you parked your service vehicle, you have to enter into different streets before arriving at the house of the accused, am I
correct?
A: Yes, sir, when we parked, we walked straight, and when we reached the street, we walked again. After that, was an alley, Callejon 64, sir.
Q: Will you agree with me, madam witness, that you have to turn from one street to another before arriving at Callejon 64? You testified that awhile
ago, will you agree with me?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Then, you stated during the direct examination, madam witness, that before you alighted from your vehicle, there is this agreement of the prearranged signal?
A: Yes, sir.[24] (underscoring supplied)

18

Given Janets description of the target address and the location of her fellow team members, how could the latter have seen Janet execute the prearranged signal to draw them to close in and arrest appellants?

Just as the lack of showing whether the team confiscated the black container allegedly brought out by Rodnie containing two sachets raises a
nagging doubt. If it did, why was it not presented? If it did not, why? That was an object evidence which could have lent credibility to the
prosecutions version.

WHEREFORE, the August 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. H.C. No. 02178 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellants Rodnie Almorfe y Sedente and Ryan Almorfe y Vallester who are
accordingly hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against them and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless they are being held
for some other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to forthwith implement this decision and to INFORM this Court, within five days from receipt
hereof, of the action taken.
Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to the PNP Director and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for information
and guidance. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

19