Illegal Sale of Drugs, Chain of Custody

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205821 October 1, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

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

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)
That on or about September 14, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drugs, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL AND DELIVER to PO1 WILFREDO BOBON y TARROZA, a member of the PNP, who acted as
buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic pack containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0120 gram which
when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE
(shabu) knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921)
VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)
That on or about September 14, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession and under his
custody and control six (6) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance, each weighing as
follows: 1) 0.0135 gram; 2) 0.0183 gram; 3) 0.0542 gram; 4) 0.0197 gram; 5) 0.0100 [gram]; and 6) 0.0128 gram or a total of 0.1285 gram;
which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) knowing same
to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Citations omitted)

3
As alleged by the prosecution, dela Cruz was arrested in a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust operation was allegedly conducted after a
civilian informant (the informant) tipped the Zamboanga City Police Office that a certain "Gary" was selling illegal drugs at the parking area
for buses behind Food Mart, Governor Lim Street, Sangali, Bunguioa, Zamboanga City (the target area). 4
The buy-bust operation team included PO1 Wilfredo Bobon (PO1 Bobon), as poseur-buyer, and SPO1 Roberto Roca (SPO1 Roca), as back-
up arresting officer. It was agreed that "PO1 Bobon would remove his bull cap once the sale of illegal drugs was [consummated]." The buy-
bust team prepared a _100.00 bill with serial number KM 776896 as marked money. 5
At around 11:00 a.m. of September 14, 2004, the buy-bust operation team, accompanied by the informant, went to the target area. The
informant initially brokered the sale of shabu. It was PO1 Bobon who handed the marked money to dela Cruz in exchange for one (1) heat-
sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu. After which, he removed his bull cap. SPO1 Roca then arrested dela Cruz. 6
Upon frisking dela Cruz, PO1 Bobon supposedly recovered six (6) more heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu. PO1 Bobon placed the
sachet he purchased from dela Cruz in his right pocket and the six (6) other sachets in his left pocket. SPO1 Roca recovered the marked
_100.00 bill.7
Dela Cruz and the seven (7) sachets seized from him were then brought to the Zamboanga City Police Station. There, PO1 Bobon taped the
8
sachets. He then marked the sachet from his right pocket with his initials, "WB." He marked the sachets from his left pocket as "WB-1," "WB-
9
2," "WB-3," "WB-4," "WB-5," and "WB-6." 10
On the same day, the seven (7) sachets were turned over to SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr., the investigating officer, who prepared the request for
laboratory examination. Subsequently, the tests yielded positive results for shabu. 11
During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO1 Bobon, SPO1 Roca, and forensic chemist Police Inspector Melvin L. Manuel. The
sole witness presented for the defense was dela Cruz himself. 12
For his part, dela Cruz acknowledged that on the morning of September 14, 2004, he was in the target area. As he was leaving the comfort
room, someone embraced him from behind, while another poked a gun at him. He was then handcuffed and brought to an L-300 van which
was parked in front of Food Mart. Inside the van, he was asked if he was Jing-Jong, alias Jong-Jong. Despite his denials, he was brought to
the police station. It was when he was already detained that he learned that he was charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. 13
On August 19, 2010, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Zamboanga City, convicted dela Cruz for violating Article II, Section 5 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of _500,000.00. He was also convicted for
violating Article II, Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentenced to 12 years and one day up to 14 years
imprisonment and a fine of _300,000.00. The dispositive portion of this decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds:
1. In Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920), accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱500,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2. In Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921), accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating
Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY to FOURTEEN
YEARS of imprisonment and pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱300,000) without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered confiscated to be turned over to the proper
authorities for disposition.
SO ORDERED. 14
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, dela Cruz assailed the prosecution’s failure to establish the chain of custody of the seized sachets of
shabu. He also assailed the validity of the buy-bust operation and the prosecution’s failure to present the informant in court.
15
On May 31, 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming dela Cruz’ conviction in toto. Thereafter, dela Cruz filed his notice of
16
appeal.17
In the resolution dated April 15, 2013, this court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they may
18
file their supplemental briefs.
On June 6, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, noting that it
19
would no longer file a supplemental brief as the brief it filed with the Court of Appeals had adequately addressed the arguments and issues
raised by dela Cruz.
On August 7, 2013, dela Cruz filed a manifestation indicating that he, too, would no longer file a supplemental brief and that he was instead
20
re-pleading, adopting, and reiterating the defenses and arguments in the brief he filed before the Court of Appeals.
For resolution is the issue of whether dela Cruz’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was established. Subsumed in the resolution of this issue are the issues raised by dela Cruz in the brief he
filed with the Court of Appeals, foremost of which is whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the chain of custody
requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs are settled:
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale
took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an
item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely
and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established
beyond reasonable doubt. 21
With respect to the element of corpus delicti, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act
No. 10640 provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Particularly
on the matter of custody before a criminal case is filed, Section 21, as amended, provides:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of
the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served;
or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be
submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be
issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to
be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion
of the said examination and certification;
....
The significance of complying with Section 21’s requirements cannot be overemphasized. Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in
establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing
to establish an element of these offenses, non-compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused.
We reiterate the extensive discussion on this matter from our recent decision in People v. Holgado: 22
As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant
failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti." It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized
23
paraphernalia]." 24
The significance of ensuring the integrity of drugs and drug paraphernalia in prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 is discussed in
People v. Belocura: 25
Worse, the Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the corpus delicti itself. The omission naturally
raises grave doubt about any search being actually conducted and warrants the suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.
In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for the custody of the incriminating evidence from
the moment of seizure and confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not
enough that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also be sufficiently connected to and tied with the
facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely because it is available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved
and with the parties thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the introduction of evidence are
important. (Emphasis supplied)
26
In Malilin v. People, this court explained that the exactitude required by Section 21 goes into the very nature of narcotics as the subject of
27
prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has
physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham vs. State positively
acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance later analyzed as heroin—was handled by two police officers prior to examination
who however did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possession—was excluded
from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been
sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least
between the time it came into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of
the state as to the laboratory’s findings is inadmissible.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to
determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of
the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases—
by accident or otherwise—in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in
authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied,
a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the
original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. (Emphasis supplied)
28
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or
surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity
(e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their
seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them.
Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner.
By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v.
Lorenzo: 29
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of
the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or
sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit
must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. (Emphasis supplied)
30
The prosecution’s sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction.
Not even the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the
regularity of the manner by which officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is "negated." Republic Act No. 9165 requires
31
compliance with Section 21.
Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not
suffice. In People v. Magat, for instance, this court had occasion to emphasize the inadequacy of merely marking the items supposedly
32
seized: "Marking of the seized drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough to comply with the clear and unequivocal procedures
prescribed in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165." 33
The exactitude which the state requires in handling seized narcotics and drug paraphernalia is bolstered by the amendments made to
