RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

G.R. No. 197250. July 17, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO

"ANDY" SOMOZA y HANDAYA, accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J : p

Accused-appellant Reynaldo "Andy" Somoza appeals from the Decision 1 dated June 22,
2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00741 denying his appeal
from the Joint Judgment 2 dated May 30, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Dumaguete City, Branch 30 in Criminal Case Nos. 17700 and 17701, which found him
guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

The Informations filed against accused-appellant in the trial court read:

I.Criminal Case No. 17700

That on or about the 21st day of July, 2005, in the City of Dumaguete,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to the NBI poseur buyer [one] (1)
heat sealed transparent plastic [sachet] containing a total of 0.50 gram of white
crystalline substance, of Methamphetamine Hydroc[h]loride, commonly called
shabu, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to Sec[.] 5, Art. II of R.A[.] 9165. 3

II.Criminal Case No. 17701 ACEIac

That on or about the 21st day of July, 2005, in the City of Dumaguete,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously possess and keep six (6) pieces of heat sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing a total of 0.69 gram of white crystalline
substance, of Methamphetamine Hydroc[h]loride, commonly called shabu, a
dangerous drug.
 Contrary to Sec[.] 11, Art. II of R.A[.] 9165. 4

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges when arraigned. 5 After pre-trial
was conducted, trial ensued.

The prosecution established that, sometime during the first week of July 2005, the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received confidential information that accused-
appellant is engaged in the repacking and selling of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
commonly known as shabu, and conducting his business in his residence at Barangay
Looc, Dumaguete City. 6 The NBI coordinated with the Philippine National Police (PNP)
in Dumaguete City and discreet inquiries and surveillance were made to verify the
information. 7

Police Officer (PO) 1 Marcelina Bautista and PO1 Raymunda Moreno of the PNP
Dumaguete City were tasked to do the surveillance. 8 In the course of the surveillance,
PO1 Bautista was able to gain the trust of accused-appellant to the point of pretending to
agree to be his girlfriend. 9 This led to a positive test buy of P600.00 worth of shabu from
accused-appellant by PO1 Bautista and PO1 Moreno on July 20, 2005. 10 With this
development, in the morning of July 21, 2005, NBI Agent Chester Aldwin Celon applied
for a warrant to search accused-appellant's residence for dangerous drugs. After the
executive judge of the RTC of Dumaguete City granted the application and issued a
warrant, the joint operatives of the NBI, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), and the PNP Dumaguete City had a briefing at the NBI office in Dumaguete
City at around 2:00 in the afternoon of that same day to plan the manner of service of the
warrant. 11aCHcIE

To facilitate the execution of the plan, PO1 Bautista sent accused-appellant a text
message asking where he was. Accused-appellant replied that he was not at his house and
instructed PO1 Bautista to proceed to Oracion Drive in Barangay Looc where he would
wait for her by the roadside. With this development, the team adjusted their plan and
decided to conduct a buy-bust operation before serving the warrant. PO1 Bautista and
PO1 Moreno were designated as poseur-buyers with the rest of the members serving as
backup. 12 The team was to be accompanied by Rogelio Talavera, Kagawad of Barangay
Looc, and media representative Reysan Elloren. 13

PO1 Bautista was given P1,000.00 in marked money consisting of a P500.00 bill and five
pieces of P100.00 bills, all of which were photocopied before the operation. PO1 Bautista
then sent accused-appellant another text message telling him that she would buy shabu
from him at their meeting place. 14

Thereafter, PO1 Bautista proceeded to Oracion Drive with PO1 Moreno. Accused-
appellant met them and brought them to his friend's house near SIOM warehouse. Inside
the house of accused-appellant's friend, PO1 Bautista bought P1,000.00 worth of shabu
from accused-appellant. She gave him the marked money and he handed her two sachets
of powdered white crystalline substance. At this point, PO1 Moreno excused herself and
went out of the house to give the pre-arranged signal to the backup team. 15

Meanwhile, accused-appellant suggested to PO1 Bautista that they use the contents of
one of the sachets that she bought to help them get aroused. PO1 Bautista, not wanting to
spoil the operation, acceded. Accused-appellant opened one of the sachets and used its
contents by sniffing some of the powdered substance. He then asked PO1 Bautista to take
her turn. To divert his attention and while the time away as she awaited the arrival of the
backup, she told him that she wanted to have intercourse first before using drugs.
Accused-appellant kissed PO1 Bautista and, while he was kissing her, the backup team
came rushing in. However, someone from inside the adjacent house shouted to alert
accused-appellant that he was going to be arrested. Accused-appellant scampered away
and tried to scale a concrete fence but the law enforcers caught up with him. Before being
captured, however, he threw away on the other side of the fence some of the marked bills
and a metallic tube containing a tooter. 16 A coin purse with six sachets containing
powdered crystalline substance was found in his pocket when he was searched. Only
P800.00 worth of marked money, consisting of the P500.00 bill and three pieces of
P100.00 bills, was recovered. 17cSEaDA

NBI Agent Celon marked the items recovered from the scene immediately after accused-
appellant's apprehension. The remaining sachet bought by PO1 Bautista was marked as
"BB-RS-01," 18 the six sachets found in the coin purse as "POS-RS-01" 19 to "POS-RS-
06" and the metallic tube as "POS-RS-21 July 05." The marking was witnessed by
Kagawad Talavera and media representative Elloren. 20

Accused-appellant was thereafter informed that the law enforcers have a warrant to
search his house. He was brought to his house and his place was searched in the presence
of Kagawad Talavera and media representative Elloren. However, the search yielded
nothing but plastic sachets, lighter and foils. 21

NBI Agent Celon proceeded to conduct an inventory of the items seized during the buy-
bust operation. He prepared two receipts one for the sachet bought by PO1 Bautista
from accused-appellant and the recovered marked bills worth P800.00, and another
receipt for the six sachets and the metallic tooter. The inventory receipts were signed by
Kagawad Talavera, media representative Elloren, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Manuel
Sanchez of PDEA, and Dumaguete City Assistant Prosecutor Nilo Sarsaba. 22

Accused-appellant was subsequently brought to the NBI office for booking and
documentation. He was photographed with the seized items in front of him and the
incident was entered in the PDEA blotter. 23IDEHCa
In the morning of the following day, July 22, 2005, NBI Agent Celon made a return of the
search warrant with prayer to retain custody of the seized items. 24 The court approved the
request and NBI Agent Celon received the items. He proceeded to bring them to the PNP
Crime Laboratory in Dumaguete City for chemical examination. Police Senior Inspector
(P/S Insp.) Maria Ana Dagasdas, forensic chemical officer, received the items and
examined them. 25 She then prepared Chemistry Report No. D-133-2005 and a sworn
Certification to the effect that the sachet marked as "BB-RS-01" contained 0.5 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride and the six sachets marked as "POS-RS-01" to "POS-
RS-06" contained an aggregate of 0.69 gram of the same prohibited substance. 26

