SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN, APPELLANT.

DECISION

BRION, J.:
We decide the appeal filed by appellant Sonia Bernel Nuarin (appellant) from the April 28, 2009 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02886.

The appealed decision affirmed the May 25, 2007 joint decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80, Quezon City, finding
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Background Facts

The prosecution charged the appellant with violation of Sections 5[3] and 11,[4] respectively, of R.A. No. 9165 before the RTC,
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-114918 and Q-03-114919.

The appellant was duly arraigned; she pleaded not guilty to the charges laid. The prosecution presented Police Officer 1 (PO1)
Roberto Manalo at the trial on the merits that followed, while the parties stipulated[5] on the testimony of Forensic Chemist, Police
Senior Inspector (P/Sr. Insp.) Bernardino Banac. The appellant took the witness stand for the defense.

PO1 Manalo testified that on February 2, 2003, members of the District Drug Enforcement Group of the Central Police District,
composed of himself, PO1 Filnar Mutia, PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO3 Eduardo Datul, and PO3 Rommel Bautista went to Barangay
Old Balara, Quezon City, to conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant. [6] When they arrived there at around 12:30 p.m., the
informant introduced PO1 Manalo to the appellant. PO1 Manalo told the appellant that he wanted to buy PI00.00 worth of shabu. The
appellant handed a sachet containing white crystalline substances to PO1 Manalo who, in turn, gave him the marked money.
Immediately after, PO1 Manalo made the prearranged signal to his companions.[7] The other members of the entrapment team rushed
to the scene and introduced themselves as policemen; PO1 Mutia searched the appellant and found two other plastic sachets inside the
appellant's coin purse. Thereafter, the police brought the appellant and the seized items to the police station. [8]

The defense presented a different picture of the events. The appellant's testimony was aptly summarized by the CA as follows:

On February 2, 2003, at about 12:30 in the afternoon, accused-appellant was at home with her son John Bernel and friends Jan Ticson
and Rebecca Agana. They had just finished eating lunch and accused appellant was, then, washing the dishes when she heard a knock
on the door. At the door were PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO1 Filnar Mutia and two others. They were looking for a certain Bogart.
When accused-appellant said that she did not know where Bogart was, the police officers entered the house and searched the premises
for about an hour. When the search did not yield anything incriminatory, the police brought accused-appellant and the other occupants
of the house to Camp Karingal In Quezon City. There, the police extorted P40,000.00 in exchange of accused-appellant's release.
When the money was not produced, accused-appellant was charged by the police officers. [9]
In its joint decision[10] of May 25, 2007, the RTC found the appellant guilty of the illegal sale of 0.03 gram of shabu penalized under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove, through testimonial and documentary
evidence, that an illegal sale of drugs took place between the appellant and the poseur-buyer, PO1 Manalo. It added that the police
were presumed to have regularly performed their official duties in the absence of any evidence to rebut this presumption. The RTC
likewise found no merit in the appellant's defenses of denial and extortion as she failed to substantiate these. Accordingly, the RTC
sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and ordered her to pay a P500,000.00 fine.

The RTC, however, acquitted the appellant of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114919 for
insufficiency of evidence.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA held that the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of illegal
sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated shabu had been preserved. The CA also disregarded the appellant's denial in the light of the positive identification made
by PO1 Manalo.

In her brief on appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court gravely erred in convicting her of the crime charged despite the
prosecution's failure to establish that a buy-bust operation took place. She also maintained that the chain of custody over the
seized shabuhad been broken.

For the State, the office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the prosecution was able to establish that the sale
of shabu between the appellant and the poseur-buyer was consummated. It also maintained that the nonpresentation in court of the
original marked money, the forensic chemist, the informant, and the original marked money was not fatal in the prosecution for illegal
drugs.

1
 Our Ruling

After due consideration, we resolve to acquit the appellant for the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each
element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and the existence of the corpus
delicti.

In securing or sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and
integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal
drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution
either by accident or otherwise.

Thus, to remove any doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug
presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant.[11] It is in this respect that the prosecution
failed.

The 'Marking' Requirement vis-a-vis the Chain of Custody Rule

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody as "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."

