Court Affirms Conviction of Man for Drug Possession

THIRD DIVISION
January 17, 2018
G.R. No. 223142
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
ROLANDO SANTOS ZARAGOZA, Accused-Appellant
DECISION
MARTIRES, J.:
This resolves the appeal of accused-appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza (Santos) seeking the
reversal and setting aside of the 6 August 2014 Decision1 and 2 March 2015 Resolution2 of the Court
of Appeals, Fourth Division (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 05851, affirming the Decision3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City, in Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-
82011 finding him guilty of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, respectively.
THE FACTS
Accused-appellant Santos was charged before the RTC of Caloocan City with three (3) counts of
violation of certain provisions of R.A. No. 9165, viz:
Crim. Case No. C-82009 (Violation of Sec. 6, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maintain in his house at 21 Tagaytay St., Caloocan City, a
drug den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are habitually dispensed for use by the customers
and addicts.4
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and control dried
crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newsprint and contained in transparent plastic "tea bag"
marked "ELS-21-8-09-06" weighing 1.0022 grams, when subjected for laboratory examination gave
positive result to the tests for Marijuana, a dangerous drug.5
1
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and control
several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag, several pieces of used plastic
sachet in a transparent "tea bag," and a plastic tube intended for sniffing Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.6
In relation to Criminal Case No. C-82009 where Santos was charged for maintaining a drug den,
Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores (LoquinarioFlores) who was found inside the house of Santos
during the service of the search warrant, was charged with violation of Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. No.
9165.7
When arraigned, both Santos and Loquinario-Flores pleaded not guilty.8 Joint trial of the cases
thereafter ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution tried to prove its cases against Santos through the testimony of Special Investigator
Elson Saul (Saul), Agents Jerome Bomediano (Bomediano), Henry Kanapi (Kanapi) and Atty.
Fatima Liwalug (Atty. Liwalug), all from the Reaction, Arrest and Interdiction Division (RAID) of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and Nicanor Cruz, Jr. (Cruz), of the NBI Forensic Chemistry
Division (FCD).
Prior to the application on 20 August 2009 by Atty. Liwalug for a search warrant before the RTC,
Manila, the RAID-NBI received information from their confidential informant that there was a group of
individuals at Tagaytay St., Caloocan City, selling drugs and using minors as runners. After Atty.
Liwalug interviewed the informant, she, along with an NBI team and the technical staff
of Imbestigador, a GMA Channel 7 investigative program, went to the reported area to conduct
surveillance. The actual surveillance, where videos were taken of the buying, selling, and use of
drugs in the different houses on Tagaytay St., lasted for two weeks. During the first test-buy,
Bomediano was able to buy shabu from Santos alias "Rolando Tabo." Two informants were used by
the NBI for the surveillance but the spy camera was attached to only one of them. The informants
were able to buy drugs from Santos and to use them inside his house.9
The first video,10 taken by the staff of Imbestigador, showed the informants going inside a makeshift
house on Tagaytay St. which, according to one of the informants, was owned by Santos. He was
shown standing in front of a table while preparing the paraphernalia to sniff shabu. Also shown in the
video was Jenny Coyocot, the adopted daughter of Santos, who, according to the informant, sold foil
for the price of ₱2.00 per strip. The second video11depicted Erwin Ganata Ayon telling Jack, one of
the occupants in Santos' house, "pasok kami sa bahay ni Tabo."12The videos were turned over by
Mean de Chavez of Imbestigador to Atty. Liwalug.13
On 21 August 2009, Kanapi, Saul, Bomediano, and SI Junnel Malaluan, armed with a search
warrant,14 proceeded to the house of Santos on Tagaytay St. Kanapi and Malaluan guarded the
perimeter of Santos' house to ensure that no one could exit from or enter the house during the
service of the search warrant. Previous to the service of the warrant, the NBI RAID coordinated15 with
the Department of Justice (DOJ), the officials of the barangay, and the media.16
Saul knocked on the door of Santos' house. When nobody answered despite several minutes of
waiting, the NBI team broke open the door. Saul, Bomediano, Malaluan, and the Imbestigator team
2
proceeded to the second floor where they found a person who identified himself as Rolando Santos.
Saul told Santos that the team was from the NBI and that they were to serve a search warrant on
him, which copy was actually shown to Santos. The team waited for the representatives from the
DOJ and the barangay before conducting the search.17
During the conduct of the search at the living room on the second floor of the house, Saul found
inside the bedroom and beside the bed of Santos several used and unused foil strips either
crumpled or rolled, the size of a cigarette stick. The foil strips,18 numbering fourteen, were found
inside a baby powder container.19 He also found unused small plastic sachets.20 Saul placed the foil
and plastic sachets on the center table in the living room. When Saul frisked Santos, he found
marijuana leaves wrapped in paper on the right pocket of his pants. Saul informed Santos of his
constitutional rights and placed the marijuana leaves on top of the center table. Saul searched the
rooms on the second floor but found nothing. From a trash can in the kitchen, Saul found used small
transparent sachets which he also placed on the center table. Loquinario-Flores, who was caught on
video selling to the informant aluminum foil to be used with drugs, and two minor children were found
on the first floor of the house. The children admitted that they were part of a gang in the area.21
Santos, Assistant City Prosecutor Darwin Cañete, Kagawad Magno Flores, and media
representative Eugene Lalaan of lmbestigador witnessed the inventory22 of the seized items by Saul
and when he marked them. Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the two minors were brought to the NBI
office. When Saul returned to the NBI office after the operation, he submitted the seized items to the
NBI forensic chemist. A joint affidavit of arrest23 was thereafter executed by Saul, Malaluan,
Bomediano, and Kanapi.24
The testimony of Cruz, the forensic chemist, was dispensed with after the parties agreed to stipulate
on the matters he would testify and after a short cross-examination by the defense.
Version of the Defense
The version of the defense was established through the testimony of Loquinario-Flores, Santos, and
Renamel Destriza (Destriza).
On 21 August 2009 at about 3:00 p.m., while Santos was alone at home playing his guitar, the NBI
team armed with long firearms suddenly arrived looking for a certain Roland Tabo. Santos was
made to lie face down and thereafter was frisked. The team took Santos' money amounting to
₱140.00 and his house was searched in the presence of a kagawad from Quezon City but the
search team found nothing. As a result, the team brought out foil, lighters, and marijuana and took
pictures. Loquinario-Flores was inside the house that time as she was called by Destriza to help
bring down from the second floor an elderly who was hit by the door when the NBI team forcibly
opened it. Loquinario-Flores was no longer allowed to leave while Destriza, who was carrying a child
that time, was allowed to go out of the house. Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the other persons
arrested were brought to the NBI office. It was only during the inquest held the following day that
Santos was informed that he was being charged of violating the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 and
allowed to see the items allegedly seized from him.25
The Ruling of the RTC
The RTC26 ruled that the entry in the house of Santos by the NBI team and the subsequent
confiscation of the paraphernalia and marijuana were valid and legal since the team had a search
warrant. Moreover, it held that the search was conducted following proper procedure. Thus, the R
TC resolved the cases as follows:
3
Premises considered, this court finds and so holds the accused Rolando Santos y Zaragoza GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 6, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon him the
following:
(1) In Crim. Case No. C-82009, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00);
(2) In Crim. Case No. C-82010, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00); and
(3) In Crim. Case No. C-82011, the penalty of Imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱l0,000.00).
Further, in Crim. Case No. C-82012, accused Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores was likewise
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 7 of the above-cited law and
imposes upon her the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14)
years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).
The drugs and drug paraphernalia subject matter of these cases are hereby confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
The Ruling of the CA
Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the RTC, Santos appealed before the Court of Appeals.
In Criminal Case No. C-82009, the CA, Fourth Division27 ruled that the RTC should not have given
much weight to the video footages because these were not identified and authenticated by the
confidential informant who took them. It held that the prosecution failed to present any witness who
had personal knowledge and who could have testified that Santos' house was a drug den. The team,
on the other hand, failed to show that Santos or any other person was committing illegal activities
inside the house. It found that the testimony of the confidential informant was essential and
indispensable for the conviction of Santos because the NBI agents did not have any personal
knowledge as to the alleged illegal activities in the house that would characterize it as a drug den.28
In Criminal Case No. C-82012, because of its ruling that the prosecution failed to establish that
Santos was maintaining a drug den, the CA held that it necessarily followed that Loquinario-Flores,
pursuant to Sec. 11 (a), Rule 12229 of the Rules of Court, must be exonerated of the charge against
her for violating Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. 9165. Despite the fact that Loquinario-Flores did not appeal,
the CA relied on the dictum that everything in an appealed case is open for review by the appellate
court.30
In Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011, the CA held that the prosecution was able to show the
guilt of Santos beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the testimony of Saul was straightforward and
that there was no proof that he had ill motive to testify against Santos. On the other hand, it found
the defense of frame-up put up by Santos was self-serving which failed to rebut the overwhelming
evidence presented by the prosecution; and that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of
Kanapi and Bomediano were on trivial and immaterial details that do not affect their
credibility.31 Hence, the appeal of Santos was decided as follows:
4
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 26 September 2012 of
the lower court is MODIFIED as follows:
1. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82010 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section
11, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under
Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of maintaining a Drug Den under Section 6, Article II of
RA 9165 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza is hereby
ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-82009 for insufficiency of evidence.
4. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82012 finding the accused Imee Baltazar Lquinario-Flores
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Visiting a Drug Den under Section 7, Article II of RA
9165 is likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE. She is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-
82012 for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Santos sought for a partial reconsideration32 of the decision of the CA insofar as it affirmed his
conviction in Crim. Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011. Finding no persuasive grounds or substantial
bases to reconsider, however, the CA denied the motion.33
ISSUES
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE

THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY
AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUGS.
OUR RULING
The appeal is without merit.
It bears to stress that while an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty,
the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.34The Court firmly holds that the prosecution was able to successfully
discharge its burden of overcoming the constitutional presumption of innocence of Santos and in
proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011.
5
The findings of the trial court and the appellate
court as to the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses are binding and conclusive upon the Court.
Santos claimed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were indecisive, conflicting, and
contradictory; as opposed to the version of the defense which was consistent, straightforward, and
complementary with each other.35
To justify his claim, Santos averred that when Saul first testified he stated that the second floor of the
house had a living room, kitchen, and two rooms. It was when Saul allegedly frisked Santos that he
found several used and unused aluminum foil and a sachet of marijuana, but nothing was found
inside the two rooms. When Saul was again put on the witness stand, he allegedly admitted that the
five disposable lighters and the strips of aluminum foil were found inside Santos' bedroom.36
Contrary to the claim of Santos, the testimonies of Saul were not inconsistent with each other. When
first put on the stand, Saul admitted that he found the strips of aluminum foil in the living room; and
that when he frisked Santos he found in the right pocket of his pants the marijuana leaves wrapped
in paper.37 Clearly, Saul was forthright in stating where he found the used and unused aluminum foil
and the marijuana. Saul never claimed that the strips of aluminum foil were found on the body of
Santos.
When Saul testified again, he described in detail that the strips of aluminum foil were found inside a
plastic baby powder container.38 Although Saul claimed that he found these in the bedroom of
Santos, the Court took note of the fact that in most houses in urban areas, the living room is also
used as the bedroom. What is important is that Saul was consistent that he found the strips of
aluminum foil on the second floor of the house where the living room and bedroom were located.
It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned
or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof
which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.39 The truth that the strips of aluminum foil were found in
the house of Santos and the marijuana in his body, had not been successfully controverted by him.
In fact, there was but the lame defense of frame-up offered by Santos to overcome the presumption.
Enlightening at this point is the jurisprudence in People v. Lagman, 40 viz:
It held that illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not
an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to
possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual
possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the
immediate possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists
when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over
the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.41
The contention of Santos that the members of the raiding team gave an altogether different account
as to who actually witnessed the implementation of the search warrant,42 is a trivial and
inconsequential matter that does not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. These
matters do not deal with the central fact of the crime. Besides, it has been held, time and again, that
minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the
witnesses' credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed
testimony.43
6
In stark contrast, the defense of denial proffered by Santos cannot prevail over the positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses. A defense of denial which is unsupported and
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving deserving no
weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward, and
probable testimony on affirmative matters.44 Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor
due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense.45
Equally important is that it is the general rule that "the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration
of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its
conclusions on the credibility of the witnesses on which said findings were anchored are accorded
great respect. This great respect rests in the trial court's first-hand access to the evidence presented
during the trial, and in its direct observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while they testify on
the occurrences and events attested to."46 Settled also is the rule that factual findings of the appellate
court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that
such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.47 Let it be underscored
that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the
appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are
assigned or unassigned.48The Court had assiduously reviewed the records but found nothing to
qualify these cases as falling within the exception to the general rule.
Santos asserted that the search warrant was only for an undetermined amount of shabu; thus, the
discovery of the incriminating items other than that described in the warrant must result from bodily
search or seized in plain view to be admissible in evidence.49
The assertion of Santos has no merit considering that he did not question the admissibility of the
seized items as evidence against him during the trial of these cases. It was only when he appealed
the decision of the RTC before the CA that he raised the issue as to the admissibility of the seized
items. Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is that no question will be entertained on appeal unless
it has been raised in the lower court.50
There was an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized drugs and paraphernalia.
It was the position of Santos that there was doubt as to the whether the marijuana and paraphernalia
seized from him were the very same objects offered in court as corpus delicti. He claimed that there
was no explanation given regarding the items confiscated from Santos from the time these were
seized until their turnover for laboratory examination.51
"Corpus delicti is the 'actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.' In illegal drug
cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself. "52
The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) - the policy making and strategy formulating body in the
planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control tasked to develop
and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified, and balanced national drug abuse prevention and
control strategy53 - has expressly defined chain of custody involving dangerous drugs and other
substances in the following terms in Sec. l(b) of DDB Regulation No. I, Series of 2002,54 to wit:
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 of the seized item, the
7
date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition.55
The exacting requirement as to the chain of custody of seized drugs and paraphernalia is highlighted
in R.A. No. 9165 as follows:
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;
On the one hand, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) settles the proper procedure to be
followed in Sec. 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165, viz:
(a) The apprehending office/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
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 requirement" 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 Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be established in the
chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court.56
On the first link, jurisprudence dictates that '"(M)arking' is the placing by the apprehending officer of
some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps ensure that
the dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to
inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some
other practicable venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the 'chain of custody' rule
requires that the 'marking' of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that
enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (I) in the presence
of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation.57
8
Saul testified that after he gathered the drug paraphernalia and the marijuana which he confiscated
from Santos, he prepared the inventory of seized items/property58 in the presence of Santos, and the
respective representatives of the DOJ, media, and the barangay. In addition to the inventory, he