For his part, accused-appellant's defense was denial. He disclaimed possessing or selling
shabu on the day he was arrested. According to him, on the said date, his friend Victor
Asunio invited him to the latter's birthday party at Oracion Drive. When he arrived at the
venue at around 2:00 in the afternoon, only Asunio and two ladies were there. The ladies
turned out to be PO1 Bautista and PO1 Moreno. Asunio told him to wait for awhile as
Asunio was still doing something. Asunio went out and, moments after, shouted a
warning that accused-appellant would be arrested. Accused-appellant immediately went
out of Asunio's house and ran away but several persons suddenly appeared, blocked his
path and arrested him. He was handcuffed and bodily searched but the police officers
found nothing. He was then shown a copy of a search warrant and told that it was for
him. He was thereafter boarded in a police car and brought to his house. A search was
made in his place but nothing illegal was found there. He was subsequently brought to the
NBI office where he was photographed and documented. 27

In its Joint Judgment dated May 30, 2007, the trial court disregarded the accused-
appellant's defense for its inherent weakness and gave full faith and credence to the
testimony of the law enforcers. It found no improper motive or ill will on the part of said
law enforcers to testify against him. Their testimonies, credible and consistent,
corroborated by the statements of Kagawad Talavera and media representative Elloren
and backed by object and documentary evidence sufficiently established the guilt of
accused-appellant. The dispositive portion of the Joint Judgment reads: AaDSTH

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders
judgment as follows:

1.In Criminal Case No. 17700, the accused Reynaldo "Andy" Somoza y
Handaya is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
illegal sale of 0.50 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II, of RA No.
9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which contained the 0.50
gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government
and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
 2.In Criminal Case No. 17701, the accused Reynaldo "Andy" Somoza y
Handaya is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
illegal possession of 0.69 gram of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of
RA No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
[imprisonment for] twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to
fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).

The six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets which contained the 0.69
gram of shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government
and to be disposed of in accordance with law.

In the service of sentence, the accused shall be credited with the full time during
which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees
voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners. 28IcHTCS

Accused-appellant appealed his case to the Court of Appeals. He presented a lone

assignment of error: the trial court erred in convicting him of the crimes charged because
his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He cited three things in support of his
appeal. First, there was failure to present the full amount of the marked money used in the
buy-bust operation as only P800.00 was presented. There was also no pre-operation
report which would have stated the details of the buy-bust operation, including the serial
numbers of the marked money. Second, it was not sufficiently established that the packs
of shabu actually came from accused-appellant, as both PO1 Bautista and NBI Agent
Celon claimed to have personally recovered the six sachets of shabu. Also, the chemical
officer who identified the drug specimen mentioned the total weight of shabu as 0.44
gram only, not 0.69 gram as stated in the Information in Criminal Case No. 17701. Third,
the regularity of the inventory-taking done at his house is questionable and affected the
chain of custody of the shabu. The irregularity became more glaring considering the fact
that no illegal drug was found in his house. 29

In its Decision dated June 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals found nothing irregular in the
buy-bust operation. The non-presentation of the entire amount of P1,000.00 marked
money did not diminish the integrity of the buy-bust process, especially considering the
circumstance that accused-appellant threw the money while trying to evade arrest.
Moreover, the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs does not hinge on
the presentation of all the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, pursuant to Cruz
v. People 30 which ruled that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of
any money used in the buy-bust operation.

The Court of Appeals held that the buy-bust was not affected by the absence of a pre-
operation report. Under the obtaining facts, no pre-operation report was prepared as the
buy-bust operation was urgently conceived. Notwithstanding the swiftness of the
execution of the strategy, the law enforcers described their operation in detail during trial.
31 DHETIS

The Court of Appeals further ruled that the statements of PO1 Bautista and NBI Agent
Celon were not contradictory. Only PO1 Bautista made the claim of personally
recovering the six sachets of shabu from accused-appellant. NBI Agent Celon, on the
other hand, simply stated that the metallic tube and the six sachets of shabu were the
items recovered by the law enforcers from accused-appellant. Furthermore, the issue on
who recovered the packets of shabu from accused-appellant is immaterial to the charges
leveled against him. 32

There was also no disparity in connection with the weight of the shabu. The forensic
chemical officer, P/S Insp. Dagasdas, never mentioned 0.44 gram. Instead, her sworn
Certification and the accompanying Chemistry Report both indicated that her
examination of the specimens submitted by NBI Agent Celon showed that the substance
contained in the six sachets subject of Criminal Case No. 17701 was shabu with an
aggregate weight of 0.69 gram. 33

The appellate court also rejected accused-appellant's assertion of a defect in the chain of
custody of the drugs taken from him. The failure to make an immediate inventory at the
scene of the buy-bust operation was not fatal to the prosecution's case as all of the
prosecution's witnesses, including Kagawad Talavera and media representative Elloren,
confirmed that the items seized from accused-appellant during the buy-bust were marked
at the scene. The course of action taken by the law enforcers at the time of the buy-bust
and during the subsequent search at accused-appellant's place was justifiable under the
circumstances and properly preserved the probative value of the seized items. In addition,
accused-appellant belatedly challenged the admissibility of the seized items on the
ground of defective chain of custody only on appeal and not before the trial court. 34

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the prosecution was able to establish
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of both the illegal sale and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. Thus, it upheld the conviction of accused-appellant for both crimes. The
decretal portion of the Decision dated June 22, 2010 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED and the Joint

Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City in Criminal
Case Nos. 17700 and 17701 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs. 35 ASaTCE

Accused-appellant is now before this Court insisting on the failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This Court does not agree.

The Court of Appeals has sufficiently addressed the concerns of accused-appellant. In
fact, the trial and the appellate courts were unanimous in rejecting as implausible
accused-appellant's defense.

Nevertheless, this Court is aware that accused-appellant's conviction cannot rest on the
weakness of his defense but on the strength and merits of the case of the People against
him. 36 Stated differently, accused-appellant need not prove his innocence as he enjoys the
constitutional presumption of inculpability, the onus is on the State to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. 37 In this case, the State has discharged the burden of proof
required of it.

A successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires that the following
elements be established:

(1)the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration of the sale; and

(2)the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the seller
of the payment therefor. 38

On the other hand, there can be conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs only
if the following elements are present:

(1)the accused is in possession of an item or object which is

identified to be a prohibited drug; CSAaDE

(2)such possession is not authorized by law; and

(3)the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 39

In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution
must show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus
delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself. 40 Such chain of custody should show that the
dangerous drug sold by or in the possession of the accused is the same dangerous drug
seized from the said accused and taken into custody by the apprehending officer, marked
and subjected to physical inventory by the apprehending officer, submitted to the PDEA
or PNP forensic laboratory, subjected by the forensic laboratory examiner to laboratory
examination the results of which are contained in a sworn certification, and presented to
the court as evidence against the accused. 41 This is to ensure the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items and preclude the possibility of alteration, tampering or
substitution of substance in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug. Nevertheless, a
perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the
guilt or innocence of the accused. 42

In this case, the RTC and the Court of Appeals both found that accused-appellant, as
seller, sold 0.5 gram of shabu to the poseur-buyer, PO1 Bautista, for P1,000.00. He
handed her two sachets of shabu upon his receipt of a P500.00 bill and five P100.00 bills
from her.

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals also found that the accused-appellant had in his
possession six sachets containing shabu with an aggregate weight of 0.69 gram and that
he had no authority to possess the dangerous drug. DTAESI

This Court respects the identical findings of the trial and the appellate courts.

