FOR ACQUITTAL

Failure to comply with requirements of Sec. 21 (chain of custody)

People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014

Warrantless arrest; search and seizures; venues of inventory and photograph

While the first sentence of Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of R.A. No. 9165 states that "the apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory
and photograph the same," the second sentence makes a distinction between warrantless
seizures and seizures by virtue of a warrant, thus:

"(a) x x x 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."

Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ
and depend on whether the seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through a
warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation.

In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must
be conducted in the place where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in case
of warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation, the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable; however, nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from
immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at the place
where they were seized, as it is more in keeping with the law's intent of preserving their
integrity and evidentiary value.

What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify
is the matter of marking of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the
evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and
photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the
place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the marking of the
seized items—to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of
protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well
the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section
29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.

It needs no elaboration that the immediate marking of the item seized in a buy-bust
operation in the presence of the accused is indispensable to establish its identity in court.
PO3 Sia admitted that he marked the sachet of shabu only at the DAID-WPD precinct,
several kilometers from the buy-bust scene, as well as impliedly admitted that Beran was
not then present. Indeed, none of the buy-bust team attested that they saw him take custody
of the confiscated shabu and later mark the sachet at the DAID-WPD office.

xxx xxx xxx

In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer an explanation for why
an inventory and photograph of the seized evidence was not made either in the place of
seizure and arrest or at the police station, as required by the Implementing Rules in case of
warrantless arrests, or why the marking of the seized item was not made at the place of
seizure in the presence of Beran. Indeed, the very identity of the subject shabu cannot be
established with certainty by the testimony alone of PO3 Sia since the rules insist upon
independent proof of its identity, such as the immediate marking thereof upon seizure. And
as we already noted, PO3 Sia claimed that he personally transported the shabu to the WPD
station, yet other than his lone testimony there is no other evidence of his exclusive and
uninterrupted custody during the interval from seizure and transportation to turn over at
the WPD. Then, the record shows that PO3 Sia submitted the sachet of shabu for laboratory
examination only the next day, and therefore presumably he retained custody of the subject
sachet overnight. In view of his self-serving admission that he marked the sachet only at the
precinct, but without anyone present, along with his lack of mention of the laboratory
technician or officer who received the sachet from him, the charge that the subject drug
may have been tampered with or substituted is inevitable. (Citations omitted)

Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014

Marking of the seized items in the presence of apprehended violator; lack of markings

The rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence
of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the
same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that
the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens
will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the
marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they
are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.

xxx xxx xxx

There are occasions when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the
marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation is allowed to be
undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in
the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. However, even a less-than-stringent
application of the requirement would not suffice to sustain the conviction in this case. There
was no categorical statement from any of the prosecution witnesses that markings were
made, much less immediately upon confiscation of the seized items. There was also no
showing that markings were made in the presence of the accused in this case.

Evidently, there is an irregularity in the first link of the chain of custody.

We have consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the
seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to
rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Failure to mark the
drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution
evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. (Citations omitted)

xxx xxx xxx

There were indeed substantial gaps in the chain of custody from the initial stage with
the apparent lack of markings. Upon confiscation of the shabu, the prosecution witnesses
never recounted which police officer had initial control and custody upon their confiscation
and while in transit. At the police station, nobody witnessed if and how the seized items
were marked. SPO4 Bognalos alleged that it was the Chief of Police who forwarded the
seized sachets to the crime laboratory, while PO3 Telado intimated that it was the
investigator who turned them over to the crime laboratory. Their records were likewise
bereft of any detail as to who exercised custody and possession of the seized items after their
chemical examination and before they were offered as evidence in court. All these weak
links in the chain of custody significantly affected the integrity of the items seized, which
in turn, created a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

In this light, we are constrained to acquit petitioner on reasonable doubt. ( Citations

omitted)
 People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010

Illegal possession of dangerous drugs: elements; absence of physical inventory

The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the
accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by
law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. Additionally,
this being a case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the
crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a
social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.