marked the confiscated items as follows:
1. five (5) pieces of disposable lighters "ELS-21-8-09"
2. several pieces or strips of unused aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-01"
3. several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-02"
4. several pieces unused small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-03"
5. several pieces used small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-04"
6. one (1) improvised plastic pipe "ELS-21-8-09-05"
7. undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped m newspaper "ELS-21-8-09-06"
Anent the second and third links, on the same day that Saul arrived at the NBI RAID office after the
service of the search warrant, he forthwith prepared the disposition form59 for the turnover of the
seized items to the FCD. The seized items were received by the FCD on 21 August 2009 at 11:05
p.m. A certification60 dated 21 August 2009 was likewise issued by the FCD confirming that the
confiscated items marked as "ELS-21-8-09- 02", "ELS-21-8-09-04", and "ELS-21-8-09-05" yielded
positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and positive results for
marijuana for "ELS-21-8-09-06". On 25 August 2009, the FCD released its Dangerous Drugs Report
Nos. DDM-09-0861 and DD-09-47.62
On the fourth link, the testimony of Cruz was dispensed with after the parties had agreed to stipulate
on the following facts:
That he is an expert witness, and as such is of the receipt of a letter request dated 21 August 2009;
That attached to the letter request were several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil marked as ELS-
21-8-09-02; several pieces of used small plastic sachet marked as ELS-21-8-09-04; one (1)
improvised plastic pipe marked as ELS-21-8-09-05, and undetermined amount of marijuana leaves
and seed wrapped in a newspaper marked as ELS-21-8-09-06;
That he conducted laboratory examination on the specimen submitted to their office, the result of
which he reduced into writing as evidenced by Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-08, stating that
upon examination conducted on the dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newsprint gave
positive results for "marijuana" and by Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-47, stating that upon
examinations conducted on the several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag;
several pieces of used plastic sachets in a transparent "tea bag" and a plastic sachet tube gave
positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, respectively;
That he issued a Certification dated 21 August 2009 to the effect that he conducted examination
upon the above-mentioned specimen submitted to their office.63
As opposed therefore, to the claim of Santos, there was no significant gap in the chain of custody of
the seized items. Moreover, the assertion of Santos that the forensic chemist did not testify to
9
explain the measures undertaken to preserve the integrity and identity of the substance examined
until their presentation in court,64 has no merit. As earlier mentioned, both the prosecution and the
defense had agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist upon stipulation on
certain facts. Moreover, the defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the forensic
chemist but, as revealed by the records, his cross-examination never dealt on matters pertaining to
the measures carried out by the NBI team to maintain the integrity of the confiscated items.
In the same vein, it needs to be stressed that Cruz is a public officer; thus, his reports carried the
presumption of regularity. Besides, Sec. 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that
1awp++i 1
entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or
by a person in the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated.65 It necessarily follows that the findings of Cruz as contained in Dangerous
Drugs Report Nos. DDM-09-08 and DDM-09-47 were conclusive in view of the failure of the defense
to present evidence showing the contrary.
Noteworthy, the legal teaching in our jurisprudence is that "the integrity of the evidence is presumed
to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has
been tampered with. Accused-appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was
tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of
exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their
duties."66 Santos had miserably failed in presenting any evidence that would justify a finding that the
NBI team had ill motive in tampering with the evidence in order to hold him liable for these grave
offenses.
The prosecution was able to fully discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt its
charges against Santos.
In Crim. Case No. C-82010, Santos was charged with and convicted of violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of
R.A. No. 9165,67 the elements of which are as follows: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.68
Saul testified that when he frisked Santos, he found marijuana in the right pocket of his pants.
Santos did not offer any explanation on why he was in possession of the marijuana or if he was
authorized by law to possess the dangerous drug. Based on the Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-
09-08, the dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in newspaper and contained in the transparent
plastic tea bag marked as "ELS-21-8-09-06" and which gave a positive result for marijuana, had a
net weight of 1.0022 grams.
Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(₱300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00), shall be imposed if the quantity of
marijuana is less than three hundred (300) grams. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(₱300,000.00) as imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, is hereby sustained.
In Crim. Case No. C-82011, Santos was convicted of violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No.
9165,69 its elements being as follows: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment,
apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not
authorized by law.70
10
Saul testified that when he served the search warrant on Santos at his house on 21 August 2009, he
found thereat several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag, several pieces of
used plastic sachet in a transparent tea bag, and a plastic tube intended for sniffing shabu, which he
respectively marked "ELS-21-8-09-01 ," "ELS-21-8-09-04," and "ELS-21-8- 09-05." Similar to the
marijuana, Santos failed to justify his possession of these items. Significantly, Dangerous Drugs
Report No. DD-09-47 showed that the examination made on the washings of these confiscated
items yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Pursuant to Sec. 12, Art. 11 of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos
(₱10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) shall be imposed for violation of this provision of
the Act. Finding no error in the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4)
years, and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱l0,000.00) imposed by the RTC, which was affirmed by
the CA, the Court hereby maintains the same.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 6 August 2014 Decision and 2 March 2015 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals, Fourth Division in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 05851 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice Associate Justice
ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to the 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.
11
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
Rollo, pp. 2-21.
2
CA rollo, pp. 189-190.
3
Records, pp. 408-422.
4
Id. at 277.
5
Id. at 25.
6
Id. at 48.
7
Id. at 269, docketed as Crim. Case No. C-82012.
8
Id. at 174.
9
TSN, 29 March 2011, pp.10-12; TSN, 4 October201 l, pp. 15-17.
10
Records, p. 336, Exh. "O."
11
Id.; Exh. "0-1."
12
TSN, 4 October 2011, p. 18; TSN, 8 November 2011, pp. 4-6.
13
TSN, 8 November 2011, p. 8.
14
Records, p. 343-344; Exh. "G."
15
Records, pp. 347-348; Exhs. "N" and "N-1."
16
TSN, 4 October 2011, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29 September 2010, p. 10; TSN, 9 March 2011, p.
5.
17
TSN, 29 September 20 10, pp. 7-10.
18
Exh. "K."
19
Exh. "L."
20
Exh. "M."
12
TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-14, 24; TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29
21
March 2011, pp. 15-16; TSN, 4 October 2011, p.10.
22
Record s, p. ", 45 , E x h . "H ."
23
Id. at 330-332, Exhs. "I", "1-1", and "1-2."
24
TSN, 29 September 2010, pp.14-17, 20 and 25-26.
25
TSN, 22 May 2012, pp. 3-4; TSN, 26 June 2012, pp. 3-7; TSN, 31 July 2012, pp. 4-5.
26
Records, pp. 408-422; penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.
CA rollo, pp. 189-190; penned by Associate justice Rosmari D. Carandang and