The established rule in appellate review is that the trial court's factual findings are
accorded great respect and even conclusive effect, especially if such findings are affirmed
by the Court of Appeals. 43 This Court finds no compelling reason to diverge from the
rule. A review of the records reveals that the prosecution's retelling of the events as they
transpired hews closer to the truth.

Accused-appellant is clutching at straws in insisting on the following: non-presentation of

the full amount of the marked money, lack of pre-operation report, inconsistency in the
testimonies on who recovered the sachets of shabu and what the total weight of the said
sachets is, and irregularity of the inventory. The Court of Appeals has sufficiently
addressed all these matters.

This Court has already held in People v. Ambrosio 44 that the non-presentation of the
entire amount of the marked money is not a mortal blow to the prosecution's case. It has
also been held that the non-presentation of the marked money, 45 or the presentation of
mere photocopies of the marked money, 46 does not render the buy-bust operation illegal
or invalid. Nor is the presentation of the marked money material in the prosecution of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs as the omission to present the marked money may be
overlooked as a peripheral matter. 47 As this Court ruled in People v. Ara: 48

In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked
money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution, as long as
the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proved and the drug subject of the
transaction is presented before the court. . . . . (Citation omitted.)
DSATCI

Illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed when the sale transaction is consummated, 49
that is, upon delivery of the illicit drug to the buyer and the receipt of the payment by the
seller. While the marked money may be used to prove payment, it is not material in
proving the commission of the crime. What is material is the proof that the sale
transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti, 50 the dangerous drug subject of the sale. 51 Here, the prosecution has adequately
established the occurrence of a sale transaction between accused-appellant and PO1
Bautista, and the sachet containing the contraband subject of the sale was presented in
court.

The lack of pre-operation report had no effect on the legality and validity of the buy-bust
operation. In the first place, a pre-operation report is not indispensable in a buy-bust
operation. 52 In the second place, the facts of the case show that the buy-bust operation
was not part of the original plan to serve the search warrant on accused-appellant
but was resorted to address the contingencies of the circumstances. The urgency of the
situation reasonably excused the preparation of a pre-operation report. More importantly,
a pre-operation report is ordinarily submitted by the local PNP or the NBI to comply with
Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 which requires "close coordination with the PDEA
on all drug related matters." Here, to require a pre-operation report for purposes of the
buy-bust would constitute unnecessary bureaucratic red tape as there was already
coordination by the NBI and the PNP Dumaguete City with the PDEA in the planning of
the service of the warrant and in the decision to resort to a buy-bust operation.

As regards the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on who

recovered the six sachets of shabu and what the total weight of the said sachets is, the
transcript of stenographic notes support the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that there
were none of the alleged inconsistencies. It was PO1 Bautista who recovered the six
sachets of shabu from accused-appellant and NBI Agent Celon marked the metallic tube
and the six sachets of shabu after noting that they were the items recovered by the buy-
bust team from accused-appellant. 53 DcAEIS

In connection with the weight of the shabu subject of Criminal Case No. 17701, P/S Insp.
Dagasdas never mentioned 0.44 gram and she categorically stated that she prepared and
issued a sworn Certification and Chemistry Report No. D-133-2005, both of which
similarly indicated that the six sachets subject of Criminal Case No. 17701 contained
shabu with an aggregate weight of 0.69 gram. 54

Finally, there was no break in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs taken from
accused-appellant. The prosecution has shown that the illicit drugs seized from accused-
appellant are the same illicit drugs marked and subjected to physical inventory by NBI
Agent Celon, submitted by him to the PNP forensic laboratory, received by forensic
chemical officer P/S Insp. Dagasdas and subjected by her to laboratory examination, and
presented by the prosecution to the trial court as evidence against the accused-appellant.
The chain of custody was continuous and the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of
the dangerous drugs seized from accused-appellant were preserved.

The inventory made at accused-appellant's house and not at the scene of the buy-bust
operation did not adversely affect the chain of custody. The fact is that, as witnessed by
Kagawad Talavera and media representative Elloren, the illicit drugs taken from accused-
appellant were marked in his presence at the scene of the buy-bust operation immediately
after his arrest. This marking may be considered as the preliminary phase of the
inventory. Indeed, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 which provides for the chain of
custody of dangerous drugs seized by law enforcers is silent on the matter of marking of
the seized drugs. In particular, its paragraph (1) only speaks of conducting a physical
inventory and photographing of the illicit drugs "immediately after seizure and
confiscation":

Section 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs . . . . DAEcIS

(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[.] (Emphasis supplied.)

Neither is marking of the confiscated drugs found in the implementing rules of the law
which provides:

SECTION 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, . . . .

(a)The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the

drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served;
or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items[.]

Nonetheless, the Court has acknowledged the practical value of the process of marking
the confiscated contraband and considered it as an initial stage in the chain of custody
a process preliminary and preparatory to the physical inventory and photograph
requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165: ETDHaC
 This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and
concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from
harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 [of Republic
Act No. 9165] and on allegations of robbery or theft. 55 (Citations omitted.)

"Marking" is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with
his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps ensure that the dangerous drugs
seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory and
photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some other
practicable venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of
custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items to truly ensure that they
are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence
should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation. 56

"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. 57 Indeed, marking upon immediate

confiscation has been interpreted as to even include marking at the nearest police station
or office of the apprehending team. 58 In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from
accused-appellant were marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the very
venue of his arrest.

As marking is the initial stage of physical inventory, in effect, the physical inventory of
the confiscated contraband commenced at the scene of the buy-bust and was completed at
the house of accused-appellant. ECcDAH

Moreover, the prosecution has satisfied the requirement that the testimonies of all persons
who handled the specimen are important to establish the chain of custody. 59 PO1 Bautista
testified that she kept the sachet sold to him by accused-appellant, that she seized the
other six sachets from accused-appellant and that she subsequently transferred all sachets
in her possession to NBI Agent Celon. NBI Agent Celon stated that he received from PO1
Bautista the sachet bought by her and the sachets seized by her from accused-appellant,
that he marked these items, that he inventoried them, that he requested authority from the
court to retain custody of them, and that he submitted them to the PNP forensic
laboratory. P/S Insp. Dagasdas attested that she received the specimens from NBI Agent
Celon, that she conducted the laboratory examination and that she issued a sworn
certification regarding the results of her examination. Thus, all persons who handled the
shabu seized from accused-appellant testified on how they came to take custody of the
illicit drugs, what they did with the said drugs and to whom they subsequently transferred
such drugs. Their testimonies established a continuous chain of custody which preserved
the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs seized from accused-
appellant.
In sum, accused-appellant has been correctly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal sale of 0.50 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. 17700 and of illegal possession
of 0.69 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. 17701. The respective penalties imposed on
him are likewise proper and in accordance with law.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 22, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00741 affirming the Joint Judgment dated May 30, 2007 of the
Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 30 in Criminal Case Nos. 17700 and
17701 which found the accused-appellant Reynaldo "Andy" Somoza guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.

||| (People v. Somoza y Handaya, G.R. No. 197250, [July 17, 2013])

[G.R. No. 200951. September 5, 2012.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JOSE ALMODIEL

alias "DODONG ASTROBAL," appellant.