Section 21 by Republic Act No. 10640. Section 21(1), as amended, now includes the following proviso, thereby making it even more stringent
than as originally worded:
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
In People v. Nandi, this court explained that four (4) links "should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the
34
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to
the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court." 35
In Nandi, where the prosecution failed to show how the seized items were handled following the actual seizure and, thereafter, turned over
for examination, this court held that the accused must be acquitted:
After a closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of custody of the subject item were not clearly established. As can be
gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1 Collado failed to provide informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately
after the seizure. He just claimed that the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the transaction and, thereafter, he handed
it to the investigator.
There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. PO1 Collado could not even provide the court
with the name of the investigator. He admitted that he was not present when it was delivered to the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist
Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who identified the person who delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory. He disclosed that he received the
specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even a member of the buy-bust team. Per their record, PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-
request with the attached seized item to the CPD Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2 Semacio recorded it and turned it over to the
Chemistry Section.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered view that chain of custody of the illicit drug seized was compromised. Hence, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in this case.
Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its
custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a
procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the
standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the
flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty.
With the chain of custody in serious question, the Court cannot gloss over the argument of the accused regarding the weight of the seized
drug. The standard procedure is that after the confiscation of the dangerous substance, it is brought to the crime laboratory for a series of
tests. The result thereof becomes one of the bases of the charge to be filed. (Citations omitted)
36
As Holgado emphasized, "[e]ven the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the
requirements of Section 21 does not suffice." In People v. Garcia, this court noted that the mere marking of seized paraphernalia,
37 38
unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of photographs, and in the absence of the persons required by Section 21 to be present,
does not suffice:
Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not disclosed), no physical inventory was
ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules.
We observe that while there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was
made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his representatives. There was likewise no mention that any
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during this inventory, or that any of
these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory. (Citations omitted)
39
In this case, the Regional Trial Court acknowledged that no physical inventory of the seized items was conducted. Similarly, there is nothing
40
in the records to show that the seized items were photographed in the manner required by Section 21. Likewise, none of the persons
required by Section 21 to be present (or their possible substitutes) have been shown to be present.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals assert that dela Cruz must nevertheless be convicted as "it had been clearly established
that the identity of the items were [sic] properly preserved." They anchor this conclusion on PO1 Bobon’s having supposedly kept the seized
41
sachets in his own pockets: one (1) sachet in his right pocket and six (6) sachets in his left pocket.
The Court of Appeals reasons:
We found no gap in the prosecution’s presentation of the chain of custody. There was a seizure of seven (7) heat-sealed sachets of shabu as
a result of a valid buy-bust operation. PO1 Bobon and SPO1 Roca testified how the seizure was conducted. PO1 Bobon was able to identify
the shabu which were involved in the illegal sale vis-a-vis the one involved in illegal possession because he knowingly put them in different
pockets. The seized drugs were marked at the police station which was only 200 meters away from the area where the arrest was made. The
identity of these seized items were secured as PO1 Bobon placed tapes on the respective heat-sealed sachets of shabu and marked them
with his initials which he later identified in court. (Citation omitted)
42
The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own pockets precisely underscores the importance of strictly complying with
Section 21. His subsequent identification in open court of the items coming out of his own pockets is self-serving.
The prosecution effectively admits that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until the seized items’ turnover for examination,
these items had been in the sole possession of a police officer. In fact, not only had they been in his possession, they had been in such close
proximity to him that they had been nowhere else but in his own pockets.
Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of
the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not
dubious.
Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single police officer’s act of bodily-keeping the
item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need
not engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to view with distrust the items coming out of PO1 Bobon’s
pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both failed to see through this and fell — hook, line, and sinker — for PO1
Bobon’s avowals is mind-boggling.
Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even offering the slightest justification for dispensing with the requirements of Section 21.
Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a proviso to the effect that "noncompliance of (sic)
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items." Plainly, the prosecution has not
shown that –on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz was arrested and the sachets supposedly seized and marked – there were "justifiable
grounds" for dispensing with compliance with Section 21. All that the prosecution has done is insist on its self-serving assertion that the
integrity of the seized sachets has, despite all its lapses, nevertheless been preserved.
Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets, it is also admitted that no physical inventory and taking of
photographs in the presence of dela Cruz or of any of the other persons specified by Section 21 were conducted. 43
As in People v. Garcia, the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, will not suffice to sustain a conviction in this case.
The miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly seized from dela Cruz amplifies the doubts on their integrity. In total, the seven (7) sachets
1âwphi1
supposedly contained all of 0.1405 gram of shabu. This quantity is so miniscule it amounts to little more than 7% of the weight of a five-
centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams).
As we have discussed in People v. Holgado:
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more
exacting compliance with Section 21. In Malilin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an
exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances
familiar to people in their daily lives."
....
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor
into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny,
consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be
readily planted and tampered. . . . (Citations omitted)
44
As the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crimes for which dela Cruz is charged has not been established, it follows that there is no basis for
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is proper that dela Cruz be acquitted.
We close by hearkening to the same words with which we ended in Holgado:
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and
retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have
been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly
vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus
resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources
expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the
overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace.
We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 45
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated May 31, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00869-MIN is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Garry dela Cruz y de Guzman is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this court within five days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken.
Copies shall also be furnished the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drugs
Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance
with law.
SO ORDERED.
MARVIC M.V. LEONEN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE C. MENDOZA
Associate Justice
CE RTI F ICATIO N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VlII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/august2014/207992.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
2
Rollo, p. 3.
3
Id. at 4.
4
Id. at 6.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Id. at 7.
8
Id.
9
CA rollo, p. 41.
10
Id.
11
Rollo, p. 7.
12
Id. at 5.
13
Id. at 7–8.
14
Id. at 8.
15
Id. at 9.
16
Id. at 3–18.
17
Id. at 19–20.
18
Id. at 25.
19
Id. at 27–28.
20
Id. at 30–31.
People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 235 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v.
21
Darisan et al., 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division] and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009) [Per J.
Tinga, Second Division].
22
G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/
jurisprudence/2014/august2014/207992.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
23
People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 236 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], as cited in People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051,
24
July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758 [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
25
G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 318 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
26
Id. at 337–338.
27
576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
28
Id. at 588–589.
29
G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 389 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
30
Id. at 401.
People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 609, 618 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division]. See also
31
People v. Ulat, G.R. No. 180504, October 5, 2011, 650 SCRA 607 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
32
588 Phil. 395 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
33
Id. at 97.
34
G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
35
Id. at 133, citing People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
36
Id. at 133–134.
37
People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
38
599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
39
Id. at 429.
40
CA rollo, p. 41.
41
Id.
42
Rollo, p. 14.
43
CA rollo, p. 41.