A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized
from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the
items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be
immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence
serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the
accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of
evidence.[12]

In the present case, the prosecution's lone witness, PO1 Manalo, gave conflicting statements as to who marked the seized sachets. In
his direct testimony, he claimed that it was the desk officer who marked the sachets, thus:

PROSECUTOR JOSEPHUS ASIS:

After you were able to arrest the accused and while going travelling (sic) to your office[,] who was holding the drug that you
Q:
were able to buy from the accused?
PO1 MANALO:
A: I, Sir.
Q: After the recovered money by PO1 Mutia and after you arrived at the station[,] what did you do?
A: We turned it over to the desk officer and the desk officer put the initial RM.
Q: After the marking[,] what happened next?
A: The investigator prepared a request to the crime laboratory and brought the drug to the crime lab.
Q: Who brought it if you know?
A: I can no longer remember.[13]
In the latter part of his direct examination, however, PO1 Manalo claimed that he was the one who marked the sachets. To directly
quote from the records:

PROSECUTOR JOSEPHUS ASIS:

Now you mentioned that you were able to purchase drug from the accused. If the drug will be shown to you[,] would you be
Q:
able to identify it?
PO1 MANALO:
A: I have my marking there[,] sir.
Will you please go over the same and tell me what is the relation of the said sachet with the substance with the one you were
Q:
able to buy (sic)?
Q: This is the same stuff that I bought, this is my marking.
PROS ASIS:
Witness identified the sachet previously marked Exhibit "F-3." May we request that the marking placed by the witness in the
sachet be marked as Exhibit "F-3-B."
xxxx
Q: How sure are you that the sachet that you have just identified is also the sachet that you recovered during the operation?
A: Nobody held it except me.
Q: How did you identify the sachet?
A: The marking that I made.[14] [emphasis supplied]
In his cross-examination, PO1 Manalo again stated that he was the one who marked the confiscated plastic sachets with "RM."

We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the initial markings as reference. If at the first instance or opportunity,
there are already doubts on who really placed the markings on the seized sachets (or if the markings were made in accordance with the

2
required procedure), serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that the prosecution introduced into
evidence.

In addition, the records do not show that the sachets were marked in the presence of the appellant. In People v. Sanchez,[15]we
explained that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually
the ones offered in evidence - should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.
[16]
 We explained therein that [t]his step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and
of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on
allegations of robbery or theft.

Significantly, PO1 Manalo and PO1 Mutia did not even mention that they marked the seized plastic sachet in their Joint Affidavit of
Arrest.

In People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna,[17] the Court acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to clearly
establish the identity of the person who marked the seized drugs; the place where the marking was made; and whether the marking had
been made in the accused's presence.

As to the subsequent links in the chain of custody, PO1 Manalo stated that he handed the seized plastic sachets to the desk officer at
the police station. Curiously, the identity of this desk officer was never revealed during trial. This is particularly significant since no
reference was ever made as to the person who submitted the seized specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. PO1
Manalo, in fact, testified that he could not remember the person who brought the seized plastic sachets to the crime laboratory.
Notably, the specimen was forwarded to the crime laboratory only at 10:35 p.m. It was not clear, therefore, who had temporary
custody of the seized items when they left the hands of PO1 Manalo until they were brought to the crime laboratory for qualitative
analysis.

The stipulation on the testimony of the forensic chemist does nothing to help fill the gap as regards the custody and possession of the
sachets from the police station to the crime laboratory. To recall, the parties merely stipulated that P/Sr. Insp. Banac received a request
for laboratory examination, together with the specimen to be examined; that he recorded the receipt of the sachets in the logbook and
conducted a physical, chemical, and confirmatory test on the submitted specimen; that he found them positive for the presence
of shabu; and that he put his markings on the sachet and placed it in an improvised envelope before forwarding it to the evidence
custodian. Notably, the RTC held that P/Sr. Insp. Banac "has no personal knowledge from whom the subject specimen presented
before this court was taken (sic)."[18] Simply put, the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemical officer has no bearing on the
question of whether the specimen submitted for chemical analysis and subsequently presented in court were the same as that seized
from the appellant.

The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165

The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
which states:

1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof, [emphasis ours]
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items; [emphasis ours]
This procedure, however, was not shown to have been complied with by the members of the buy-bust team, as PO1 Manalo himself
admitted that the police did not make an inventory and photograph the seized items either at the place of seizure or at the police
station. In addition, the police did not offer any acceptable reason why they failed to do a basic requirement like a physical inventory
of the seized drugs, considering that there were only three (3) sachets taken from the appellant.

In the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Rosalinda Casabuena,[19] we acquitted the accused for failure of the police to make an
inventory and to photograph the seized shabu. We explained that strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because
of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or
substitution either by accident or otherwise.

No Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties

The courts a quo erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity in performance that a police officer enjoys in the absence of
any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to falsify his testimony. The regularity of the performance of the
police officers' duties leaves much to be desired in this case given the lapses in their handling of the allegedly confiscated shabu. The
totality of all the procedural lapses we previously discussed effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of
the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up and extortion. We have previously held that these lapses negate the
3
presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole
performance and should make the presumption unavailable.[20]

We also entertain serious doubts on PO1 Manalo's claim that they coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
before the buy-bust operation, as he admitted that there was no pre-operation report or coordination sheet prepared by the police.
Significantly, PO1 Manalo likewise admitted that the police did not coordinate with the barangay officials of the subject area. To our
mind, these circumstances vis-a-vis the lapses made in the handling and safekeeping of the alleged sachets of shabu puts in doubt the
claim of the police that they had conducted a legitimate buy-bust operation.