DECISION

CARPIO, J : p

The Case

Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan
de Oro City, (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00632-MIN. The CA affirmed the Decision 2
of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 4 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 9840
convicting appellant Jose Almodiel alias "Dodong Astrobal" (accused) of violation of
Section 5, Article II (Sale of Dangerous Drugs) 3 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

The Information dated 16 May 2003 filed against the accused states:
 AMENDED INFORMATION

The undersigned accuses JOSE ALMODIEL alias "DODONG" ASTROBAL of

the crime of [v]iolation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, committed as
follows:

That at or about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of March 20, 2003 at Purok 9,
Brgy. 15, Langihan Road, Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver two (2)
sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu
weighing zero point one two zero five (0.1205) grams, a dangerous drug. HETDAa

That the accused has already been convicted in Criminal Case No. 7338 for
Violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659.

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165) 4

Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty. During pre-trial, the defense
admitted all the allegations in the Information except the specific place of the alleged
incident and the allegation of the sale of dangerous drugs. Thus, trial ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented three witnesses: (1) PO2 Saldino C. Virtudazo (PO2
Virtudazo), (2) PO3 Arnel P. Lumawag (PO3 Lumawag), and (3) PSInsp. Cramwell T.
Banogon (PSInsp. Banogon).

At 7:30 a.m. of 20 March 2003, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
Regional Office XIII in Libertad, Butuan City, received a report from a confidential agent
that a certain "Dodong" was dealing with shabu. Immediately after, Regional Director
PSupt. Glenn Dichosa Dela Torre (PSupt. Dela Torre) conducted a briefing for a buy-bust
operation and designated SPO4 Alberto Arnaldo (SPO4 Arnaldo) as teamleader, PO2
Virtudazo as poseur-buyer, and PO3 Lumawag as back-up operative.

At 1:30 p.m. of the same day, PO2 Virtudazo, PO3 Lumawag, and the confidential agent
proceeded to Purok 9, Brgy. 15, Langihan Road, Butuan City to conduct the buy-bust
operation. PO3 Lumawag hid and positioned himself eight meters away from PO2
Virtudazo and the confidential agent. When the accused arrived, the confidential agent
introduced PO2 Virtudazo to the accused as customer of shabu. PO2 Virtudazo told the
accused that he wanted to buy two sachets of shabu worth P400.00. The accused agreed,
and then left. After thirty minutes, the accused returned bringing two sachets containing
white crystalline substance, which he handed to PO2 Virtudazo. PO2 Virtudazo testified
that based on experience, he knew that the substance in the two sachets was shabu. Thus,
PO2 Virtudazo gave a pre-arranged signal to PO3 Lumawag to approach them. CTHDcE

PO2 Virtudazo and PO3 Lumawag introduced themselves as PDEA agents, and arrested
the accused after informing him of his constitutional rights. They took him to the PDEA
Regional Office, and seized from him other items two aluminum foils and one lighter.
5 PO2 Virtudazo marked the two sachets with "APL-l" and "APL-2," the initials of PO3
Lumawag. Together with SPO3 Dindo Alota (SPO3 Alota) and PO3 Lumawag, PO2
Virtudazo brought the accused and the two sachets to the Regional Crime Laboratory
Office for drug testing. In PSInsp. Banogon's Chemistry Report No. D-061-2003, 6 the
substance contained in the two sachets was found positive of shabu.

The prosecution offered and submitted the following exhibits: (1) Exhibit "A" and sub-
markings Certificate of Inventory or Confiscation Receipt dated 20 March 2003; (2)
Exhibit "B" and sub-markings written request for laboratory examination dated 20
March 2003; (3) Exhibit "C" and sub-markings self-sealing pack containing the actual
specimen of two sachets of shabu; and (4) Exhibit "D" and sub-markings Chemistry
Report No. D-061-2003 dated 21 March 2003. 7

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, the defense also presented three witnesses: (1) the accused himself, (2)
Felix Branzuela (Felix), and (3) Max Malubay (Max), the alleged confidential agent.

The accused denied the charges of the prosecution, and narrated that on the morning of
20 March 2003, he and his girlfriend stayed in Cadez Lodging House, located at Purok 9,
Brgy. 15, Butuan City. At about 10 a.m., the accused's girlfriend left but promised to
return later. While waiting, the accused and Felix played with the slot machine. Then,
Max approached the accused and requested to buy shabu from him. The accused told
Max that he was not selling shabu. Thus, Max left. However, Felix alleged that he saw
Max talking to police officers. Felix informed the accused that Max is a police asset, but
the accused ignored his remark and stated that he had nothing to fear.

Around 1:30 p.m. of the same day, the accused decided to go home aboard his
motorcycle. While on his way, the accused was stopped by PO3 Lumawag, who pointed a
gun at the accused and arrested him. The accused noticed PO3 Lumawag holding a sachet
of shabu while searching the accused's body. The accused protested but PO3 Lumawag
directed him to go to the PDEA office with another police officer. Upon arrival, the
accused was instructed to remove his clothes. PO3 Lumawag took the accused's wallet
and claimed to retrieve another sachet of shabu from it. PO3 Lumawag insisted that the
accused owned the shabu, but the accused vehemently denied the same. After about thirty
minutes, a representative from the media and City Prosecutor Felixberto Guiritan
(Prosecutor Guiritan) arrived. They took pictures of the two sachets of shabu and signed
the Certificate of Inventory.

The Decision of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision dated 17 June 2008, the RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of RA 9165. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads: AaEcDS

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused is hereby found guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165
([o]therwise [k]nown as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and is hereby
accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
[F]ive Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Accused shall serve his sentence at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm at Braulio
E. Dujali, Davao del Norte and shall be credited in the service thereof with his
preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.

The sachets of shabu are ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
government to be dealt with in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED. 8

The RTC found that the elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu were proven by the
prosecution. On the other hand, the accused failed to present clear and convincing
evidence to prove his defense of frame-up and planting of evidence. Hence, the RTC held
that the categorical and convincing testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, supported
by physical evidence, overcome the unsubstantiated claim of ill-motive by the accused. In
addition, the RTC ruled that the arrest was lawfully made.

On 4 July 2008, the accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the
RTC in its Resolution 9 dated 22 July 2008. The accused filed an appeal to the CA. The
accused imputed the following errors on the RTC:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-

APPELLANT WAS CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO SELLING THE
SUBJECT DANGEROUS DRUGS.

II
 THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
ARREST AND THE SEARCH OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
WITHOUT A WARRANT WOULD FALL UNDER THE DOCTRI[N]E OF
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AS AN INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST.
cATDIH

III

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE

SUBJECT SHABU IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

IV

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-

APPELLANT WHEN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED DRUGS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE ESTABLISHED RULES.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT

WHEN HIS GUILT IS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
10

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision dated 14 November 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision against the
accused. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 17, 2008
finding Jose Almodiel alias Dodong Astrobal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED. 11

The CA ruled that since a buy-bust operation was conducted, there was no necessity for a
warrant of arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5 (a) of the Rules of Court. The CA found
that the defense's version of the events was not credible considering that the accused did
not object to his arrest or file any complaint against the police officers. On the chain of
custody rule, the CA held that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal as
long as there is justifiable ground, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
drugs are preserved, as in this case.

Hence, this appeal. 12

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

The elements necessary for a prosecution for violation of RA 9165 or sale of dangerous
drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 13 What is material is the proof that
the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the
corpus delicti. 14

In the present case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established. PO2
Virtudazo testified that a buy-bust operation took place, to wit: SDTIHA

PROSECUTOR GUIRITAN:

Q:On March 20, 2003 at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, where were you at
that time?