44
G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
45
Id.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 200797 January 12, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
MANOLITO OPIANA Y TANAEL, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Appellant Manolito Opiana y Tanael was charged with the crimes of violations of Section 5 (sale of illegal drugs; 0.05 gram) and Section 11
(possession of dangerous drugs; 0.74 gram), both of Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002. The facts of the case showed that on April 8, 2008, the Makati police officers and Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)
operatives conducted an entrapment/buy-bust operation on appellant who was reportedly engaged in illegal drug trade in Brgy. Guadalupe
Viejo, Makati City. MADAC operative Sherwin Sydney Serrano (Serrano) acted as poseur-buyer. After having been introduced by the
informant as a "scorer" of shabu, appellant and Serrano negotiated for the sale of ₱300.00 worth of shabu. Serrano gave appellant the ₱300
marked money and in exchange, appellant handed to Serrano a heat-sealed sachet containing white crystalline substance. After making the
pre-arranged signal, appellant was apprehended and when bodily frisked, 19 heat-sealed sachets were recovered from his possession.
Laboratory examination revealed that all 20 heat-sealed sachets yielded positive results for shabu.
Appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that on April 8, 2008, he was repairing a vehicle infront of his house when a green van
arrived and three (3) men alighted. When he affirmatively answered to their query whether he is "Noli," he was immediately arrested. He
asserted that the policeofficers mistook him as the "Noli" who was known to be a drug peddler in their area. He argued that he is known in
their placeas "Noli Mekaniko,"and not the drug peddler. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
In a Decision dated May 26, 2009, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65, convicted appellant of violations of Sections 5 (sale
ofillegal drugs) and 11 (possession of dangerous drugs), Article II of RA 9165.It ratiocinated thus:
In order to successfully prosecute anaccused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able toprove the following
elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. x x x The delivery of the illegal drugs subject of the sale and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction
between the entrapping officers and the accused. It is therefore important to prove only that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs. x x x
xxxx
After a prudent consideration, the court finds that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the crime of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the collective evidence presented during the trial by the
prosecution adequately established that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted by the operatives of the MADAC as well as the SAID-
SOTF, Makati City on April 8, 2008 after proper coordination with the PDEA was made x x x. During the operation, 0.05 gram of shabu x x x
was purchased by MADAC operative Serrano from accused Manolito Opiana in consideration of ₱300.00. The results of the laboratory test
confirmed that the item contained in the said plastic sachet which was bought from the accused was indeed methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu x x x. There can be no gain saying the credibility of the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination
on the specimen. In fact, nothing was adduced or intimated that the said prosecution witness had reason to fabricate or concoct her findings.
Likewise, there can be no question about the identity of the corpus delicti in the instant case for sale of illegal drugs. The small plastic sachet
containing shabu marked as "WIN"which was brought to and identified in court was found to be the same plastic sachet of shabu which the
prosecution witness, MADAC operative Serrano, purchased fromthe accused during the buy-bust operation. Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Bobier
testified and confirmed having signed the inventory sheet x x x of the items seized from the accused in his presence. Therefore, the integrity
and evidentiary value of the items confiscated and/or purchased from the accused had been well safeguarded as to be reliable.
Needless to state, the identity of the accused was positively established in open court by the witnesses for the prosecution who pointed to
him as the same person who was apprehended during the buy-bust operation.
Moreover, the prosecution adequately established the existence of all the elements for the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
under Section 11, Article II of the same Act, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug x x x.
It has been ruled that there can be no conviction for the subject offense unless the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed
the prohibited articles in his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be present together with his possession or control of such article x
x x. Based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, however, it was clearly shown that nineteen (19) plastic sachets containing shabu
x x x were recovered from the accused. The contents thereof were later examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory and were found to be in fact
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The accused had no authority to possess or otherwise use said dangerous drugs; neither did he
have any license or prescription to possess the same. The intention of the accused to possess the said plastic sachets containing shabu was
patent considering that these were found in his person after a routine body search was conducted. It is also beyond cavil thathe possessed
the said plastic sachets containing shabu freely and consciously.
The inventory of the items seized from the accused and the testimony in open court of Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Bobier, an elected official,
bolstered the claim of the prosecution that a buy-bust operation was conducted by operatives of the MADAC as well as SAID-SOTF, Makati
City, which operation resulted in the arrest of the accused. It is settled that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act, 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. x x x 1
The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 08-542, the court finds the accused, MANOLITO OPIANA y TANAEL, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. 08-543, the court finds the same accused, MANOLITO OPIANA y TANAEL, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the charge for violation of Section 11, ArticleII, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum and to pay a fine of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided by law.
SO ORDERED. 2
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In his Brief, appellant alleged that the buy-bust team did not observe the proper
procedure governing the handling, custody and disposition of the illegal drugs. In particular, he contended that there was a gap in the chain
of custody as it was unclear what happened to the specimen after it was delivered to the crime laboratory and examined by the forensic
chemist or how it was brought tothe court. The defense also lamented the failure of the police officers to secure a search warrant or warrant
of arrest despite ample time to do the same.
Unpersuaded, the CA, in its June 30,2011 Decision, ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 26 May 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED. 3
The CA opined that based on the testimony of MADAC operative Serrano, all the elements for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, i.e., that a
sale transaction took place and the illicit drug was presented in court, were satisfactorily proved. More important, the integrity and evidentiary
value of the illicit drug were properly preserved, viz:
x x x [T]he marking of the evidence was testified to by Serrano whereas the testimony of the investigator x x x was stipulated upon by the
prosecution and the defense. The recovered items were turned over to PO1 Randy C. Santos upon his conduct of investigation. The request
for laboratory examination was delivered by PO1 Gimena on 08 April 2008 at 2125H and the same was received by PSI Jocelyn J. Belen
whose testimony was likewise stipulated upon. Although there has been no photographs taken and no testimony as to what happened with
the evidence after the same was submitted for laboratory examination, the same was positively identified by Serrano during trial. x x x 4
Anent the charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the CA also found that the prosecution satisfactorily established all the elements
thereof, to wit: 1) that the accused is in possession of a prohibited drug;2) such possession is not sanctioned by law; and 3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the illegal drugs. In addition, the CA found no ill-motives on the part of the police operatives.
In an April 25, 2012 Resolution, we required both parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. However, both optedto adopt the briefs
5
they submitted before the CA.
Our Ruling
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the appeal to be lacking in merit. Both the RTC of Makati City, Branch 65
1âwphi1
and the CA correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by
RA 9346. For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the
6
seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a prosecution for
illegalsale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug in evidence." Similarly, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements for the illegal possession of
7
dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, to wit: appellant was shown to have been inpossession of 0.74 gram of shabu, a prohibited drug;
his possession was not authorized by law; and that hefreely and consciously possessed the said illegal drug.
Under the law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346, only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus,
the penalty imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, i.e., life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00, is proper. However, appellant
is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on
the other hand, is imprisonment of twelve (12)years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from ₱300,000.00 to
₱400,000.00, if the quantity of the dangerous drug is less than five (5) grams. In this case, appellant was found to have been in illegal
possession of 0.74 gram of shabu. Thus, he was properly meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to 14 years and eight (8) months and a fine of 1,000,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the June 30, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Manolito Opiana y Tanael
is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as
amended by Republic Act No. 9346, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole and ordering
him to pay the fine of ₱500,000.00, for violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a fine of ₱300,000.00, for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No.
9165.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.* JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
ATTE STATI O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CE RTI F ICATIO N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.
1
Records, pp. 112-114.
2
Id. at 114; penned by Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.
3
CA rollo, p. 154; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and
Normandie B. Pizarro.
4
Id. at 91.
5
Rollo, pp. 39-40.
6
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
7
People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 409 (2007).