The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction. In order to establish
the existence of the drug, its chain of custody must be sufficiently established. The chain of
custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence
are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs
from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. (Citations
omitted)

xxx xxx xxx

Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not

necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, provided that (i)
there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, however, no justifiable ground
is found availing, and it is apparent that there was a failure to properly preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from
the time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. A review of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and the documentary records of the case reveals irreparably broken
links in the chain of custody. (Citations omitted)

xxx xxx xxx

First, the apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. After
seizure and confiscation of the subject items, no physical inventory was conducted in the
presence of the accused, or their representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the DOJ, and any elected public official. Thus, no inventory was prepared, signed, and
provided to the accused in the manner required by law. PO1 Azardon, in his
testimony, admitted that no photographs were taken. The only discernable reason proffered
by him for the failure to comply with the prescribed procedure was that the situation
happened so suddenly. (Citations omitted)

xxx xxx xxx

The suddenness of the situation cannot justify non-compliance with the

requirements. The police officers were not prevented from preparing an inventory and
taking photographs. In fact, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides specifically
that in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and photographs shall be done at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Whatever
effect the suddenness of the situation may have had should have dissipated by the time they
reached the police station, as the suspects had already been arrested and the items
seized. Moreover, it has been held that in case of warrantless seizures nothing prevents the
apprehending officer from immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography
of the items at their place of seizure, as it is more in keeping with the laws intent to preserve
their integrity and evidentiary value.

This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply
with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items. (Citations omitted)

People Of The Philippines v. Beverly Alagarme y Citoy, G.R. No. 184789, February 23, 2015

Absence of representatives during marking

The last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165 provides
a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance with the safeguards to
preserve the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution’s case against the
accused. However, in order for such saving mechanism to apply, the Prosecution must first
recognize the lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedures and then explain the lapse or
lapses. Here, however, the Prosecution did not bother to show that a media representative,
DOJ representative or elected public official had been notified of the buy-bust operation or,
assuming that the DOJ representative or public official had been so priorly informed, the
lawmen did not explain why none of such representatives was around to witness the actual
marking of the evidence. Indeed, the Prosecution did not even try to show that the
application of the saving mechanism provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of
Republic Act No. 9165 would be justified. Under the circumstances, the identification of the
seized evidence in court during the trial became ambiguous and unreliable, rendering the
proof of the links in the chain of custody of the corpus delicti unworthy of belief. (Citation
omitted)

Where the State did not establish a preserved chain of custody of the dangerous drugs
according to the statutory procedure for doing so, we have no need to review the claim of
the appellant about her being framed up on trumped-up charges. In view of the presumption
of her innocence, she did not need to explain her arrest for the crimes charged against her.
The presumption should be overcome only by strong evidence of her guilt.

People v. Zakaria, G.R. No. 181042, November 26, 2012

Absence of marking and photographs

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized dangerous drugs
or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused, for the marking
upon seizure is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the
evidence will use as reference point. Moreover, the value of marking of the evidence is to
separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, “planting” or contamination of evidence.48 A failure to mark at the
time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law
requires.

The records show that the buy-bust team did not observe the mandatory procedures
under Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR. Although PO2 Aninias supposedly marked the
confiscated shabu with his initials immediately upon seizure, he did not do so in the
presence of the accused or of their representatives and any representative from the media
and Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official. If he had, he would have
readily stated so in court. In fact, both PO2 Aninias and PO3 Valdez themselves revealed
that no media or DOJ representative, or elected public official was present during the buy-
bust operation and at the time of the recovery of the evidence at the target area. Instead, the
media were only around in the PDEA regional headquarters.

Another serious lapse committed was that the buy-bust team did not take any
photographs of the sachets of shabu upon their seizure. The photographs were intended by
the law as another means to confirm the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs.
 The last paragraph of Section 21 (a) of the IRR, supra, contains a saving proviso to
the effect 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.” But in order for the saving proviso to apply, the Prosecution must first
recognize and explain the lapse or lapses in procedure committed by the arresting
lawmen.51 That did not happen here, because the Prosecution neither recognized nor
explained the lapses. Even conceding, for instance, that the PDEA Regional Office contacted
and informed the media about the buy-bust operation, we wonder why the media
representative or the barangay official did not witness the actual marking of the evidence
and why the representative and barangay official signed the certificate of inventory sans the
presence of the accused or his representatives. In that respect, the Prosecution offered no
explanation at all. (Citations omitted)