A:I was at Purok 9, Barangay 15, San Ignacio, Langihan Road, Butuan City.

Q:Why were you there in that place?

A:Because we were conducting an entrapment operation.

xxx xxx xxx

Q:You already mentioned last time that you were already at the place at about
2:00 o'clock of March 20, 2003, and you were with your back-up
Lumawag and your confidential agent. When you arrived at that place
what happened actually?

A:At 2:00 o'clock the accused arrived in the place and he gave me the two (2)
sachets of "shabu."

Q:How did the accused know that you will be the buyer?

A:I was introduced by our confidential agent to him.

Q:Now you said the accused handed to you "shabu", how many sachets, if you
recall?

A:Two (2) sachets, Sir.

Q:When already in possession of those two (2) sachets of "shabu", what did you
do?

A:I examined it if it is indeed "shabu."

 Q:What was your findi[n]gs? AaCTID

A:That it was real "shabu."

Q:How did you know that it was a "shabu"?

A:Based on my experience. 15

Upon clarificatory questioning by the court, PO2 Virtudazo testified that the accused
agreed to sell shabu to him, thus:

Q:So what did you do when the accused was already with the asset?

A:I was introduced by our asset to the accused and at that point in time I also
told the accused that I was interested to buy "shabu."

Q:And the accused what did he do to you?

A:He agreed and then left immediately.

Q:What did you agree with the accused?

A:That he will give me "shabu."

Q:Why will the accused give you "shabu"?

A:Because I was going to buy it from him.

Q:For how much?

A:Worth P400.00. 16

PO3 Lumawag materially corroborated the testimony of PO2 Virtudazo as to the conduct
of the buy-bust operation, to wit: ECaScD

Q:What happened when the accused arrived?

A:When the accused arrived they talked with each other then after more or less
two (2) minutes, the suspect left the area.

xxx xxx xxx

Q:Now what happened after that?

A:After the suspect left the area, after another twenty-five (25) minutes more or
less, he came back and met Virtudazo at that area.
 xxx xxx xxx

Q:Now, when the accused went back, what happened next?

A:I observed that the accused approached Virtudazo and he gave something to
Virtudazo. When Virtudazo tried to inspect the items given to him, that's
the time that Virtudazo gave the pre-arranged signal by turning his cap.

Q:And, what did you do?

A:So, when PO2 Virtudazo gave the pre-arranged signal that's the time I rushed
up and apprehended the suspect.

xxx xxx xxx

Q:How many shabu was given by him to your poseur-buyer?

A:Two (2) sachets, sir.

Q:How did you come to know of that?

A:Because when I approached him, Virtudazo also showed to me that that is the
shabu given to him by the suspect. 17

Both testimonies of PO2 Virtudazo and PO3 Lumawag positively identified PO2
Virtudazo as the poseur-buyer and the accused as the seller of two sachets containing
white crystalline substance for P400.00. The confiscated sachets were brought to the
crime laboratory for examination, where a chemical analysis on the substance confirmed
that the same was shabu. The sachets containing shabu were positively identified by
PSInsp. Banogon during the trial as the same sachets seized from the accused. IcDESA

The accused, however, contends that there was no sale since the marked money was not
delivered to the accused or presented in Court. Cruz v. People 18 is instructive in ruling
that the failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the case.

. . . The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable but
merely corroborative in nature. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous
drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for
the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and
the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor
jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust
operation. 19

It has been settled that credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers
for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is
evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers. 20 In the
present case, the claim of ill-motive was not substantiated by the accused. The trial court
found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses convincing, categorical and credible.
Findings of the trial court, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of
witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or
speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions are made from such findings. 21 This
rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings are sustained by the
Court of Appeals, as in the present case. 22

The accused denied the charge against him, and alleged frame-up and planting of
evidence by the police officers. In Quinicot v. People, 23 we held that allegations of
frame-up by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs
cases. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence
to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a
regular and proper manner. 24 Here, the accused made a bare allegation without
presenting clear and convincing evidence to support his claim. Felix and Max testified
that they did not witness the incident between the accused and the police officers before
the arrest. 25 Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the accused's
plain denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing
evidence, must simply fail. 26

Thus, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the
accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over the accused's
self-serving and uncorroborated denial. 27

Arrest During a Buy-bust Operation

The accused contends that the police officers arrested him without securing a warrant of
arrest. Consequently, his arrest was unlawful, making the sachets of shabu allegedly
seized from him inadmissible in evidence.

Under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a person may be arrested without a
warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense." 28 The accused was caught in the act of committing an offense during a buy-
bust operation. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-
bust operation, the police officers are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him
even without a warrant. 29 An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require
a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid "warrantless arrest." 30

The accused argues that force and intimidation attended his arrest when four police
officers arrested him and one of them pointed a gun at him. However, his allegations
were not supported by evidence. On the contrary, the CA found that the defense neither
objected to the accused's arrest nor filed any complaint against the police officers.
CSDAIa

Considering that an arrest was lawfully made, the search incidental to such arrest was
also valid. A person lawfully arrested may be searched, without a search warrant, for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense. 31 Accordingly, the two sachets of shabu seized in the present
case are admissible as evidence.

The Chain of Custody Requirement

The accused contends that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the shabu in
accordance with the requirements under RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations. 32 The defense particularly alleges that there was no photograph of the
seized items and there was no barangay official present during the incident.

We find the claim unmeritorious. In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount

importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established
beyond doubt. 33 It is precisely in this regard that RA 9165, particularly its Section 21,
34 prescribes the procedure to ensure the existence and identity of the drug seized from
the accused and submitted to the court.

The Implementing Rules of RA 9165 offer some flexibility when a proviso added that
"non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items." 35 In People v. Rosialda, 36 People v. Llamado, 37 and People v.
Rivera, 38 the Court had the occasion to apply such flexibility when it ruled that the
failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not
automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible.

The Court consistently held that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 39 In other words, it must be
established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as
evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. 40 The
chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 41

Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, 42 which
implements RA 9165, defines "chain of custody" as follows:
 "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of
seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of
custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition[.] 43

Malillin v. People 44 explained that the chain of custody rule would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was
offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition
in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
the item and that there was no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same. 45

In People v. Kamad, 46 the Court ruled that the links that must be established in the chain
of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover
of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third,
the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. EHaCTA

For the first link, PO2 Virtudazo positively testified that he was in possession of the two
sachets of shabu from the time of the buy-bust operation up to the PDEA office. 47 PO3
Lumawag corroborated his testimony. 48 Then, PO2 Virtudazo marked the confiscated
two sachets of shabu using the initials of PO3 Lumawag, "APL-1" and "APL-2," to help
him remember that PO3 Lumawag was his companion at that time. 49 PO2 Virtudazo
prepared the Certificate of Inventory, which was signed by their team leader SPO4
Arnaldo, Prosecutor Guiritan and a media representative. 50 PO3 Lumawag testified that
barangay officials were not present because some barangay officials were suspected of
involvement in illegal drugs. 51

As to the second and third link, PO2 Virtudazo, together with SPO3 Alota and PO3
Lumawag, brought the accused and the two sachets to the crime laboratory on the same
day of the arrest. 52 For the final link, forensic chemist PSInsp. Banogon testified that he
examined the two sachets, marked with "APL-1" and "APL-2," and submitted them on 20
March 2003 to PO1 Monton, the PNCO desk officer of the crime laboratory. 53 In his
Chemistry Report No. D-061-2003, PSInsp. Banogon found the substance in the two
sachets positive of shabu. PSInsp. Banogon took possession of the shabu until he
identified and offered the same to the court. 54 Accordingly, the prosecution substantially
complied with the requirements under RA 9165 and sufficiently established the crucial
links in the chain of custody. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu
remain unimpaired.