27
concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon.
28
Rollo, pp. 18-19.
29
Section l l. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. -
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who
did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable
and applicable to the latter;
xxx
30
Rollo, p. 19.
31
Id. at 18-19.
32
CA rollo,pp.173-179.
33
Id. at 189-190.
34
People v. Calantiao, 736 Phil. 661, 674-675 (2014).
35
CA rollo, p. 58.
36
Id.
37
TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-12.
38
TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-5.
39
People v. Dela Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 358 (2014).
40
593 Phil. 617, 625 (2008), citing People v. Tira, 474 Phil. 152, 173-174 (2004).
13
41
People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 348.
42
43
People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150, 172-173 (2013).
44
People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 402(2014).
45
Zalamedav. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).
46
Luy v. People of the Philippines, G .R. No. 200087, 12 October 2016, 805 SCRA 710,
718-719; citing Gulmatico v. People, 562 Phil. 78,87 (2007); People v. De Guzman, 564
Phil. 282, 290 (2007); People v. Cabugatan, 544 Phil. 468, 479 (2007); People v.
Taan, 536 Phil. 943, 954 (2006); Perez v. People, 515 Phil. 195, 203-204 (2006); People
v. Tonog, Jr., 477 Phil. 161, 177 (2004); People v. Genita, Jr., 469 Phil. 334, 341-342
(2004); People v. Pacheco, 468 Phil. 289, 299 (2004); People v. Abolidor, 467 Phil. 709,
716 (2004); People v. Santiago, 465 Phil. 151, 162 (2004).
47
People v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 798 (2014).
48
People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
49
CA rollo, p. 60
50
Tionco v. People, 755 Phil. 646, 654 (2015).
51
CA rollo, p. 62.
52
Rontos v. People, 710 Phil. 328, 336-337 (2013).
53
sec. 77, R.A. No. 9165.
Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled

54
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21,
Article II of the IRR of RA No. 9165 in relation to Section 81 (b ), Article IX of R.A. No.
9165.
55
Peoplev. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129-130 (2013).
People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94-95 (2014); citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134,
56
144-145 (2010).
57
People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 387-388 (2013).
58
Records, p. 345, Exh. "H."
59
Id. at p.201, Exh."A."
60
Id. at 204, Exh. "D."
14
61
ld. at 202, Exh. "E."
62
ld. at 203, Exh. "F."
63
TSN, 11 November 2009, pp. 9-10.
64
CA rollo, p. 62.
65
Zalameda v. People, supra note 45 at p. 740.
66
67
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities,
regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited
to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy,"
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA),
lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB),
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and
promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this
Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand
pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), if
the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10)
grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
15
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life
imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos
(₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten
(10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
"ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements;
or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500)
grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (I) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (₱300,000.00) to
Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00), if the quantities of
dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin,
cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs
such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three
hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
68
69
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia/or Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging room Ten thousand pesos
(₱10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous
drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various
professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the
necessary implementing guidelines thereof. The possession of such equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes
enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor
has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a
dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
70
Zalameda v. People, supra note 45 at p. 727.
16
SECOND DIVISION
March 14, 2018
G.R. No. 230070
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
NESTOR AÑO y DEL REMEDIOS, Accused-Appellant
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal1 is the Decision2 dated December 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06127, which affirmed the Decision3 dated October 1, 2012 of the
Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 11427 finding
accused-appellant Nestor Año y Del Remedios (Año) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating
Section 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information5 filed before the RTC, charging Año with violation of Section
5, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:
Criminal Case No. 11427
That on or about the 3rd day of August 2009 in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without
having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and
give away to poseur buyer, P02 Ruel T. Ayad, 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance contained in
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which substance was found positive to the tests for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in consideration of the
amount of Php.200.00, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
The prosecution alleged that at around five (5) o’clock in the afternoon of August 3, 2005 and after
receiving information about Año’s drug activities at Daangbakal, Guitnangbayan II, Police Officer
(PO) 2 Ruel T. Ayad (P02 Ayad), PO1 Aldwin Ortilla (POl Ortilla), and POl Jenesis A. Acuin7 (PO1
17
Acuin) formed a buy-bust team designating P02 Ayad as the poseur-buyer, with POl Ortilla and PO1
Acuin as back-ups, and marked two (2) ₱100.00 bills to be used in the operation.8 Thereafter, the
team headed to the house of Año where P02 Ayad knocked on the door and upon seeing Año,
whispered that he "wants to score" worth P200.00. Año replied that he has drugs with him and gave
P02 Ayad a transparent plastic sachet, while the latter simultaneously handed the marked money as
payment. As Año placed the money inside his pocket, P02 Ayad introduced himself as a policeman,
causing Año to flee. Fortunately, P02 Ayad caught Año and asked him to empty his pockets which
produced the two (2) ₱100.00 bills. Due to the commotion caused by Año's relatives who were
preventing his arrest, the team moved at a distance of around 100 meters from the place of arrest,
marked the confiscated sachet, and completed the inventory thereat. Barangay Captain Leo S.
Buenviaje (Brgy. Captain Buenviaje) witnessed and signed the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated
Items,9 photographs were also taken in the presence of Año, P02 Ayad, and PO1 Acuin.10 On the
same day, P02 Ayad delivered the seized sachet to the Crime Laboratory where it was turned over
to Police Inspector Forensic Chemist Beaune V. Villaraza (FC Villaraza) for examination. In
Laboratory Report No. D-198-09,11 FC Villaraza confirmed that the seized sachet was positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.12
Upon arraignment, Año pleaded not guilty and denied the charges leveled against him. He claimed
that on said date, he was at home celebrating the 4th birthday of his nephew when suddenly, three
police officers whom he identified to be P02 Ayad, PO1 Ortilla, and PO1 Acuin, forcibly arrested him
and brought him to the police station for inquiry. The following day, he learned that he was being
charged of drug pushing.13
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision14 dated October 1, 2012, the RTC found Año guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal
Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.15
The RTC found all the elements for the prosecution of sale of dangerous drugs present, noting that
the identity of Año as the seller of the illegal drug was clearly established when he was arrested in
fiagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation.16
Aggrieved, Año elevated his conviction before the Court of Appeals (CA).17
The CA Ruling
In a Decision18 dated December 4, 2015, the CA upheld the RTC ruling,19 likewise finding that all the
elements constituting the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were present. Moreover, it ruled
that the apprehending officers duly complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 (a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, as P02 Ayad testified in
detail the links in the chain of custody of the seized drug from the time of its confiscation until its
presentation in court as evidence.
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Año is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
18
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review
and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.20 "The appeal confers the appellate
court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."21
Here, Afio was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.22 It is
likewise essential for a conviction that the drugs subject of the sale be presented in court and its
identity established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody over the same. In
cases like this, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus
delicti.23
In this relation, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the
procedure that police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs in order to ensure that their
integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.24 Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA
10640,25 the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation
conduct a physical inventory and take photographs of the seized items in the presence of the
accused or theperson from whom such items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall then sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and the
seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from
confiscation for examination purposes.26 In the case of People v. Mendoza,27 the Court stressed
that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or
any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of
switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted
under the regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as
to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that
were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of
the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have
preserved an unbroken chain of custody."28
The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21of RA9165 may not always be possible.29 In fact, the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of
RA 1064030- provide that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 - under justifiable grounds - will not automatically render void and invalid the seizure
and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.31 In other words, the failure of
the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its
IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided
that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved.32 In People v. Almorfe,[[33]] the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to
apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the
19
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved.34 Also,
in People v. De Guzman,35 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance
must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that
they even exist.36
After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that there are substantial gaps in the chain of
custody of the seized items from Año which were unfortunately, left unjustified, thereby putting into
question their integrity and evidentiary value.
As the prosecution submits, upon Año's arrest, PO1 Ortilla called Brgy. Captain Buenviaje to witness
the marking and to sign the inventory. After which, P02 Ayad marked the sachet of shabu subject of
the sale with Año's intials, "NDRA," while PO1 Ortilla prepared an inventory of the seized items,
which was signed by Brgy. Captain Buenviaje as witness, and had them photographed. Thereafter,
the buy-bust team escorted Año to the police station and turned over the sachet for examination to
FC Villaraza.
While the fact of marking and inventory of the seized item was established by the attached Inventory
of Seized/Confiscated Items,37 the records are glaringly silent as to the presence of the required
witnesses, namely, the representatives from the media and the DOJ. To reiterate, Section 21 (1) of
RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, as well as its IRR requires the presence of the
following witnesses during the conduct of inventory and photography of the seized items: (a) the
representative or counsel; (b) any elected public official; and (c) a representative from the media and
the DOJ.38 In their absence, the prosecution must provide a credible explanation justifying the
noncompliance with the rule; otherwise, the saving clause under the IRR of RA 9165 (and now, the
amended Section 21, Article II of RA 9165) would not apply.
Here, no such explanation was proffered by the prosecution to justify the procedural lapse. It then
follows that there are unjustified gaps in the chain of custody of the items seized from Año, thereby
militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which resultantly warrants his
acquittal.39 It is well-settled that the procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of
substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse ignored
as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.40
As a final note, the Court finds it fitting to echo its recurring pronouncement in recent jurisprudence
on the subject matter:
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends
the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our
people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be
more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in
the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection
the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities,
however praiseworthy their intentions.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual
in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. x x x.41
In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove compliance
with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have
the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said
procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is
20
determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the
liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed
out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully
examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely
complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such
reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce,
overturn a conviction.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 4, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06127 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
accused-appellant Nestor Año y Del Remedios is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of
Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in
custody for any other reason. 1avv phi1
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
Footnotes
*
Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1
See Notice of Appeal dated January 7, 2016; rollo, pp. 14-15.
2
Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a member of the Court) with Associate
Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
3
CA rollo, pp. 45-53. Penned by Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez.
4
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
5
Records, pp. 1-2.
6
Id. at 1.
7
"P02 Jenesis Acuin" in some parts of the records.
8
See rollo, pp. 3-4.
9
See Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items dated August 3, 2009; records, p. 14.
10
See id. at 17 and 48.
11
Id. at 65.
12
See id. See also rollo, pp. 3-5.
13
See rollo, pp. 3 and 5-6.
14
15
Id. at 53.
16
See id. at 51-53.
17
See Notice of Appeal dated November 14, 2012; records, p. 175.
18
Rollo, pp. 2-13.
19
Id. at 12.
20
See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
21
People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512, 521.
22
People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
23
See People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014). See also People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460
(2015).
21
24
See People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 349-350 (2015).
25
Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDrNG FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002"' approved on July 15, 2014.
26
See Section 21 (I) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.
27
736 Phil. 749 (2014).
28
Id. at 764; emphases and underscoring supplied.
29
See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
30
Section 1 of RA 10640 states:
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002", is hereby amended to read as follows:
"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:
"(l) 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 persons 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.
x x x x"
31
See Section 21 (a), Article II, of the IRR of RA 9165. See also People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August
7, 2017.
32
See Peoplev. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA 240, 252.
33
631 Phil. 51 (2010).
34
See id. at 60.
35
630 Phil. 63 7 (2010).
36
Id. at 649.
37
Records, p. 14.
38
See Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 and Section 21 (a), Article II of its IRR.
39
People v. Lintag, G.R. No. 219855, September 6, 2016, 802 SCRA 257, 267.
40
See People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, 486 Phil. 1024,
1038 (2012).
41
People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 925 (2003), citing People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424, 434-435 (1988).
22
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICIA CABRELLOS Y DELA CRUZ, Accused-