Valencia v. People, G.R. No. 198804, January 22, 2014 citing Fajardo v. People, G.R.
No. 185460, July 25, 2012

No showing how integrity and evidentiary value was preserved; absence of third link
(who, what, where brought); absence of first link

The prosecution miserably failed to establish the crucial first link in the chain of
custody. The plastic sachets, while tested positive for shabu, could not be considered as the
primary proof of the corpus delicti because the persons from whom they were seized were
not positively and categorically identified by prosecution witnesses. The prosecution
likewise failed to show how the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized had been
preserved when it was not explained who made the markings, how and where they were
made.

xxxx

The third link in the chain should detail who brought the seized shabu to the crime
laboratory, who received the shabu at the crime laboratory and, who exercised custody and
possession of the shabu after it was examined and before it was presented in court. Once
again, these crucial details were nowhere to be found in the records. PO2 Tugo allegedly
brought them to the crime laboratory but he was not presented to affirm and corroborate
PO1 Tuscano’s statement, nor was any document shown to evidence the turnover of the
seized items. The Request for Laboratory Examination was signed by a certain Police Senior
Inspector Rodolfo Tababan. But his participation in the custody and handling of the seized
items were never mentioned by the prosecution witnesses.

Considering these huge discrepancies in the chain of custody, the claim of regularity
in the conduct of police operation will certainly not hold water. It bears stressing that the
presumption of regularity only arises in the absence of contradicting details that would raise
doubts on the regularity in the performance of official duties. Where the police officers
failed to comply with the standard procedure prescribed by law, there is no occasion to apply
the presumption. (Citations omitted)

People of the Philippines v. Jose Alex Secreto y Villanueva, G.R. No. 198115, February
27, 2013.

No physical inventory and photograph

The buy-bust team in this case did not observe the procedures laid down in section
21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165. They did not conduct a
physical inventory and no photograph of the confiscated item was taken in the presence of
the accused-appellant, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. In fact, the prosecution
failed to present an accomplished Certificate of Inventory. Further, the circumstances
obtaining from the time the buy-bust team was organized until the chain of custody
commenced were riddled with procedural lapses and inconsistencies between the testimony
and the documents presented as evidence in court so much so that even assuming, that the
physical inventory contemplated in R.A. 9165 subsumes the marking of the items itself, the
belated marking of the seized items at the police station sans the required presence of the
accused and the witnesses enumerated under section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. 9165, and absent a justifiable ground to stand on, cannot be considered
a minor deviation from the procedures prescribed by the law. There being a “gross,
systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards” the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties is overturned.

People Of The Philippines v. Sammy Umipang y Abdul, G.R. No. 190321, April 25,
2012

Absence of representatives
 Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory and the
marking of the seized items does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in
evidence. However, we take note that, in this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even attempt to
contact the barangay chairperson or any member of the barangay council. There is no
indication that they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do the records show
whether the police officers tried to get in touch with any DOJ representative. Nor does the
SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason for failing to do so especially considering that it
had sufficient time from the moment it received information about the activities of the
accused until the time of his arrest.

Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the
apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to Section 21(1) of
R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an
explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives,
given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the
prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in
contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, or that there
was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. (Citations omitted)

Failure of identification of corpus delicti

Ongcoma Hadji Homar vs. People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 182534, September 2,
2015

Legality of warrant of arrest; unlawful search and seizure

To determine the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it is indispensable to

ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful. There
must be a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless
arrest, which must precede the search. For this purpose, the law requires that there be first
a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed.

xxx xxx xxx

To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in
the presence of or within the view of the arresting officer.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the legality of the warrantless arrest from
which the corpus delicti of the crime - shabu- was obtained. For, without a valid warrantless
arrest, the alleged confiscation of the shabu resulting from a warrantless search on the
petitioner’s body is surely a violation of his constitutional right against unlawful search and
seizure. As a consequence, the alleged shabu shall be inadmissible as evidence against him.