The accused argues that SPO4 Arnaldo, SPO3 Alota and PO1 Monton should have
testified in court. But in People v. Habana, 55 we held that there is no requirement for the
prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do
with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him. The
discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor. 56 It is
even possible to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone
witness. 57 Furthermore, as aptly ruled by the CA, there was no need for other persons in
the chain of custody to testify, since their testimonies would only corroborate that of PO2
Virtudazo.

In fine, the evidence for the prosecution established that during a buy-bust operation, the
accused was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of selling two sachets of shabu to a
police officer, who acted as a poseur-buyer. Thus, the guilt of the accused had been
proven in the instant case beyond reasonable doubt. DETACa

Under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the crime of unauthorized sale of shabu,

regardless of the quantity and purity thereof, is punishable with life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00). Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.00 was correctly imposed by the RTC and the CA on accused Jose Almodiel
alias "Dodong Astrobal" for illegal sale of shabu.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 14

November 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00632-MIN in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Brion, Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

||| (People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, [September 5, 2012], 694 PHIL 449-471)

[G.R. No. 199689. March 12, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERMANOS

CONSTANTINO, JR. y BINAYUG, a.k.a. "JOJIT," accused-
appellant.
 DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J : p

This appeal challenges the Decision 1 dated July 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03353, affirming the Decision 2 dated April 15, 2008 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5 of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, in Criminal Case No. 10516,
which found accused-appellant Hermanos Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, a.k.a. "Jojit"
(Constantino), guilty of the crime of illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
more popularly known as shabu, under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Information 3 filed before the RTC charged Constantino, as follows:

That on January 20, 2005, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan and
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law and without permit to sell, transport, deliver and
distribute dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, transport, distribute and deliver two (2) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing 0.14 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
commonly known as "shabu", a dangerous drug to a member of the PNP,
Tuguegarao City who acted as a poseur-buyer; that after receiving the two (2)
plastic sachets, the poseur-buyer simultaneously handed to the accused the
marked money consisting of one (1) piece of FIVE HUNDRED PESO BILL
(P500.00) with Serial No. QP278070 and five (5) pieces of ONE HUNDRED
PESO BILL with Serial Nos. SM989053, PS724429, XM484584, BB048002,
and EK6900025 or a total of P1,000.00 and this led to the apprehension of the
accused and the confiscation of the dangerous drug together with the buy-bust
money by the said apprehending law enforcers of the Tuguegarao City Police
Station who formed the buy bust team in coordination with the PDEA. IcCDAS

When arraigned on July 8, 2005, Constantino pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 4
Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued.

Evidence for the prosecution presented the following version of events:

On January 20, 2005, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, Police Superintendent (P/Supt.)
Mariano Rodriguez (Rodriquez), the Chief of Police of Tuguegarao City, received a
report from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain Jojit was selling illegal drugs in
the said city. P/Supt. Rodriguez immediately formed a buy-bust group composed of
Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Noel Taguiam (Taguiam), SPO2 Alexander Tamang
(Tamang), SPO1 Arthur Blaquera (Blaquera), Police Officer (PO) 3 Edwin Hernandez
(Hernandez), and PO3 Rolando Domingo (Domingo). PO3 Domingo was designated as
the poseur-buyer. The buy-bust money, consisting of one P500.00 bill and five P100.00
bills, were dusted with fluorescent powder and their respective serial numbers were
recorded in the police blotter. 5

Around 8:00 in the evening of the same day, the team proceeded to Reynovilla St.,
Caritan Centro, Tuguegarao City, the place where, according to the CI, Jojit was selling
shabu. PO3 Domingo positioned himself beside a street light while the rest of the team
hid behind a nearby concrete fence. After waiting for about 45 minutes, Constantino
arrived on board a tricycle. PO3 Domingo recognized Constantino as the Jojit described
by the CI. PO3 Domingo approached Constantino and asked him if he was Jojit. When
Constantino replied in the affirmative, PO3 Domingo next asked, "Mayroon ka bang
stuff?" ("Do you have stuff?") In response, Constantino inquired of PO3 Domingo how
much he wanted to buy. PO3 Domingo said he wanted to buy P1,000.00 worth of shabu,
simultaneously handing over the buy-bust money to Constantino, who, in turn, handed
two plastic sachets to PO3 Domingo. Thereupon, PO3 Domingo turned his cap
backwards, the pre-arranged signal for the consummated sale. Upon seeing the signal, the
other members of the buy-bust team approached the scene at once and arrested
Constantino, from whom SPO2 Taguiam recovered the buy-bust money. 6 SAcaDE

Thereafter, Constantino was brought to the police station where the recovered drugs and
money were turned over to the investigator, SPO2 Tamang. 7 The recovered drugs were
then marked with the initials "A-1" and "A-2." The incident was recorded in the police
blotter with an inventory of the recovered drugs and money. 8

Later that evening, at around ten o'clock, P/Supt. Rodriguez and SPO2 Tamang submitted
to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Services, Camp Marcelo
Adduru, Tuguegarao City, a request for laboratory examination of two plastic sachets
with white crystalline substance marked as "A-1" and "A-2" to determine the presence of
dangerous drugs; 9 as well as both hands of Constantino, one piece P500.00 bill, and five
pieces P100.00 bills, to determine the presence of the ultra violet powder. 10 Per
Chemistry Report No. D-08-2005 11 and Physical Identification Report No. PI-04-2005,
12 prepared by Police Senior Inspector (P/SInsp.) Mayra Matote Madria, 13 Forensic
Chemist, the contents of the two plastic sachets tested positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride; while the other specimens tested positive for the presence of bright-
yellow ultraviolet fluorescent powder.

Constantino denied the accusation against him and asserted that he was merely framed-
up.

According to Constantino, at around 8:00 in the evening on January 20, 2005, he was
enjoying a joyride with his friend, Jeff Abarriao, on the latter's motorcycle, within the
vicinity of Caritan Centro. After 30 minutes, Constantino decided to go home. While
walking along Reyno or Reynovilla St., two vehicles suddenly stopped, one in front and
the other behind him. Five men, all in civilian clothes, alighted from the two vehicles.
Two of the men held Constantino's hands, while another poked a gun at him, asking him
where he came from and ordering him to bring out the shabu. Constantino answered that
he did not know what the men were talking about. The men then forced Constantino into
one of the vehicles. Inside the vehicle, one of the men frisked and searched Constantino,
and told him that he was being arrested for selling shabu. The men, who were now
apparently police officers, brought Constantino to the Tuguegarao City Police Station. At
the police station, the police officers took Constantino's cellphone and wallet. Also at the
police station, one of the arresting police officers brought out two pieces of plastic
sachets and money and turned it over to one of his companions. At around 9:30 in the
evening, the police officers brought Constantino to the PNP Crime Laboratory, but
nothing happened because he heard that the person who was supposed to conduct the
examination was not around, so, Constantino was brought back to the police station. 14
IaHCAD

The following day, January 21, 2005, the police officers again brought Constantino to the
PNP Crime Laboratory. Along the way, one of the police escorts forced Constantino to
hold a certain amount of money. Constantino tried to resist but he could not really do
anything because he was handcuffed. After his examination, Constantino was detained
and was told that he was suspected of selling shabu.