Appellant.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellant Patricia Cabrellos y Dela Cruz (Cabrellos)
assailing the Decision2 dated September 13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No.
02020, which affirmed the Joint Judgment3 dated February 25, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Bais City,
Negros Oriental, Branch 45 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos. 05-0163-A and 05-0162-A finding Cabrellos guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act
No. (RA) 9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
This case stemmed from two (2) Informations5 filed before the RTC charging Cabrellos with violations of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:
Crim. Case No. 05-0163-A
That on September 22, 2005 at about 12:45 in the afternoon at Barangay Iniban, Ayungon, Negros Oriental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, without lawful
authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously SELL and DELIVER to a poseur buyer
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as Shabu, weighing 0.08 gram, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.6
Crim. Case No. 05-0162-A
That on September 22, 2005 at 12:45 in the afternoon, more or less, at Barangay Iniban, Ayungon, Negros
Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, control and custody, 0.64 gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, without lawful authority.
Contrary to law.7
The prosecution alleged that on September 22, 2005 and acting upon a tip from a confidential informant
regarding Cabrellos's alleged illegal drug activities in Ayungon, Negros Oriental, the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency and the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Group organized a buy-bust
team, with PO3 Allen June Germodo (PO3 Germodo) acting as poseur-buyer and PO2 Glenn Corsame (PO2
Corsame) as immediate back-up. The buy-bust team, together with the informant, then went to Cabrellos's
house. Thereat, the informant introduced PO3 Germodo as a shabu buyer. After PO3 Germodo gave
Cabrellos the two (2) marked P500.00 bills, Cabrellos took out two (2) plastic sachets containing
suspected shabu from her bag and handed it over to PO3 Germodo. Upon receipt of the sachets, PO3
23
Germodo placed Cabrellos under arrest, with the rest of the buy-bust team rushing to the scene. The police
officers searched Cabrellos's bag and discovered seventeen (17) more sachets containing
suspected shabu therein. The police officers then brought Cabrellos and the seized items to the Ayungon
Police Station for the conduct of photography and inventory of the seized items. However, since only a
barangay kagawad was present at the Ayungon Police Station at that time, the police officers brought
Cabrellos and the seized items to the Dumaguete Police Station wherein they conducted a second inventory,
this time in the presence of a representative each from the DOJ and the media. Thereafter, the seized
sachets were brought to the crime laboratory where the contents thereof were confirmed to be
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.8
In her defense, Cabrellos testified that she was inside her house tending to her child when suddenly, two (2)
unidentified persons came into their house looking for her husband. When she told them that her husband
was not around, she was brought to the police station for selling shabu, and there, made to sign a document
already signed by a barangay official. She was detained for three (3) months at the Dumaguete Police
Station before she was transferred to Bais City Jail.9
The RTC Ruling
In a Joint Judgment10 dated February 25, 2015, the RTC convicted Cabrellos of the crimes charged, and
accordingly, sentenced her as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 05-0163-A, to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 05-0162-A, to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14)
years, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.11
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish Cabrellos's guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
considering that: (a) she was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer; and (b) in the
search incidental to her arrest, she was discovered to be in possession of seventeen (17) more sachets
of shabu. On the other hand, it did not give credence to Cabrellos' bare denial as it stood weak in the face of
the detailed and candid testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses.12
Aggrieved, Cabrellos appealed13 to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 14 dated September 13, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling.15 It held that the testimonies of
the police officers had established the fact that Cabrellos was caught in the act of selling illegal drugs, and
that in the course of her arrest, she was found in possession of more sachets containing illegal drugs. In this
regard, the CA ruled that the police officers substantially complied with the chain of custody requirement as
the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly established and preserved. 16
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Cabrellos is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and,
thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment
whether they are assigned or unassigned.17 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the
case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase
the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."18
24
In this case, Cabrellos was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively
defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. In order to properly secure the
conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment.19 Meanwhile, in instances wherein an accused is charged with Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements to warrant his conviction: (a) the
accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession
was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.20 In
both instances, case law instructs that it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of
the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the
dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and
account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their
presentation in court as evidence of the crime.21
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must follow when
handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 22 Under the said
section, prior to its amendment by RA 10640,23 the apprehending team shall, among
others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and
photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his 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 of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned
over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for
examination.24 In the case of People v. Mendoza,25 the Court stressed that "[w]ithout the insulating
presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, 'planting' or
contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA]
6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of
the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of
the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain
of custody."26
The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible.27 In fact, the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 – which is now crystallized into statutory law
with the passage of RA 1064028 – provide that the said inventory and photography may be conducted
at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure,
and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 – under
justifiable grounds – will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the
seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer or team.29 In other words, the failure of the apprehending
team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR
does not ipso factorender the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that
the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b)
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.30 In People v.
Almorfe,31the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution
must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved.32 Also, in People v.
De Guzman,33 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven
as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even
exist.34
After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the police officers committed unjustified
deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and
evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Cabrellos.
25
Initially, it would appear that the arresting officers complied with the witness requirement during
inventory, as seen in the Receipt of Property Seized35 dated September 22, 2005 which contains the
signatures of the required witnesses, i.e., a public elected official, a representative from the DOJ, and
a representative from the media. However, no less than PO3Germodo admitted in open court that
they actually conducted two (2) separate inventories in different places and in the presence of
different witnesses. Pertinent portions of his direct testimony read:
[Pros. Yuseff Cesar Ybañez, Jr.]: After you were able to make the said marking, were you able to take
pictures with the accused inside her house?
[PO3 Germodo]: No, sir. We only took pictures during the inventory at the police station of
Ayungon.
xxxx
Q: Mr. Witness, after you have prepared, and signed of the properties seized and gone with the
markings of the property seized, what did you do then, if any?
A: We conducted the inventory of the confiscated items together with the witness, the
[B]rgy. Kagawad Raul Fausto and he signed the inventory.
Q: And after Raul Fausto signed the inventory, what happened then, if any?
A: Since there was no report from the media [and] the Department of Justice, we proceeded to
Dumaguete City.
Q: Where did you proceed in Dumaguete City?