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 189840 December 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Failure to physically inventory and photograph the shabu seized from an accused in the manner prescribed by law do not invalidate his arrest
or render said drug inadmissible in evidence if its integrity and evidentiary value remain intact. It could still be utilized in determining the guilt
or innocence of the accused. 1
Factual Antecedents
On appeal is the Decision dated July 31, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03208 which affirmed the
2
Decision dated December 18, 2007 of Branch 65, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 05-1396 to 1397
3
convicting beyond reasonable doubt Jay Montevirgen y Oza.raga (appellant) for the crime of illegal sale and possession of shabu under
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Informations against appellant read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 05-1396

That on or about the 19th day of July 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell distribute and transport,
weighing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the
above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 05-1397
That on or about the 19th day of July 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
abovenamed accused, not lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or
prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control weighing zero point
zero four (0.04) gram and zero point ten (0.10) gram or [a] total weight of zero point fourteen (0.14) gram of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride (Shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
During arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty" in the two cases. After the pre-trial conference, a joint trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On July 18, 2005, P/Supt. Marietto Valerio (P/Supt. Valerio) of the Makati City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force
received a report from a confidential informant that appellant was selling shabu in Malvar Street, Barangay South Cembo, Makati City. Thus,
he immediately formed a team composed of police officers and personnel of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) to conduct a buy-
bust operation against appellant. The members of the entrapment team were PO3 Esterio M. Ruiz, Jr. (PO3 Ruiz), PO1 Percival Mendoza,
PO1 Honorio Marmonejo (PO1 Marmonejo), Barangay Captain Rodolfo Doromal, Eugenio Dizer, Miguel Castillo, Leo Sese, and Anthony
Villanueva. PO3 Ruiz was designated as poseur-buyer and was provided with two 100-peso bills marked money. PO1 Marmonejo, on the
other hand, coordinated the operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which issued a Certificate of Coordination. The 6
buy-bust team then proceeded to the subject area but could not locate appellant. 7
The next day, July 19, 2005, the buy-bust team returned to Malvar Street and found appellant talking to three men. After these men departed,
PO3 Ruiz, accompanied by the confidential informant, approached appellant. The confidential informant introduced PO3 Ruiz to appellant
and told him that PO3 Ruiz wanted to buy shabu. Appellant asked PO3 Ruiz how much he wanted to buy and he replied, ₱200.00. Appellant
pulled out from his pocket three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and told PO3 Ruiz to choose one. He complied and
gave the marked money to appellant as payment. Appellant pocketed the remaining plastic sachets together with the marked money. PO3
Ruiz then took off his cap – the pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been consummated. The other buy-bust team members then
rushed to the scene to assist PO3 Ruiz in apprehending appellant. The two other plastic sachets and marked money were recovered from
appellant after PO3 Ruiz ordered him to empty his pockets. PO3 Ruiz then marked the plastic sachets – "EMR" for the one appellant sold to
him and "EMR-1" and "EMR-2" for the other two sachets confiscated from appellant.
8
Appellant was taken to the police headquarters where he was booked and the incident recorded in the police blotter. The items seized from
him were turned over to the duty investigator who prepared a request for laboratory examination and then sent to the crime laboratory. The
results revealed that the contents of the plastic sachets are positive for shabu.9
Version of the Defense
Appellant testified that on July 19, 2005, at around 2 p.m., he was in his house with his wife and child when he was roused from sleep by a
man armed with a gun. Several other armed men entered his house. He was told that a buy-bust operation was being conducted. They
searched his house then appellant was made to board a vehicle where he was showed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance that he believed to be shabu. He struggled to free himself and denied ownership thereof but his actions were futile. He was taken
to Barangay Olympia, Makati City, where he was detained for 30 minutes, then brought to the crime laboratory for drug testing. 10
Defense witness Fancy Dela Cruz corroborated the testimony of appellant. She averred that at around 1:30 p.m. of July 19, 2005, two
vehicles parked almost in front of her. Several men alighted from the vehicles and forced open the door of appellant’s house. She inquired as
to their intentions but was told not to intervene and to avoid involvement. She complied but heard one of the men telling appellant to get up
and put on his clothes. The men then had appellant board one of the vehicles and sped away. She looked for appellant’s wife and informed
her of the incident.
11
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the events that transpired prior to and during the buy-bust
operation. It rendered a verdict of conviction on December 18, 2007, viz:
12
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 05-1396, the Court finds accused JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the charge for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165, and sentences him to suffer LIFE imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE
Hundred Thousand (₱500,000.00) pesos;
2. In Criminal Case No. 05-1397, the Court finds accused JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12)
years and one (1) day as minimum to Twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand
(₱300,000.00);
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drug subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.
SO ORDERED. 13
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA concurred with the RTC’s findings and conclusions and, consequently, affirmed its judgment in the assailed Decision of 14
July 31, 2009. The dispositive portion of CA’s Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The December 18, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Makati, Branch 65 is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 15
Assignment of Errors
Still unable to accept his conviction, appellant is now before us raising the same interrelated errors he assigned before the CA, viz:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO. 9165.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE NOTWIT[H]STANDING THE
FAILURE OF THE A[P]PREHENDING TEAM TO PROVE [THE] INTEGRITY OF THE SEIZED DRUGS. 16
In his joint discussion of these errors, appellant contends that the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation failed to observe the
proper procedure in the custody and control of the seized drug by not marking the confiscated specimens in the manner mandated by law.
He claims that the arresting team did not immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the
presence of his representative or counsel, representative from media, Department of Justice, and any elected public officials pursuant to
Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. He also argues that the Certificate of Coordination has no weight in
evidence and cannot be used to prove the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation since it was issued for the failed entrapment operation the
previous day, July 18, 2005.
Appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General argues that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of illegal sale and
possession of shabu against appellant. It asserts that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu seized from appellant were properly
preserved by the arresting team.
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal

Sale and Possession of Shabu.
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proved: "(1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x
What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti" or the illicit drug in evidence. On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of
17
dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following elements must concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an
item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug. 18
In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were established. PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the
person he caught in flagrante delicto selling a white crystalline substance believed to be shabu in the entrapment operation conducted by the
police and MADAC operatives. Upon receipt of the ₱200.00 buy-bust money, appellant handed to PO3 Ruiz the sachet containing 0.04 gram
of white crystalline substance which later tested positive for shabu. "The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by
the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction x x x." 19
All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs were also established. First, the two plastic sachets
containing shabu subject of the case for the illegal possession of drugs were found in appellant’s pocket after a search on his person was
made following his arrest in flagrante delicto for the illegal sale of shabu. It must be remembered that a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a warrant. Second, appellant
20
did not adduce evidence showing his legal authority to possess the shabu. Third, appellant’s act of allowing the poseur-buyer to choose one
from among the three sachets and putting back into his pocket the two sachets of shabu not chosen clearly shows that he freely and
consciously possessed the illegal drugs. Hence, appellant was correctly charged and convicted for illegal possession of shabu.
Appellant’s defense of denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses. There is also no imputation by appellant
of any evil motives on the part of the buy-bust team to falsely testify against him. Their testimonies and actuations therefore enjoy the
presumption of regularity.
Failure to Physically Inventory and

Photograph the Shabu After Seizure
and Confiscation is Not Fatal.
Appellant draws attention to the failure of the apprehending police officers to comply with Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of RA 9165 regarding the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. This provision reads as follows:
(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; 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.
In other words, the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and take photograph
of the objects confiscated does not ipso facto render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing rules
stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been
preserved, the seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. 21
Here, the absence of evidence that the buy-bust team made an inventory and took photographs of the drugs seized from appellant was not
fatal since the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu. PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-buyer and
apprehending officer, marked the seized items in front of appellant, the barangay captain and other members of the buy-bust team,
immediately after the consummation of the drug transaction. He then delivered the seized items to the duty investigator, who in turn sent the
same to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the same day. During trial, PO3 Ruiz was able to identify the said markings and
explain how they were made.
Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and examination of the shabu. The illegal drugs that were
1âwphi1
confiscated from appellant, taken to the police headquarters, subjected to qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, and finally
introduced in evidence against appellant were the same illegal drugs that were confiscated from him when he was caught in flagrante
delicto selling and possessing the same.
Appellant’s contention that the buy-bust team should have coordinated with the PDEA on the day the entrapment operation occurred
deserves scant consideration. Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation. A buy-bust
22
operation is not invalidated by mere noncoordination with the PDEA. 23
Penalty
Under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10 million. Since the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is
within the prescribed range, we affirm the lower courts’ imposition of life imprisonment as well as the payment of fine of ₱500,000.00.
On the other hand, Section 11(3), Article II of the same law provides that illegal possession of less than five grams of shabu is penalized with
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years plus a fine ranging from ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00.
Appellant was found guilty of selling one sachet containing 0.04 gram of shabu and of possessing two other sachets of the same substance
with a total weight of 0.14 gram. Hence, applying the above provisions, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as
minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum and the payment of fine of ₱300,000.00 imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA are also
proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated July 31, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03208
affirming the conviction of Jay Montevirgen y Ozaraga by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65, for violation of Sections 5 and
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN*

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

Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1627 dated December 6, 2013.
1
People v. Guiara, G.R No. 186497, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 310, 329.
2
CA rol/o, pp. 99-124; penned by Associate Justice Portia Alifio-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Arcangelita
M. Romilla Lontok and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal.
3
Records, pp. 105-112; penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.
4
Id. at 2.
5
Id. at 4.
6
Id. at 13.
7
TSN, July 4, 2006, pp. 4-8.
8
Id. at 10-13.
9
Id. at 13-14; Exhibits "K" to "K-2," "L" to "L-2" and "M" to "M-2," Formal Offer of Evidence, id. at 66-70.
10
TSN, June 19, 2007, pp. 3-5.
11
TSN, December 11, 2007, pp. 3-5.
12
Records, pp. 105-112.
13
Id. at 111-112.
14
CA rollo, pp. 99-124.
15
Id. at 123.
16
Id. at 33.
17
People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 409 (2007).
18
People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342-343.
19
People v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 173485, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 171, 185.
20
RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Section 13.
21
People v. Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 106, 119.
22
People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 683, 696.
23
Id., quoting People v. Roa, G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 369-370.

Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF G.R. No. 177771

THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee, Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.
- versus -
Promulgated:
May 30, 2011
ARIELITO ALIVIO y
OLIVEROS and ERNESTO
DELA VEGA y CABBAROBIAS,
Appellant.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
On appeal to this Court is the Decision, [1] dated November 30, 2006, of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01138, which affirmed the Decision [2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 70, Pasig City, in Criminal Case Nos.
12450-52-D. The RTC convicted Arielito Alivio y Oliveros and Ernesto dela Vega
(collectively referred to as appellants) of violating Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
The Arraignment and Plea
In Criminal Case No. 12450-D, the Information charged the appellants of

selling shabu, as follows:
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
PO2 Lemuel Laro, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing six (6) centigrams (0.06 gram) of white crystalline
substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 12451-D, Dela Vega was charged of

possessing shabu under the following Information:
the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug; did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and
under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing ten (10) decigrams (0.10 gram), of white crystalline substance,
which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[4]
Finally, in Criminal Case No. 12452-D, Alivio was charged of possessing

drug paraphernalia consisting of two disposable lighters, an improvised tooter and
an improvised burner. The pertinent portion of the Information states:
the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess paraphernalia or

otherwise use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession two (2) pcs. of disposable lighters, one (1)
improvised tooter and one (1) improvised burner, which are all instruments,
equipment, apparatus or paraphernalia, fit or intended for smoking, sniffing,
consuming or introducing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly
known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[5]
The appellants pleaded not guilty to all the charges and trial on the merits
followed.
The Version of the Prosecution
The prosecutions case relied on the theory that the police apprehended the
appellants during a buy-bust operation conducted at Alivios residence. During the
buy-bust operation, the police found drug paraphernalia at Alivios residence while
a search on Dela Vegas person yielded one plastic sachet of shabu which the police
seized.
The prosecutions evidence showed that at around 9:30 p.m. of May 20, 2003, the
Pasig City Police received a tip from an asset that one Ariel was rampantly selling
illegal drugs in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City. A buy-bust team was immediately formed
in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The buy-bust
money, which consisted of two (2) 100 peso bills, was prepared and marked with
the symbol, 3L. PO2 Lemuel Lagunay Laro was designated to act as the poseur-
buyer.
Together with SPO3 Lemuel Matias and PO1 Allan Mapula, PO2 Laro and
the asset went to the house of Ariel. While the rest of the buy-bust team
strategically positioned themselves at the target area, PO2 Laro and the asset met
Ariel. The asset introduced PO2 Laro to Ariel who was later on identified as
Alivio. The asset told Alivio that they wanted to buy shabu. Alivio asked how
much they wanted to buy, to which the asset replied: dalawang daan lang pre at
saka puwede kaming gumamit dyan? The two were ushered into the second floor of
the house where they saw dela Vega seated in front of a table with drug
paraphernalia. PO2 Laro then gave the buy-bust money to Alivio who handed it to
Dela Vega. The latter then took out from his pocket one plastic sachet
of shabu which he gave to Alivio who handed it to PO2 Laro. After the
exchange, PO2 Laro introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Alivio and
Dela Vega. The asset made a signal for the buy-bust team to come inside the
house. SPO3 Matias searched Dela Vega and found him in possession of one
plastic sachet of shabu. The buy-bust team also retrieved the drug paraphernalia on
top of the table, which paraphernalia they correspondingly marked. The buy-bust
team took Alivio, Dela Vega and the confiscated items to the police station for
investigation. Afterwards, the confiscated items were taken by PO1 Mapula to the
PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The two (2) plastic sachets tested positive
for shabu.
By agreement of the prosecution and the defense, the testimony of forensic chemist
P/Insp. Joseph Perdido was dispensed with and they entered stipulations on:
1) The due execution and genuineness of the Request for Laboratory

Examination dated May 20, 2003 which was marked in evidence as Exhibit
A and the stamp showing receipt thereof by the PNP Crime Laboratory as
Exhibit A-1;
2) The due execution and genuineness, as well as the truth of the contents, of
Chemistry Report No. D-940-03E dated May 12, 2003 issued by Forensic
Chemist P/Insp. Joseph M. Perdido of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Eastern
Police District, Saint Francis St., Mandaluyong City, which was marked in
evidence as Exhibit B, the finding and conclusion as appearing on the report
as Exhibit B-1 and the signature of the forensic Chemist over his typewritten
name likewise as appearing on the report as Exhibit B-2;
3) The existence of the two (2) plastic sachets and other paraphernalia, but not
their source or origin, contained in an envelope, the contents of which were
the subject of the Request for Laboratory Examination, which where marked
in evidence as follows: as Exhibit C (the envelope), as Exhibit C-1 (the
1st plastic sachet), as Exhibit D (the improvised tooter with markings EXH-E
AAO dated 05-20-03), as Exhibit E (the improvised burner) and as Exhibits
F-1 & F-2 (the two disposable lighters).[6]
The Version of the Defense
The appellants anchored their defense on denial and frame-up. They denied
selling shabu and claimed that they were together that night drinking at the second
floor of Alivios residence. They also claimed that five (5) men (who turned out to
be policemen) suddenly barged in on them looking for a person named Bon-bon.
When they replied that neither of them was Bon-bon, the policemen frisked and
arrested them. The policemen took from the appellants their earnings for that day
and the P5,000.00 cash they found in the house. The appellants tried to resist arrest
and suffered injuries as a result. [7]
Alivio additionally asserted that he could not have sold shabu to PO2 Laro since he
knew him to be a policeman. Alivio claimed that he was a former driver of Atty.
Nelson Fajardo whom he used to accompany to the police station where PO2 Laro
was assigned.
The Ruling of the RTC
On February 28, 2005, the RTC convicted the appellants of all charges laid.
The RTC relied on the presumption of regularity in the buy-bust operation and the
lack of improper motive on the part of the police officers. The RTC rejected the
proferred denial and frame-up as defenses as they are inherently easy to concoct,
and found that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the
crimes charged and the identity of the appellants as perpetrators. The RTC thus
concluded:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 12450-D both accused Arielito Alivio and Ernesto Dela
Vega are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and
are hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to solidarily pay
a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12451-D accused Ernesto dela Vega is hereby

found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section
11, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal possession of shabu) and 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 (PHP 300,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12452-D accused Arielito Alivio is hereby

found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section
12, Article II, of Republic Act 9165 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia)
and is hereby sentenced to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day to Four (4)
Years and a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10,000.00).[8]
The appellants appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On November 30, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA took
into account the consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to support the
presumption that the police officers regularly performed the buy-bust operation.
The CA likewise ruled that the appellants failed to substantiate their defenses.
The Issue
The appellants raised the following lone assignment of error:
THE [CA] ERRED IN FINDING THE [APPELLANTS] GUILTY