The RTC promulgated its Decision on April 15, 2008, finding Constantino guilty as
charged. The trial court rejected the arguments of the defense, thus:

1. The Prosecution failed to give a detailed account of the arrangement with

the accused for the purchase of the shabu.

The Court's response: The testimony of PO3 Domingo was detailed enough,
corroborated by other witnesses. It is the defense that has failed to show in
what crucial detail the prosecution's account is wanting.

2. The police officers categorically admitted that they did not personally know
the accused until they were at the alleged place of transaction.

The Court's response: Substantive law does not require this; the rules of
evidence do not. Did they know he was Jojit? Yes, from the description given
the informant. Domingo asked whether he was Jojit. He answered "Yes".

3. The arresting officers failed to comply with the requirements of Article II,
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 that requires that an inventory be taken and that
photographs be taken of the items seized.

The Court's comment: The Police Blotter Entry No. 0270 enumerates the
items seized. This, the Court holds to be substantial compliance. Even
assuming, without admitting, that not all the requirements may not have been
complied with, these omissions do not operate to exclude the evidence nor to
cause suppression thereof. They are directory, not mandatory provisions. DHcSIT

4. The chain of custody was not established with certainty.

The Court's comment: The chain is not difficult to trace, and has been
established by evidence, thus:

a. Exhibit "B": The police blotter recording that on 20 January 2005 at

2100 hours, mentioning the two sachets of shabu which
according to the blotter the accused admitted he handed over to
Domingo; Domingo had testified that the markings A-1 NBT and
A-2 NBT were placed on the sachets by Investigator Alexander
Tamang;

b. Exhibit "F": Dated January 20, 2005, a request to the PNP Crime Lab
Services for the examination of "two plastic sachet (sic) with
white crystalline substance marked A1 and A2";

c. Exhibit "D": Chemistry Report No. D-08-2005 completed 21 January

2005 reporting a qualitative examination of the contents of two
heat-sealed sachets marked as A1 NBT and A2 NBT and
identifying the substance as "Methamphetamine Hydrochloride".

5. There was no prior coordination with PDEA. ACTESI

The Court's response: None was needed. Exhibit "H" clearly evidences that
SPO1 Blaquera was authorized to conduct anti-drug operations. Domingo also
answered the question about coordination with PDEA when he testified:
"During that time 3 representatives of the Intelligence Operatives were
deputized in the PDEA in the persons of Noel Taguiam, Arthur Blaquera and
the Chief of Police."

Hermanos testified in his behalf and his testimony can be reduced to the
following story:

1 He went on a joy-ride that night with his friend aboard a motorcycle;

2 Tiring, he alighted and started to walk along Reyno Villa Street;

3 He was accosted by police officers who, at the time, he did not know
to be police officers;

4 They took him to the police station and produced the sachets;
 5 Next day, while on the way to the Crime Lab, they forced him to hold
marked bills, although he was cuffed.

All told, it is a story that is meant to endeavor to explain the circumstances

around the accused's arrest and apprehension. For one thing, it is self-serving;
for another, we are not told any reason why the police officers should have
wanted to apprehend him a supposedly guiltless man; third, the Court never
heard the testimony of his friend with whom he was supposed to have had a joy-
ride that night. In sum, his story does not convince this Court. 15 (Citations
omitted.) HSDaTC

The RTC imposed the following sentence upon Constantino:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty
of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of P500,000.00. 16

Maintaining his innocence, Constantino appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that:

1. The trial court gravely erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses despite the patent irregularities in the conduct of the
buy-bust operation.

2. The trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant despite the

prosecution's failure to establish that chain of custody of the drug specimens
allegedly confiscated from the accused-appellant.

3. The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the
prosecution's failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs
constituting the corpus delicti of the offense.cDCIHT

In its Decision dated July 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the judgment of
conviction of the RTC against Constantino. The appellate court held that Constantino's
defense of frame-up was not worthy of credence as his version of the incident was not at
all corroborated. Constantino was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to PO3
Domingo, who acted as the poseur-buyer, therefore, he was legally arrested without a
warrant. The appellate court also found that the chain of custody of the shabu had been
preserved from the time said drugs were confiscated from Constantino to the time the
same drugs were delivered to the crime laboratory and thereafter retrieved and presented
as evidence before the trial court. Lastly, the appellate court stressed that between the
positive and categorical declarations of the prosecution witnesses, on one hand, and the
unsubstantial denial or negative statements of the appellant, on the other hand, the former
generally prevails; and that negative averments, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, deserve no weight in law, especially vis-a-vis the time-tested presumption of
regularity of performance of official duty on the part of the apprehending officers.
In the end, the Court of Appeals decreed:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City,

Branch 5, dated 15 April 2008, in Criminal Case No. 10516, is AFFIRMED. 17

Consequently, Constantino comes before this Court seeking the reversal of his conviction
by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

In his Supplemental Brief, Constantino contests his conviction, averring inconsistencies

in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, on the circumstances of the
marking of the two plastic sachets containing shabu allegedly confiscated from him.
Different people claim to have made the marking "NBT" on the two plastic sachets and
gave various explanations as to what the initials "NBT" stand for. In short, Constantino
argues that the prosecution failed to establish a crucial link in the chain of custody of the
shabu in this case.

The appeal is impressed with merit. DACTSa

Admittedly, denial is an inherently weak defense, consistently viewed with disfavor by

the courts, being a self-serving negative evidence. In view, however, of the constitutional
presumption that an accused is innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable
doubt, the burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption by presenting the
required quantum of evidence. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on its own merits
and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. 18

In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply put, "[in] prosecutions for
illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence." 19 And in
the prosecution of these offenses, the primary consideration is to ensure that the identity
and integrity of the seized drugs and other related articles have been preserved from the
time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.
20

Article II, Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165 lays down the procedure to be
followed in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
 confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof[.] LLpr

Article II, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic
Act No. 9165 describes in more detail how the foregoing procedure is to be applied:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served;
or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items[.] CTAIDE

While police officers are enjoined to strictly comply with the procedure prescribed by
law, the IRR also explicitly excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds, but only if
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved by
the apprehending officers. The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are
properly preserved for as long as the chain of custody of the same are duly established.

Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002, 21 defines
"chain of custody" as follows:
 Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include
the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the
seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

In Mallillin v. People, 22 the Court discussed how the chain of custody of seized items is
established: HICEca

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that

the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered
to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the
same. (Citations omitted.)

Thus, the following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized
from the forensic chemist to the court. 23 HDTSIE

After a careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Court finds
glaring inconsistencies affecting the integrity of the shabu purportedly confiscated from
Constantino. The inconsistent testimonies of PO3 Domingo, PO3 Hernandez, and
P/SInsp. Tulauan as to who, when, and where the two plastic sachets of shabu were
marked lead the Court to question whether the two plastic sachets of shabu identified in
court were the very same ones confiscated from Constantino. The doubtful markings
already broke the chain of custody of the seized shabu at a very early stage.