On this point, we find that aside from the bare testimony of Tan as quoted by the CA
in its decision, the prosecution did not proffer any other proof to establish that the
requirements for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest were complied with. Particularly, the
prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner was committing a crime. (Citations omitted)

People Of The Philippines v. Rolando S. Delos Reyes, alias Botong, and Raymundo G.
Reyes, alias Mac-Mac, G.R. No. 174774, August 31, 2011

Unlawful in flagrante delicto arrest

xxx xxx xxx

Evident from the foregoing excerpts that the police officers arrested accused-
appellants and searched the latter’s persons without a warrant after seeing Rolando delos
Reyes and Emmanuel de Claro momentarily conversing in the restaurant, and witnessing
the white plastic bag with a box or carton inside being passed from Lantion-Tom to
Emmanuel de Claro, to accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, and finally, to accused-
appellant Reyes. These circumstances, however, hardly constitute overt acts indicative of a
felonious enterprise. SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul had no prior knowledge
of the suspects identities, and they completely relied on their confidential informant to
actually identify the suspects. None of the police officers actually saw what was inside that
box. There is also no evidence that the confidential informant himself knew that the box
contained shabu. No effort at all was taken to confirm that the arrested suspects actually
knew that the box or carton inside the white plastic bag, seized from their
possession, contained shabu. The police officers were unable to establish a cogent fact or
circumstance that would have reasonably invited their attention, as officers of the law, to
suspect that accused-appellants, Emmanuel de Claro, and Lantion-Tom has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, particularly, an illegal drug deal.

Finally, from their own account of the events, the police officers had compromised
the integrity of the shabu purportedly seized from accused-appellants.

xxx xxx xxx

Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants,

the search of accused-appellants persons incidental to said arrests, and the eventual seizure
of the shabu from accused-appellants possession, are also considered unlawful and, thus, the
seized shabu is excluded in evidence as fruit of a poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti
for the crime charged, then the acquittal of accused-appellants is inevitable. (Citations
omitted)

People of the Philippines v. Roger Posada, G.R. No. 194445, March 12, 2012

Indeed, it must be pointed out that the prosecution filed a defective Information. An
Information is fatally defective when it is clear that it does not really charge an offense or
when an essential element of the crime has not been sufficiently alleged. In the instant case,
while the prosecution was able to allege the identity of the buyer and the seller, it failed to
particularly allege or identify in the Information the subject matter of the sale or the corpus
delicti. We must remember that one of the essential elements to convict a person of sale of
prohibited drugs is to identify with certainty the corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution took
the liberty to lump together two sets of corpora delicti when it should have separated the
two in two different informations. To allow the prosecution to do this is to deprive the
accused-appellants of their right to be informed, not only of the nature of the offense being
charged, but of the essential element of the offense charged; and in this case, the very corpus
delicti of the crime.

Furthermore, when ambiguity exists in the complaint or information, the court has
no other recourse but to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the accused. Here, since there
exist ambiguity as to the identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offense
charged, it follows that such ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the accused-appellants.
Thus, from the foregoing discussion, we have no other choice but to acquit the accused-
appellants of sale of 12 sachets of shabu.
 Truly, both the trial court and the CA were wrong in convicting the couple for
selling 12 sachets of shabu because the prosecution failed to show that the husband and wife
had indeed sold the 12 sachets of shabu. Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 provides:

SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution

and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos ([P]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos ([P]10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.

More, jurisprudence holds that the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs can
only be successful when the following elements are established, namely:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale;
and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore

To our minds, while there was indeed a transaction between Emily and PO1 Area,
the prosecution failed to show that the subject matter of the sale to PO1 Area was the 12
sachets of shabu. Based on the testimony of PO1 Area, the 12 sachets of shabu were the
sachets of shabu which Roger handed to his wife Emily and were not sold, but which PO1
Area found in her possession after the latter identified himself as a police officer.