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.[9]
The appellants argue that the lower courts erred in evaluating the testimonial
evidence when they placed undue reliance on the presumption of regularity and the
absence of improper motive on the part of the police officers to perpetuate the
claimed irregularities. The appellants assert that the presumption of regularity
cannot take precedence over the presumption of innocence in their favor.
The appellants also fault the lower courts for disregarding the defenses
evidence that showed Alivios familiarity with PO2 Laro as a policeman. They
emphasize that this evidence was corroborated by the testimony of defense witness
Atty. Fajardo.
Finally, the appellants contend that the identities of the subject shabu were not
sufficiently proven since the seized items were not marked at the time the
appellants were apprehended.
The Courts Ruling
We find no reversible error committed by the RTC and the CA in

convicting the appellants of the crimes charged.
While the presumption of innocence is the highest in the hierarchy of

presumptions, it remains a rebuttable presumption. In a criminal case, the
presumption of innocence can be overcome by the presumption of regularity when
the latter is accompanied by strong evidence supporting the guilt of the accused.
[10]
Even without the presumption of regularity, a drug conviction can be sustained
through competent evidence establishing the existence of all the elements of the
crimes charged.
In this case, although the presumption of regularity did not arise considering
the evident lapses the police committed in the prescribed procedures, we rule that
the prosecutions evidence sufficiently established all the elements of the three (3)
crimes charged and the identity of the appellants as the perpetrators.
The existence of the buy-bust operation
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of

the police officers who conducted thebuy-bust operation. Thus, we generally defer
to the assessment on this point by the trial court as it had the opportunity to directly
observe the witnesses, their demeanor, and their credibility on the witness stand.
[11]
Our independent examination of the records shows no compelling reason to
depart from this rule.
First, the lower courts found the testimonies of PO2 Laro and SPO3
Matias consistent, positive and straightforward. These testimonies were
corroborated by PO1 Mapula who testified that the appellants were apprehended
through a buy-bust operation.
Second, the records reveal the lack of improper motive on the part of the
buy-bust team. Appellant Alivio even admitted that he had no idea why the police
officers filed the present case against him.[12] Alivio also denied police extortion.[13]
Third, the appellants failure to file cases against the buy-bust team for planting
evidence undoubtedly supports the prosecutions theory that the appellants were
arrested because they were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu.
Fourth, the following documentary evidence presented by the prosecution

corroborates the existence of an actual buy-bust operation:
(a) The Pre-Opns Reports, made part of the records, showed that anti-
narcotics operations were conducted on May 20, 2003 against one @Ariel who
was allegedly involved in selling/trading of dangerous drugs.[14]
(b) The existence of the buy-bust money,[15] bearing the marking 3L, was
presented during the trial as part of PO2 Laros testimony. [16] According to PO2
Laro, the marking stood for his initials which he placed on the buy-bust money for
easy identification.
(c) The Affidavits of Arrest[17] by PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias executed
immediately after the arrest of the appellants showed that the arrests were made
pursuant to a buy-bust operation.[18]
Familiarity
The defense failed to sufficiently prove the alleged familiarity of appellant

Alivio with PO2 Laro. The testimony of defense witness Atty. Fajardo failed to
give out specific details on the dates and occasions when he supposedly talked to
PO2 Laro in the presence of Alivio.[19] Moreover, the evidence also shows a time
gap between Alivios employment with Atty. Fajardo (from 2000 to 2001) and the
occurrence of the buy-bust operation (in 2003). As against these sketchy claims,
PO2 Laro testified that Alivio failed to recognize him during the buy-bust
operation.[20]
In any event, in Gwyn Quinicot v. People,[21] we held that it is not the
existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer, but the agreement and acts
constituting the sale and delivery of the illegal drugs, that is crucial in drug-related
cases:
What matters in drug related cases is not the existing familiarity between the
seller and the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and
delivery of the dangerous drug. Besides, drug pushers, especially small
quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited wares to anyone who can pay
for the same, be they strangers or not. It is of common knowledge that
pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open
like any article of commerce. Drug pushers do no confine their nefarious trade
to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they
have the money to pay.[22] [Citations omitted]
In this case, the prosecutions evidence sufficiently established the exchange of

the shabu and the buy-bust money between the appellants and PO2 Laro.
The identity of the confiscated shabu

and/or drug paraphernalia
In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia

presented in court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution
must show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of
custody with respect to the confiscated items.
Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 that prescribes the procedure to be
observed by the authorities in handling the illegal drug and/or drug paraphernalia
confiscated 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 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;
This provision is elaborated on under Section 21(a) of the IRR which

provides a saving clause in case the prescribed procedure is not complied with.
Under this saving clause, 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.
The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled
the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements
of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from
the accused until the time they are presented in court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous
Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines the chain of custody rule in
the following manner:
b. Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and

custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction.Such record of movements and
custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody [was] of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition[.]
In this case, although the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, we find that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team
under the chain of custody rule.
(a) The first link The records show that the shabu and the drug
paraphernalia were immediately marked at the scene by PO2 Laro and SPO3
Matias before they proceeded to the police station. [23] PO2 Laro marked the plastic
sachet containing shabu subject of the buy-bust sale, with AAO 05-20-03 that
stood for the initials of Alivio and the date of the buy-bust sale. [24] In turn, SPO3
Matias marked the retrieved shabu and the drug paraphernalia with his signature.[25]
(b) The second link - The records also disclose that after the respective
markings were made, PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias turned over the confiscated
items in their custody at the police station for investigation. As may be gathered
from the Request for Laboratory Examination dated May 20, 2003 and prepared by
SPO4 Danilo M. Tuao, the following specimens were recovered from the
appellants and submitted for laboratory examination:
One (1) pc heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined
amount of white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu bought from
suspect marked as EXH A AAO 05-20-03;
One (1) pc heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined

amount of white crystalline substance marked as EXH B ECDV 05-20-03;
Two (2) pcs (sic) disposable lighter marked as EXH C1 to C2 AAA 05-20-03;
One (1) pc improvised burner marked as EXH D AAO 05-20-03;
One (1) pc improvised waterpipe/tooter marked as EXH E AAO 05-20-03.[26]
(c) The third link - PO1 Mapula testified that he was the one
who delivered the request for laboratory examination and the specimens to the PNP
Crime Laboratory.[27] He also testified that he turned over the specimens to one
PO1 Chuidan who received them at 1:00 a.m. of May 21, 2003.[28] Upon receipt of
the specimens, PO1 Chuidan stamped the request with a Control No. 1700-03 and
wrote D-940-03.[29] In this regard, a facial examination of Chemistry Report No. D-
940-03E shows that the very same specimens bearing the same markings stated in
the police request were subjected to laboratory examination, completed at 3:15
a.m. of May 21, 2003.[30]
(d) The fourth link - The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the
specimens examined by the forensic chemist, contained in the request for
laboratory examination, were the ones presented in court. PO2 Laro and SPO3
Matias identified and testified that the shabu and the drug paraphernalia examined
were the items retrieved from the appellants in the buy-bust operation conducted
on May 20, 2003.[31]
Under the circumstances, the prosecutions evidence clearly established an

unbroken link in the chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that
the shabu and drug paraphernalia had been altered, substituted or otherwise
tampered with. The unbroken link in the chain of custody also precluded the
possibility that a person, not in the chain, ever gained possession of the seized
evidence.[32]
The defenses of Denial and Frame-up
The appellants merely denied the buy-bust sale and their possession of
the shabu and the drug paraphernalia. They claimed that they were framed by the
police who took their earnings and forcibly took them to the police station. In light
of the positive and credible testimony and the concrete evidence showing the
existence of the buy-bust operation, these defenses are unworthy of belief. Dela
Vegas injuries alone cannot rebut the consistent evidence that the appellants were
arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation. We particularly note in this regard that
the participating policemen denied that they previously knew the appellants and
that they entertained ulterior or illicit motives to frame them.
The Proper Penalties
On the illegal sale of shabu (Criminal Case No. 12450-D), the appellants
were caught and arrested for selling .06 gram of shabu. The RTC and the CA
correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00
against the appellants, in accordance with Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
which punishes illegal sale of shabu with the penalty of life imprisonment to death
and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00).
On the illegal possession of shabu (Criminal Case No. 12451-D), dela Vega
was caught in possession of .10 gram of shabu and was meted the penalty of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and to pay
a fine of P300,000.00. Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165
provides:
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and
a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are
less than five (5) grams of xxx methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Thus, we sustain the penalties the RTC and the CA imposed as these are
within the range provided by law.
Lastly, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Criminal Case No. 12452-
D) is punished under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 that provides a
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4)
years, and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00). We thus uphold the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months
and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine of P10,000.00 that the RTC and the CA
imposed on Alivio.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision, dated November

30, 2006, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01138 which, in turn,
affirmed the decision, dated February 28, 2005, of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 70, Pasig City, in Criminal Case Nos. 12450-52-D.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

MA. LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (deceased), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mario L.
Guaria and Lucenito Tagle (retired); rollo, pp. 2-10.
[2]
Penned by Judge Pablito M. Rojas; dated February 28, 2005. CA rollo, pp. 23-32.
[3]
CA rollo, pp. 9-10.
[4]
Id. at 11-12.
[5]
Id. at 13-14.
[6]
Id. at 25.
[7]
Medical Certificate, dated March 2, 2004, issued by the Rizal Medical Center to dela Vega which showed that he
had a contusion on his back; records, p. 94.
[8]
CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
[9]
Id. at 45.
[10]
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion in People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566
SCRA 571, 614-615, and People v. Denoman,G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 276.
[11]
People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 440; and People v. Lim, G.R. No.
141699, August 7, 2002, 386 SCRA 581, 593, citing People v. Errojo, 229 SCRA 49 (1994), and People v. Gomez,
229 SCRA 138 (1994).
[12]
TSN, May 25, 2004, p. 8.
[13]
TSN, April 26, 2004, p. 25.
[14]
Records, p. 10.
[15]
Exhibits G and H.
[16]
Records, p. 70.
[17]
Dated May 21, 2003.
[18]
Records, pp. 5-6.
[19]
TSN, July 21, 2004, p. 38.
[20]
TSN, October 6, 2003, p. 11.
[21]
G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 458.
[22]
Id. at 471-472.
[23]
TSN, October 6, 2003, p. 17.
[24]
Id. at 22-23.
[25]
TSN, December 3, 2003, pp. 8-9; and TSN, October 6, 2003, pp. 24- 25.
[26]
Records, p. 8.
[27]
TSN, February 23, 2004, p. 8.
[28]
Ibid.; Records, pp. 7- 8.
[29]
Records, p. 8
[30]
Id. at 7.
[31]
Supra note 24, and TSN, December 3, 2003, pp. 13-15.
[32]
Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-63

Illegal Sale of Drugs, Chain of Custody

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Illegal Sale of Drugs, Chain of Custody

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 205821 October 1, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920)

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

(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)

Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921)

VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF THE

(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Citations omitted)

2," "WB-3," "WB-4," "WB-5," and "WB-6." 10

WHEREFORE, this Court finds:

file their supplemental briefs.

prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:

compliance with Section 21.

The Court of Appeals reasons:

As we have discussed in People v. Holgado:

We close by hearkening to the same words with which we ended in Holgado:

ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 200797 January 12, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Unpersuaded, the CA, in its June 30,2011 Decision, ruled as follows:

they submitted before the CA.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.* JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

* Per Special Order No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 189840 December 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The Informations against appellant read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 05-1396

Criminal Case No. 05-1397

Version of the Prosecution

Version of the Defense

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

July 31, 2009. The dispositive portion of CA’s Decision reads:

The appeal is unmeritorious.

Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal

Failure to Physically Inventory and

operation is not invalidated by mere noncoordination with the PDEA. 23

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

ARTURO D. BRION ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN*

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

* Per Special Order No. 1627 dated December 6, 2013.

Republic of the Philippines

THE PEOPLE OF G.R. No. 177771

May 30, 2011

The Arraignment and Plea

In Criminal Case No. 12450-D, the Information charged the appellants of

In Criminal Case No. 12451-D, Dela Vega was charged of

Finally, in Criminal Case No. 12452-D, Alivio was charged of possessing