To recall, the first crucial link in the chain of custody is seizure and marking of the illegal
drug. In this case, PO3 Domingo, as poseur-buyer, received two plastic sachets of shabu
from Constantino in exchange for P1,000. However, PO3 Domingo himself did not put
any markings on the two plastic sachets of shabu. Instead, upon arrival of the buy-bust
team with Constantino at the police station, PO3 Domingo turned over the two plastic
sachets of shabu to the investigator, SPO2 Tamang, who was also a member of the buy-
bust team. PO3 Domingo testified that it was SPO2 Tamang who put the marking "NBT"
on the said sachets of shabu. Below are the excerpts from PO3 Domingo's testimony:

Q If that plastic sachets which was sold to you by Hermanos Constantino is

shown to you will you be able to identify the same?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q How were you able to identify the plastic sachets?

A There is an initials (sic), ma'am.

Q What initials are you referring to?

A A-1 initial NBT and A-2 initial NBT.

Q Who placed those initials in the plastic sachets?

A The Investigator, ma'am.

Q And who is the investigator?

A Alexander Tamang, ma'am. HTaSEA

Q Where did he place those initials?

A In the police station after the apprehension, ma'am. 24 (Emphasis supplied.)

However, PO3 Hernandez, another member of the buy-bust team, categorically pointed to
SPO2 Taguiam, also a member of the buy-bust team, as the one who put the marking
"NBT" on the plastic sachets upon the team's return to the police station, thus:

PROS. NICOLAS:

Q During the buy bust operation you stated that the accused handed to the
poseur buyer in the person of PO3 Rolando Domingo two plastic sachets
containing as you claimed methamphetamine hydrochloride, have you
seen these plastic sachets at that time when they handed to PO3 Rolando
Domingo?

A Yes, sir.
Q If these two plastic sachets will be shown to you again today will you be able
to tell that these two plastic sachets were the same plastic sachets that
were handed by the accused to PO3 Rolando Domingo?

A Yes, sir.

Q I am showing to you these two plastic sachets kindly tell us if these are the
plastic sachets that were handed to PO3 Rolando Domingo?

A These are the ones, sir. EcIaTA

Q Why do you say that these are the two plastic sachets handed by the accused?

A Because I was there and I saw the accused handed the two plastic sachets to
PO3 Rolando Domingo, sir.

Q Why do you know that these are the same plastic sachets?

A These are the ones, sir.

Q Mr. Witness, there are markings on these two plastic sachets, do you know
whose markings are these?

xxx xxx xxx

A It was Noel B. Taguiam, sir.

The witness is pointing to the marking NBT partly hidden.

COURT:

Q Who is Noel B. Taguiam?

A A member of the buy bust team also, sir.

PROS. NICOLAS:

Q You stated this NBT was placed by one Noel B. Taguiam, why do you know
that he was the one who placed this?

A Because I was present during that time when he placed his initial, sir. TIDaCE

Q Do you know when this Noel B. Taguiam placed those initials on those two
plastic sachets?

A After we conducted the buy bust operation, sir.

 Q How soon Noel B. Taguiam placed those initials after the conduct of the buy
bust operation?

A After a few hours, sir.

Q Where did he place those initials?

A In our office, sir. 25 (Emphasis supplied.)

To complicate things even further, P/SInsp Tulauan, 26 the Forensic Chemist, also
declared before the trial court that the marking "NBT" on the two plastic sachets of shabu
were made by SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray (Tamaray), the duty officer who received the
specimens at the crime laboratory. P/SInsp. Tulauan testified:

PROS. ISRAEL:

Q When you received these two specimens Madam Witness, will you please tell
us the physical appearance of these items when you received the same?

A They were heat-sealed and with markings "A-1" and "A-2," your Honor.

Q And will you please point to us these markings "A-1" and "A-2" when you
received these items Madam Witness?

A This is the markings "A-1" and "A-2," Ma'am.

INTERPRETER:

The witness is pointing to the markings "A-1" and "A-2" with the use of a black
pentel pen.

PROS. ISRAEL:

Q There is another marking in this plastic sachet Madam Witness marked as

NBT, what is this marking all about?

A That is the marking of SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray, Ma'am.

Q Is he authorized to make the necessary marking which was requested to be

examined Madam Witness?

A Yes, Ma'am because he is the one who received the specimen from the one
who deliver it, Ma'am. CAIaDT
 Q In this second plastic sachet Madam Witness which you identified earlier, that
there is a marking "A-1," there is another marking NBT, what is this
marking all about Madam Witness?

A That is the marking of SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray, Ma'am. 27 (Emphases

supplied.)

On cross-examination, P/SInsp. Tulauan confirmed her previous declaration that SPO3

Tamaray had claimed making the marking on the sachets of shabu:

Atty. Aquino

Madam Witness, with respect to that marking made which are "A1" and "A-2",
they are not your markings, is it not? DSIaAE

A Yes, sir.

Q And with respect also to that NBT marked and placed in that exhibit which
you have earlier identified, you did not see this duty officer placed his
markings thereon, is it not?

A Yes sir but I asked him who placed that marking and he said that he was the
one who placed the initial NBT, sir. 28

The Court already emphasized in People v. Zakaria 29 the importance of marking the
seized item right after seizure:

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized dangerous
drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused,
for the marking upon seizure is the starting point in the custodial link that
succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as reference point. Moreover, the
value of marking of the evidence is to separate the marked evidence from the
corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the
accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating
switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. A failure to mark at the time
of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the
law requires. (Citation omitted.) IHEaAc

Herein, the prosecution is completely silent as to why PO3 Domingo, the poseur-buyer,
despite having immediate custody of the two plastic sachets of shabu purchased from
Constantino, failed to immediately mark the seized drugs before turning over the custody
of the same to another police officer. This lapse in procedure opened the door for
confusion and doubt as to the identity of the drugs actually seized from Constantino
during the buy-bust and the ones presented before the trial court, especially considering
that three different people, during the interval, supposedly received and marked the same.
To clarify the matter, the prosecution could have presented as witness either SPO2
Tamang or SPO2 Taguiam to directly validate the marking in court, but unfortunately, the
prosecution chose to dispense with the testimonies of both officers. This omission
diminished the importance of the markings as the reference point for the subsequent
handling of the evidence. As a consequence, an objective person could now justifiably
suspect the shabu ultimately presented as evidence in court to be planted or
contaminated. 30

The failure of the prosecution to establish the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to its
case as the Court can no longer consider or even safely assume that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated dangerous drug were properly preserved. 31

In light of the foregoing, Constantino is acquitted of the crime charged, not because the
Court accords credence to his defense of frame-up, but because the prosecution failed to
discharge its burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 29, 2011 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03353, affirming the Decision dated April
15, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5 of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, in Criminal
Case No. 10516, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Hermanos Constantino, Jr.
y Binayug, a.k.a. "Jojit," is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt and is ORDERED to be immediately released from detention
unless he is confined for another lawful cause. cASTED

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.

||| (People v. Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, G.R. No. 199689, [March 12, 2014])