A: In our office.
Q: Where is your office located?

A: It is located at PNP compound, Locsin St., Dumaguete City.
Q: After you arrived there, what happened then?

A: I called the media representative and the DOJ.
Q: And did they arrive, the media representative and the DOJ representative?
A: Yes.
Q: After they arrived, what transpired at your office?

A: We conduct (sic) again an inventory.
Q: After conducting the second inventory, what did you do then, if any?
A: After the inventory we made a request for PNP crime laboratory.36
(Emphases and underscoring supplied)
From the foregoing testimony, it is clear that the arresting officers conducted two (2) separate
inventories, both of which are glaringly non compliant with the required witnesses rule: (a) in the
inventory conducted at the Ayungon Police Station, only a public elected official – Brgy. Kagawad Raul
Fausto – was present thereat; and (b) on the other hand, the inventory conducted at the Dumaguete
Police Station was witnessed only by representatives from the DOJ and the media. To make matters
worse, the arresting officers attempted to cover up such fact by preparing a single inventory sheet
signed by the witnesses at different times and places. Verily, the chain of custody rule laid down by RA
9165 and its IRR contemplates a situation where the inventory conducted on the seized items is
witnessed by the required personalities at the same time. The wordings of the law leave no room for
any piecemeal compliance with the required witnesses rule as what happened in this case. Otherwise,
the avowed purpose of the required witnesses rule – which is to prevent the evils of switching,
planting, or contamination of the corpus delicti resulting in the tainting of its integrity and evidentiary
value – will be greatly diminished or even completely negated.
26
At this point, it is well to note that the non-compliance with the required witnesses rule does not per
se render the confiscated items inadmissible.37 However, a justifiable reason for such failure or
a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section
21, Article II of RA 9165 must be adduced.38 In People v. Umipang,39 the Court held that the
prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives
enumerated under the law for "[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."40 Verily, mere statements of
unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as
justified grounds for non-compliance.41 These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are
ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about
the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation and
consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing fully well that they would have
to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. As such,
police officers are compelled not only to state the reasons for their non-compliance, but
must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the
mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstance, their actions were
reasonable.42
To reiterate, PO3 Germodo admitted that they had to re-do the inventory at the Dumaguete Police
Station for it to be witnessed by the DOJ and media representatives. However, the re-conduct of the
inventory at the Dumaguete Police Station was no longer witnessed by the public elected official who
was left behind at the Ayungon Police Station. Unfortunately, no excuse was offered for such mishap;
and worse, they even tried to trivialize the matter by making the required witnesses sign a single
inventory sheet despite the fact that they witnessed the conduct of two (2) separate inventories. Thus,
for failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable grounds or show that special circumstances exist
which would excuse their transgression, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Cabrellos have been compromised. It is settled
that in a prosecution for the Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165,
the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also to prove
the integrity of the corpus delicti, failing in which, renders the evidence for the State insufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.43 It is well-settled that the procedure in
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a
simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug
suspects.44 As such, since the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance with
the aforesaid provision, Cabrellos's acquittal is perforce in order.
As a final note, the Court finds it fitting to echo its recurring pronouncement in recent jurisprudence
on the subject matter:
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends
the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our
people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be
more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the
realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the
innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however
praiseworthy their intentions.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual
in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. x x x.45
"In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove
compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 [, Article II] of RA 9165, as amended. As
such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived
deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since
compliance with the procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same
27
was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court,
including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the
procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse
any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the
accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction."46
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 13, 2016 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02020 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-
appellant Patricia Cabrellos y Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause her immediate release, unless she is being lawfully held in
custody for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson),*Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