In the instant case, PO1 Area's testimony showed no evidence that the transaction
as to the sale of the 12 sachets of shabu ever happened. Rather, PO1 Area adequately testified
on the fact that accused-appellant Roger handed the 12 sachets of shabu to Emily who kept
them in a coin purse. And after PO1 Area identified himself as a police operative, he found
the 12 sachets of shabu in Emily's possession. From the foregoing, while the prosecution was
able to prove the sale of one sachet of shabu, it is patently clear that it never established with
moral certainty all the elements of illegal sale of the 12 sachets of shabu. And failure to show
that indeed there was sale means failure to prove the guilt of the accused for illegal sale of
drugs, because what matters in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is to show
proof that the sale actually happened, coupled with the presentation in court of corpus
delicti. Here, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the sale of the 12 sachets
of shabu and also to prove that the 12 sachets of shabu presented in court were truly the
subject matter of the sale between the accused-appellants and PO1 Area.
 Notwithstanding the above-discussion, we convict both Roger and Emily of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs despite the fact that they were charged for the sale of illegal
drugs, because possession is necessarily included in sale of illegal drugs. (Citations omitted)

xxx xxx xxx

Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same, the
accused-appellants should be convicted of possession. We have consistently ruled that
possession of prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof. ( Citations
omitted)

People of the Philippines v. Abetong, G.R. No. 209785, June 4, 2014

Presumption of regularity: not applicable

The prosecution cannot skirt the issue of the broken chain of custody by relying on
the presumption of regularity. This presumption, it must be stressed, is not conclusive. Any
taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption
unavailable. The presumption, in other words, obtains only when nothing in the records
suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty
as provided for in the law. But where the official act in question is irregular on its face, as in
this case, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course. (Citation omitted)

People Of The Philippines v. Joel Rebotazo y Alejandra, G.R. No. 192913, June 13, 2013

“Fruit of poisonous tree”: not applicable

Time and again, we have ruled that the arrest of the accused in flagrante during a buy-bust
operation is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. From the very nature
of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal.

As we held in People v. Marcelino, the illegal drug seized was not the "fruit of the poisonous
tree," as the defense would have this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust
team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules
of Court. Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the
search was also valid, and a warrant was not needed to conduct it. (Citations omitted)
 FOR CONVICTION
People of the Philippines v. Capco, G.R. No. 183088, September 17, 2009

There is a logical and critical rationale behind the accepted practice of leaving out a
confidential informant from the prosecutions roster of witnesses. As held in People v.
Peaflorida, Jr.,the presentation of an informant is not essential for conviction nor is it
indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would merely be
corroborative and cumulative. More importantly, as Peaflorida, Jr. and other similar drug
cases teach, informants are by and large not presented as witnesses in court as there is a need
to conceal their identity and protect their important service to law enforcement. Living in
the fringes of the underworld, these police assets may well be unwilling to expose
themselves to possible liquidation by drug syndicates and their allies should their identities
be revealed.

xxx xxx xxx

Following the successful drug transaction with Capco, PO2 Barrameda marked the
plastic sachet of suspected shabu with DSC. A letter-request, signed by Police
Superintendent Jose Ramon Q. Salido, was then sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for an
examination of the seized drugs. Forensic Chemist Grace M. Eustaquio later filed Chemistry
Report No. D-1049-03, finding the white crystalline substance in the plastic sachet marked
DSC positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. During trial, PO2
Barrameda[14] identified the same specimen as the shabu their team had seized from Capco
and he had later marked with DSC. PO1 Santos corroborated PO2 Barramedas testimony by
testifying that the specimen marked DSC was indeed the product of their buy-bust operation
against Capco. (Citations omitted)

In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that
the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
traded substancethe object evidence which is the core of the corpus delicti. These
requirements have been sufficiently established in the instant case. What is more, the
integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith,
ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Capco has the burden to show
that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity
in the handling of exhibits by public officers. Capco failed in this respect. (Citations omitted)

Another presumption Capco failed to overcome relates to the prosecutions witnesses.

