12/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 722

G.R. No. 193856. April 21, 2014.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SUKARNO
JUNAIDE y AGGA, appellant.

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of Shabu;

Illegal Possession of Shabu; In a prosecution for the sale and
possession of the prohibited drugs known as shabu, the State does
not only carry the heavy burden of proving the elements of the
offense. It also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti,
failing in which the State would not have proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.—In a prosecution for the sale
and possession of the prohibited drugs known as shabu, the State
does not only carry the heavy burden of proving the elements of
the offense. It also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti,
failing in which the State would not have proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; To prove the corpus

delicti, it is indispensable for the prosecution to show that the
dangerous drugs subject of the sale and examined in the police
laboratory are the same drugs presented in court as evidence.—To
prove the corpus delicti, it is indispensable for the prosecution to
show that the dangerous drugs subject of the sale and examined
in the police laboratory are the same drugs presented in court as
evidence. The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of
the seized drugs or related items. Marking is the affixing of the
initials or other identifying signs on the seized items by the
arresting officer or the poseur-buyer. This must be done in the
presence of the accused shortly after arrest.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a resolution of the

Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for appellant.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001602a7cd97ff96721f8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
12/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 722

329

ABAD, J.:

The Court addresses Sukarno A. Junaide’s motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s Resolution of January 20,
2014.
It may be recalled that the prosecution witnesses in this
case testified that on November 25, 2004 the Zamboanga
Drug Enforcement Unit received a tip that accused Junaide
was selling prohibited drugs at Lower Calarian,
Zamboanga City. The police unit formed a buy-bust team
with SPO1 Roberto Roca as poseur-buyer. It then went to
the place mentioned. As the informant and SPO1 Roca saw
accused Junaide standing near a store, they approached
him. The informant told Junaide that his companion
wanted to buy P100.00 worth of shabu.
Accused Junaide took a sachet from his pocket and
handed it to SPO1 Roca who in turn gave him a marked
P100.00 bill. The police officer then signaled the rest of the
police team to come. When SPO1 Roca let it known that he
was a police officer, Junaide tried to flee but the police
stopped him. SPO1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. searched and found
four sachets of suspected shabu and the marked money on
Junaide.
Subsequently, the police brought accused Junaide to the
police station where SPO1 Mirasol marked the four sachets
seized from him and turned these over to the case
investigator, SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr. The latter then
turned over the seized items to the police crime laboratory.
The sachet Junaide sold was found to contain 0.0101 gram
of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; the other
sachets contained a total of 0.0235 gram.
Accused Junaide, on the other hand, testified that he
was napping at home when sounds of commotion outside
his house woke him up. As he took a look, he saw people
being chased and his neighbors getting arrested. Junaide
left his house a little later to fetch his nephew from school
but while waiting for the boy, two armed men alighted from
a white jeep and handcuffed him. They frisked him but
found nothing. They
330

showed him a sachet of shabu and said that they would use
it as evidence against him. Junaide later identified the two
men as SPO1 Roca and SPO1 Mirasol. Two neighbors

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001602a7cd97ff96721f8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
12/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 722

claimed that they had seen the incident and corroborated

Junaide’s story.
The Public Prosecutor charged accused Junaide before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City with (1)
illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) 9165[1] in Criminal Case 5601 (21215)
and (2) illegal possession of shabu in violation of Section
11, Article II of the same law in Criminal Case 5602
(21216).
On January 30, 2008 the RTC found accused Junaide
guilty of both charges. The trial court sentenced him to
suffer the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.00 for selling dangerous drugs and 12 years and 1
day to 16 years of imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. On January 29,
2010 the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment in C.A.-
G.R. CR-H.C. 00593-MIN affirming the RTC Decision in
toto, hence, the appeal in this case.
On January 20, 2014 the Court affirmed the CA’s
Decision. It held that, despite a few deviations from the
required procedure, the prosecution sufficiently proved the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
On February 24, 2014 Junaide filed a motion for
reconsideration pleading for a reexamination of the Court’s
finding that the police officers involved substantially
complied with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165. The
Court has accommodated the plea.
In a prosecution for the sale and possession of the
prohibited drugs known as shabu, the State does not only
carry the heavy burden of proving the elements of the
offense. It also bears the obligation to prove the corpus
delicti, failing in