Peralta, J., please see separate concurring opinion.
Endnotes:
*Senior Associate Justice (Per Section 12, Republic Act No. 296, The Judiciary Act of 1948, as
amended)
1 See Notice of Appeal dated September 30, 2016; rollo, pp. 16-18.
2Id. at 4-15. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella
Maxino and Gabriel T. Robeniol concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 61-74. Penned by Judge Candelario V. Gonzalez.
4Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972,
AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7,
2002.
5Both dated October 24, 2005. Records (Crim. Case No. 05 -0163-A), pp. 2-3; and records (Crim.
Case No. 05-0162-A), pp. 2-3.
6 Records (Crim. Case No. 05-0163-A), p. 2.
8 See rollo, pp. 6-7. See also CA rollo, pp. 62-68.
9 See rollo, p. 8. See also CA rollo, pp. 68-69.
10 CA rollo, pp.61-74.
11 Id. at 73a-74.
12 See id. at 69-73a.
13 See Notice of Appeal dated March 2, 2015; records (Crim. Case No. 05-0162-A), p. 153a.
28
14
Rollo, pp. 4-15.
15 Id. at 14.
16 See id. at 9-13.
17 See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
18People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512, 521.
19People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
20People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
21See People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil.
593, 601 (2014).
22People v. Sumili, supra note 19, at 349-350.
23Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,"' approved on July 15, 2014.
24 See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.
25 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
26 Id. at 764; emphases and underscoring supplied.
27 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
28 Section 1 of RA 10640 states:
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002", is hereby amended to read as follows:
"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 persons 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
29
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and
custody over said items.
x x x x"
29See Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165. See also People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894,
August 7, 2017.
30 See People v. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA 240, 252.
31 631 Phil. 51 (2010).
32 Id. at 60.
33 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
34 Id. at 649.
36 TSN, November 17, 2006, pp. 22 and 25-27.
37People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
38 See id. at 1052-1053.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 1053.
41 See id.
42 See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018.
43See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, id. at 1039-
1040.
See People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA 204, 215, citing People v.
44
Umipang, id. at 1038.
45See People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; and People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 925
(2003), citing People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424, 434-435 (1988).
46 See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018.
30
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
PERALTA, J.:
I concur with the ponencia in acquitting accused-appellant Patricia Cabrellos y Dela Cruz of the
charges of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, or violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165),1 respectively. I agree that the prosecution failed to
provide justifiable grounds for the arresting officers' non-observance of the three-witness rule under
Section 212of R.A. No. 9165, i.e., why they had to re-do the inventory of the seized items at the police
station for it to be witnessed by the representatives from the Department of Justice and the
media sans the presence of an elected public official, who was the only one present during the initial
inventory of the said items. At any rate, I would like to emphasize on important matters relative to
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
To properly guide law enforcement agents as to the proper handling of confiscated drugs, Section 21
(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 filled in the details as
to where the inventory and photographing of seized items had to be done, and added a saving clause
in case the procedure is not followed:3
(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
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.
It bears emphasis that R.A. No. 10640,4 which amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, now only
requires two (2) witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of
photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official; and (b) either a representative
from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
In her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, which eventually became R.A. No. 10640, Senator
Grace Poe conceded that "while Section 21 was enshrined in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
to safeguard the integrity of the evidence acquired and prevent planting of evidence, the application of
said Section resulted in the ineffectiveness of the government's campaign to stop the increasing drug
addiction and also, in the conflicting decisions of the courts."5 Senator Poe stressed the necessity for
the amendment of Section 21 based on the public hearing that the Senate Committee on Public Order
and Dangerous Drugs had conducted, which revealed that "compliance with the rule on witnesses
during the physical inventory is difficult. For one, media representatives are not always available in all
corners of the Philippines, especially in the remote areas. For another there were instances where
elected barangayofficials themselves were involved in the punishable acts apprehended and thus, it is
difficult to get the most grassroot-elected public official to be a witness as required by law."6
In his Co-sponsorship speech, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III said that in view of a substantial number of
acquittals in drug-related cases due to the varying interpretations of prosecutors and judges on
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, there is a need for "certain adjustments so that we can plug the
loopholes in our existing law" and ensure [its] standard implementation."7 Senator Sotto explained
why the said provision should be amended:
Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to operations of highly organized and powerful local
and international syndicates. The presence of such syndicates that have the resources and the
31
capability to mount a counter-assault to apprehending law enforcers makes the requirement of Section
21(a) impracticable for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of seizure extremely unsafe
for the proper inventory and photograph of the seized illegal drugs.
xxxx
Section 21(a) of RA 9165 need to be amended to address the foregoing situation. We did not realize
this in 2002 where the safety of the law enforcers and other persons required to be present in the
inventory and photography of seized illegal drugs and the preservation of the very existence of seized
illegal drugs itself are threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug syndicates at the place of
seizure. The place where the seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed has to include a
location where the seized drugs as well as the persons who are required to be present during the
inventory and photograph are safe and secure from extreme danger.
It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized illegal drugs be allowed
to be conducted either in the place of seizure of illegal drugs or at the nearest police station or office
of the apprehending law enforcers. The proposal will provide effective measures to ensure the
integrity of seized illegal drugs since a safe location makes it more probable for an inventory and
photograph of seized illegal drugs to be properly conducted, thereby reducing the incidents of
dismissal of drug cases due to technicalities.
Non-observance of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that the seizure or
confiscation is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement officers could justify the same and
could prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. This is the
effect of the inclusion in the proposal to amend the phrase "justifiable grounds." There are instances
where there are no media people or representatives from the DOJ available and the absence of these
witnesses should not automatically invalidate the drug operation conducted. Even the presence of a
public local elected official also is sometimes impossible especially if the elected official is afraid or
scared.8
However, under the original provision of Section 21 and its IRR, which is applicable at the time the
appellant committed the crime charged, the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct
a physical inventory and photograph the drugs after their seizure and confiscation in the presence of
no less than three (3) witnesses, namely: (a) a representative from the media, and (b) the
DOJ, and; (c) any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be
given copy thereof. The presence of the three witnesses was intended as a guarantee against planting
of evidence and frame up, as they were "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination
proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."9
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non compliance with the procedure laid
down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance
thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying
any perceived deviations from the requirements of law.10 Its failure to follow the mandated procedure
must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence.
It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a
justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement
on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items.11 Strict adherence to Section 21 is
required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is minuscule, since it is highly susceptible to
planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.12
In this case, the prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of all the required witnesses
was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible
because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs were threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the
accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves
were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to
secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within
32
the period required under Article 12513 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no
fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary
detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely
on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of
the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
Invocation of the disputable presumptions that the police officers regularly performed their official
duty and, that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, will not suffice to uphold
appellant's conviction. Judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally flawed
because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity.14 The presumption may only arise
when there is a showing that the apprehending officer/team followed the requirements of Section 21
or when the saving clause found in the IRR is successfully triggered. In this case, the presumption of
regularity had been contradicted and overcome by evidence of non-compliance with the law.15
At this point, it is not amiss to express my position regarding the issue of which between the Congress
and the Judiciary has jurisdiction to determine sufficiency of compliance with the rule on chain of
custody, which essentially boils down to the application of procedural rules on admissibility of
evidence. In this regard, I agree with the view of Hon. Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De
Castro in People v. Teng Moner y Adam16 that "if the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled
precisely in the manner prescribed by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to
inadmissibility that would automatically destroy the prosecution's case but rather to the weight of
evidence presented for each particular case." As aptly pointed out by Justice Leonardo-De Castro, the
Court's power to promulgate judicial rules, including rules of evidence, is no longer shared by the
Court with Congress.
I subscribe to the view of Justice Leonardo-De Castro that the chain of custody rule is a matter of
evidence and a rule of procedure, and that the Court has the last say regarding the appreciation of
evidence. Evidentiary matters are indeed well within the powers of courts to appreciate and rule upon,
and so, when the courts find appropriate, substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule as long
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved may warrant the
conviction of the accused.
I further submit that the requirements of marking the seized items, conduct of inventory and
taking photograph in the presence of a representative from the media or the DOJ and a
local elective official, are police investigation procedures which call for administrative
sanctions in case of non-compliance. Violation of such procedure may even merit penalty
under R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. – Any person who is found guilty of "planting"
any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and
purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.
Section 32. Liability to a Person Violating Any Regulation Issued by the Board. – The 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) shall be imposed upon any
person found violating any regulation duly issued by the Board pursuant to this Act, in addition to the
administrative sanctions imposed by the Board.
However, non-observance of such police administrative procedures should not affect the validity of the
seizure of the evidence, because the issue of chain of custody is ultimately anchored on the
admissibility of evidence, which is exclusively within the prerogative of the courts to decide in
accordance with the rules on evidence.
Endnotes:
33
1"AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"
2 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 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;
3People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018.
4"AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING
FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
"COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002."
5 Senate Journal, Session No. 80, 16th Congress, 1st Regular Session, June 4, 2014, p. 348.
6Id.
7Id.
8Id. at 349-350.
9People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017,
10Peoplev. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018; People v. Paz, G.R. No. 229512, January 31,
2018; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018.
11People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017.
12Id.
13Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. — The
penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee
who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive
or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
14People v. Ramirez, supra note 3.
15People v. Gajo, G.R. No. 217026, January 22, 2018.
16 G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018.
34

Court Affirms Conviction of Man for Drug Possession

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Court Affirms Conviction of Man for Drug Possession

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

January 17, 2018

G.R. No. 223142

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

Version of the Prosecution

Version of the Defense

The Ruling of the RTC

The Ruling of the CA

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE

The appeal is without merit.

1. five (5) pieces of disposable lighters "ELS-21-8-09"

2. several pieces or strips of unused aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-01"

3. several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-02"

4. several pieces unused small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-03"

5. several pieces used small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-04"

6. one (1) improvised plastic pipe "ELS-21-8-09-05"

7. undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped m newspaper "ELS-21-8-09-06"

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

March 2011, pp. 15-16; TSN, 4 October 2011, p.10.

CA rollo, pp. 189-190; penned by Associate justice Rosmari D. Carandang and

concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon.

Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled

(1) 10 grams or more of opium;

(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;

(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

March 14, 2018

G.R. No. 230070

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

Criminal Case No. 11427

The RTC Ruling

Hence, this appeal.

The Issue Before the Court

The appeal is meritorious.

G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICIA CABRELLOS Y DELA CRUZ, Accused-

Crim. Case No. 05-0163-A

Crim. Case No. 05-0162-A

The RTC Ruling

Aggrieved, Cabrellos appealed13 to the CA.

Hence, this appeal.

The Issue Before the Court

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

Q: Where did you proceed in Dumaguete City?

Q: Where is your office located?

Q: After you arrived there, what happened then?

Q: After they arrived, what transpired at your office?

Carpio (Chairperson),*Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

3 CA rollo, pp. 61-74. Penned by Judge Candelario V. Gonzalez.

6 Records (Crim. Case No. 05-0163-A), p. 2.

7 Records (Crim. Case No. 05-0162-A), p. 2.

8 See rollo, pp. 6-7. See also CA rollo, pp. 62-68.

9 See rollo, p. 8. See also CA rollo, pp. 68-69.

12 See id. at 69-73a.

16 See id. at 9-13.

17 See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).