Decisive in a prosecution for drug pushing or possession is the testimony of the police
officers on what transpired before, during, and after the accused was caught and how the
evidence was preserved. Their testimonies in open court are considered in line with the
presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties in a regular manner,
absent evidence to the contrary. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute a crime
as serious as drug pushing against Capco, the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall
prevail over Capcos self-serving and uncorroborated denial. This presumption holds true for
the police officers in this case, as Capco could not provide a credible and believable account
on why he was being falsely accused. (Citations omitted)

People v. Cardenas, G. R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012

Substantial compliance; chain of custody: unbroken

To protect the civil liberties of the innocent, the rule ensures that the prosecutions
evidence meets the stringent standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. We have held,
however that substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule
does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible. In People v. Ara, we ruled
that R.A. 9165 and its IRR do not require strict compliance with the chain of custody rule:

As recently highlighted in People v. Cortez and People v. Lazaro, Jr., RA 9165

and its subsequent Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict
compliance as to the chain of custody rule. The arrest of an accused will not be
invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground
of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165. We have emphasized that what
is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.

Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and
its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons,
is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust
operation.

In the instant case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs
was not broken. The testimony of PO3 Palacio shows that he was the one who recovered
from the accused the three plastic sachets of shabu, together with the marked money. He
also testified that he was the one who personally brought the request for examination to the
PNP Crime Laboratory and had the plastic sachets examined there. During the trial of the
case, he positively identified the plastic sachets that he had recovered from the accused and
had marked CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3. (Citations omitted)

People of the Philippines v. Glen Piad, G.R. No. 213607, January 25, 2016

Substantial compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule

The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the
identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the
movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and
finally to the court. Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
9165 provides:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that
non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and 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.

Evidently, the law requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect adherence" as
long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were
preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.

In this case, the CA meticulously assessed how the prosecution complied with the
chain of custody rule. When Piad was arrested, PO1 Arevalo marked the confiscated drugs
at the crime scene. Likewise, when Villarosa, Carbo and Davis were arrested, PO1 Bayot
immediately marked the seized items at the crime scene. The items were brought to the
Pasig City Police Station where PO1 Bayot was designated as evidence custodian. P/Insp.
Sabio then prepared the requests for laboratory examination and drug test, which were
brought by PO1 Bayot, together with the drugs, to the Eastern Police District Crime
Laboratory. PSI Ebuen, received the confiscated items for examination. The said items tested
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Based on the foregoing, the Court is
satisfied that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. (Citations
omitted)

People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013

Buy-bust v. Entrapment

A buy-bust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of

entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct from instigation, in that the accused who is otherwise
not predisposed to commit the crime is enticed or lured or talked into committing the crime.
While entrapment is legal, instigation is not. In entrapment, prior surveillance is not
necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is
accompanied to the target area by the informant. Also, the presentation of an informant as
a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing
accused in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit
arrested through his efforts. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered
absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his
security be disregarded. Here, the police officer, who acted as a poseur-buyer, asked the
accused if he could buy shabu, and the latter, in turn, quickly transacted with the former,
receiving the marked bill from the police officer and turning over the sachet of shabu he
took from his pocket. The accused was shown to have been ready to sell the shabu without
much prodding from the police officer. There is no question that the idea to commit the
crime originated from the mind of the accused. Also, the informant’s testimony as a witness
against the accused would only be corroborative of the sufficient testimony of the police
officer as the poseur-buyer; hence, such testimony was unnecessary. (Citation omitted)

People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain and custody; requirements; cases where non-observance
may be excused.

Although it appears that the buy-bust team did not literally observe all the
requirements under section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, like photographing the confiscated
drugs in the presence of the accused, of a representative from the media and from the
Department of Justice, and of any elected public official who should be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy of it, the same may be excused because the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu was preserved. Immediately upon the
arrest of the accused, Police Officer Paras marked the plastic sachet containing the shabu
with the accused’s initials of NBB. Thereafter, Paras brought the sachet and the contents to
the ADSOU, where his superior officer, Insp. Cruz, prepared and signed the request for the
laboratory examination of the contents of the marked sachet. P02 De Ocampo handcarried
the request and the evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory. SPO 1 Bugabuga of that office
recorded the delivery of the request and the marked sachet, which were all received by
Chemist Dela Rosa. In turn, Chemist Dela Rosa examined the contents of the marked sachet,
and executed Physical Sciences Report No. D-1 03 8-03 confirming that the marked sachet
contained 0.06 gram of shabu. In this regard, the accused did not deny that Paras and
Chemist Dela Rosa affirmed the sequence of custody of the shabu during the trial. The
Supreme Court ruled that this chain of custody of the shabu was firm and
unbroken. (Citations omitted)

People of the Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya, G.R. No. 187496, February 6,
2013

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody; integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items should be preserved.