_______________
[1] Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

331

which the State would not have proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.[2]
And, to prove the corpus delicti, it is indispensable for
the prosecution to show that the dangerous drugs subject of
the sale and examined in the police laboratory are the same
drugs presented in court as evidence.[3] The first stage in
the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or
related items.[4] Marking is the affixing of the initials or
other identifying signs on the seized items by the arresting
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001602a7cd97ff96721f8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
12/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 722

officer or the poseur-buyer. This must be done in the

presence of the accused shortly after arrest.[5]
Here, compliance with the requirement of marking is
not clear. SPO1 Roca testified that he marked the plastic
sachet of shabu that he bought with his initials “RR” but
when the supposed sachet was presented to him in court
for identification, it instead carried the marking “RR-1.”
This may be just a mistake but he denied having made a
mistake and admitted that the “RR-1” marking could have
been made by just anybody.[6] Thus:
Prosecutor Pajarito:
Q:    If this one sachet of shabu be shown to you, the one which you said
sold to you by Sukarno will you recognize it?
A:       Yes Ma’am.
Q:       How would you be able to recognize it Mr. witness?
A:       I mark my initial Ma’am.
Q:       What initial did you place?
A:       RR means Roberto Roca.

_______________

[2] People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 260, 270.
[3] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123, 133.
[4] Id., at p. 134.
[5] Id.
[6] TSN, June 16, 2005, pp. 33-35, 60-62, 66-67.

332

x x x x

Q:     I have one sachet of white crystalline substance bearing RR marking

what relation has this to the one sachet which you bought from the
accused and turned over to the investigator?
A:     This is the very one that I bought from Sukarno here is my RR
marking.

Atty. Talip: May I manifest for the record Your Honor that the
actual marking that appears on the shabu is RR-1 and not RR.

x x x x

Atty. Talip:
Q:     You said double R, you ever mentioned RR-1 and when shown to you
it was RR-1 can you tell us why?
A:       I was not able to mention the -1 but it is RR-1.
Q:      It would been a different  item RR is different from RR-1.
A:       Yes Ma’am.
Q:       Do you agree?
A:       But RR-s my very initial marking.
Q:     How many times have you been designated as poseur buyer?
A:       I can not recall Ma’am if as poseur buyer for how many times.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001602a7cd97ff96721f8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
12/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 722

Q:       Just an estimate Mr. witness?

A:       More or less 10 times.
Q:       In those instances your marking  would be RR only?
A:       Yes Ma’am.
Q;    That’s why you mention a while ago, that what you place is RR only?
A:       Yes Ma’am.
x x x x

333

Prosecutor Pajarito:
Q:   Mr. witness on that day November 25, 2004 there was only how
many sachet did you have from your possession?
A:       Only one sachet Ma’am.

Q:      This was the result of the buy bust operation?

A:       Yes Ma’am.

Q:      How many bills did you also have on that day?
A:       Only one Ma’am.

Q:      So you could not be confused with it?

A:       Yes Ma’am.

x x x x

Atty. Talip:
Q:   Mr. witness, regarding the discrepancy, you said there was no
buy bust operation, do you agree to the letter RR-1 could have
been written by anybody else?
A:       Yes ma’am. (Emphasis supplied)

SPO1 Roca may have truly marked the item of shabu he

seized from accused Sukarno as “RR” which he insisted he
did. Someone else, therefore, replaced the item by another
one, now marked as “RR-1.” Indeed, Roca has not ruled out
the possibility that the latter marking on the shabu item
presented in court may have been made by someone else.
This leads the Court to conclude that there may have been
switching of evidence in the selling charge. Guilt in that
charge has not, therefore, been proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the
accused Sukarno A. Junaide’s Motion for Reconsideration
and ACQUITS him on the ground of reasonable doubt of
the charge of selling dangerous drugs in violation of Section
5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 in Criminal Case 5601
(21215) of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City. His
conviction, however, in Criminal Case 5602 (21216) on the
charge of
334

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001602a7cd97ff96721f8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
12/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 722

possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11,

Article II of the same law remains.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza and

Leonen, JJ., concur.

Motion for Reconsideration partially granted, accused

Sukarno A. Junaide acquitted.

Notes.—The Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet

and the use of dusted money are not indispensable to prove
the illegal sale of shabu — these two are not part of the
elements of the aforesaid offense. (People vs. Unisa, 658
SCRA 305 [2011])
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to
be. (People vs. Posada, 667 SCRA 790 [2012])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001602a7cd97ff96721f8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6