Failure to strictly comply with section 21 of R.A. 9165, which outlines the procedure
on the chain of custody of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, will not
render an arrest illegal or the items seized from the accused inadmissible in evidence. What
is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they
will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar,
the Supreme Court found that the prosecution was able to establish that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs had been maintained. P/Insp. Salazar, who
was one of the apprehending officers, marked the seized items in front of accused Manalao
and the other apprehending officers. P/Insp. Salazar, who was also the investigating officer,
thereafter signed a request for the laboratory examination of the seized drugs, which was
received by Forensic Chemist Mag-abo, together with the items enumerated therein. She
then testified in open court on how her examination confirmed that the seized items, which
she submitted in court, tested positive for shabu. Besides, unless there is a showing of bad
faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered or meddled with, the
presumptions that the integrity of such evidence had been preserved and that the police
officers who handled the seized drugs had discharged their duties properly and with
regularity remain. The burden to overcome such presumptions lies on Manalao, and the
Supreme Court found that he failed to do so. (Citations omitted)

Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013.

 Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of dangerous drugs; elements.

When prosecuting an illegal possession of dangerous drugs case, the following

elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Mere possession of a prohibited drug,
without legal authority, is punishable under R.A. 9165. Since accused Manalao failed to
adduce any evidence showing that he had legal authority to possess the seized drugs, then
he was correctly charged with its illegal possession. The Supreme Court has time and again
looked upon the defense of denial with disfavor for being easily fabricated. Since accused
failed to give anything more than his bare assertions, his defense of denial must necessarily
be rejected.

People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of shabu.

To establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and
the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for
the thing. It simply requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at
the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. If a police officer goes through the
operation as a buyer, the crime is consummated when the police officer makes an offer to
buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between them
involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer. Should the accused raise
the defense of frame-up and extortion, the same must be established with clear and
convincing evidence because the fact that frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted
renders such defenses hard to believe. In this case, the accused merely put up self-serving
denials. If indeed the accused was merely a victim of frame-up and extortion, there was no
reason for him and his brother not to have formally charged the police officers with the
severely penalized offense of planting of evidence under section 2915 of R.A. 9165 and
extortion. Therefore, the Supreme Court rendered the defenses of frame-up and extortion
implausible.

People of the Philippines v. SaibenLangcua y Daimla, G.R. No. 190343, February 6,

2013

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; elements.

 What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The commission of illegal sale
merely consummates the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives
the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer,
whose offer was accepted by seller, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the
former, the crime is already consummated. In this case, the prosecution has adequately
proven all the elements constituting sale of illegal drug. This is evident from the testimony
of PO1 Domingo, who identified in open court the white crystalline substance contained in
the plastic sachet as the one handed by Langcua to him during the buy-bust operation. The
substance yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as
evidenced by the Chemistry Report given by PSI Cayabyab.

People Of The Philippines v. Manuel Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011

Frame up; Failure to Adduce Evidence of Frame-Up

Appellants assertion that he was just framed up as the shabu seized from him was
planted evidence so he can be prosecuted for the illegal sale thereof finds no support in
evidence.

Denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of

the Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can
just as easily be concocted. It should not accord a redoubtable sanctuary to a person accused
of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame up is clear and convincing. Without proof
of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute appellant in the commission
of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the
principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to
great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant
that he had been framed up. Neither can appellants claim of alleged extortion by the police
operatives be entertained. Absent any proof, appellants assertion of extortion allegedly
committed by the police officers could not be successfully interposed. It remains one of those
standard, worn-out, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for drug offenses. What
appellant could have done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it.

In this case, appellant failed to substantiate such defense. Other than his self-serving
allegation, no other evidence whether testimonial or documentary has been adduced by him
to strengthen his claim. No one was ever presented by the defense to corroborate the version
of events proffered by the appellant. Hence, appellants defense of bare denial or frame up is
highly unacceptable. (Citations omitted)