In fine, the totality of evidence presented in the instant case does not support the appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5,
Article II, R.A. No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. We reiterate
that the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of this
Act, compromised the identity of the item seized, which is the corpus delicti of the crime charged against appellant. Following the
constitutional mandate, when the guilt of the appellant has not been proven with moral certainty, as in this case, the presumption of
innocence prevails and his exoneration should be granted as a matter of right.[21]

A final note.

We are mindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are lingering maladies that destroy families and relationships,
and engender crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting campaign against this
social dilemma. Regardless of our desire to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by the Constitution, most
particularly on the presumption of innocence bestowed on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof
sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to
overcome this constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of the crime charged,
which in this case is the corpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal.[22]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the April 28, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02886. Sonia Bernel Nuarin is hereby ACQUITTED for the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless she is confined for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate
implementation. The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is directed to report the action she has taken to this
Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 210841, October 14, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ENRICO MIRONDO Y IZON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:
An accused in a criminal prosecution is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is the most echoed
constitutional guarantee that is worth reiterating in the case at bench.

In the prosecution of criminal cases involving drugs, it is firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the narcotic substance itself
constitutes the corpus delicti, the body or substance of the crime, and the fact of its existence is a condition sine qua non to sustain a
judgment of conviction. It is essential that the prosecution must prove with certitude that the narcotic substance confiscated from the
suspect is the same drug offered in evidence before the court. As such, the presentation in court of the corpus delicti establishes the
fact that a crime has actually been committed.[1] Failure to introduce the subject narcotic substance as an exhibit during trial is,
therefore, fatal to the prosecution's cause.

This is an appeal from the August 28, 2013 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CR-H.C. No. 05406, which affirmed
the August 19, 2011 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 5819-SPL,
finding accused-appellant Enrico Mirondo y Izon (Mirondo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

Mirondo was indicted for Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in the Information, [4] dated June 5, 2006, the accusatory
portion of which states:

That on or about May 21, 2006, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused without any legal authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, pass and
deliver one (1) transparent plastic sachet of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as "shabu," a
dangerous drug, weighing 0.03 gram.
4
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, Mirondo entered a plea of Not Guilty to the offense charged. [5] After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits
ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

Stripped of non-essentials, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the prosecution's version of the events in its Brief
for the Appellee,[6] as follows:

At around 3:00 in the afternoon on May 21, 2006, SPO4 Melchor de la Peña received information from his informant that a certain
"Erik Manok" was selling illegal drugs in his residence located at Gitna, Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. Immediately, he
relayed the information to the Chief of Police who instructed him to undertake a surveillance of the area and if the information given
by the informant is true, to conduct a buy-bust operation to effect the arrest of the supposed seller of the illegal drugs.

SPO4 de la Peña called on the three (3) police officers from the intelligence section of the police department to act as back-up
arresting officers of the raiding team, namely, PO1 Alejandro Ame, SPO1 Arnel Gonzales and PO1 Jifford Signap. The latter was
designated as the poseurbuyer and was given P200.00 as marked money and the civilian informant was assigned to act as the middle
man to facilitate the buy-bust operation. After the briefing, they all proceeded to Barangay Cuyab in San Pedro, Laguna, and
positioned themselves along the street adjacent to the house of "Erik Manok."

PO1 Jifford and the informant proceeded to the house of "Erik Manok" who turned out to be the appellant herein, while the rest of the
raiding team stayed in the service vehicle they parked along the street near the house of the alleged seller to await the prearranged
signal from the poseurbuyer to assist in the arrest of the former. At the house of "Erik Manok," the informant introduced PO1 Jifford
to the latter as the buyer. PO1 Jifford handed the P200.00 marked money to the appellant who, in turn, handed to the former a plastic
sachet containing the suspected shabu. The sale transaction having been consummated, PO1 Jifford then made a missed call to SPO4
de la Peña, which was the pre-arranged signal for the arresting team to converge in the house of the appellant and assist in the arrest of
the latter.

PO1 Jifford introduced himself to the appellant as a police officer and forthwith announced that he was arresting him for illegal sale of
shabu, a dangerous drug, in the presence of the informant and the other members of the arresting team. He noted that the time then
was around 5:30 in the afternoon. He retrieved the P200.00 marked money from the appellant to use as evidence together with the
plastic sachet containing the suspected illegal drugs which he marked with the initials "EM-B."

The arresting team brought appellant to the police station and turned him over to the Investigator on duty for processing. They then
prepared their Pre-Operational Plan, the Certificate of Inventory as well as the official request for chemical and laboratory
examination of the suspected shabu they apprehended from the appellant. Significantly, the examination conducted disclosed that the
white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachet recovered from the appellant tested positive for the presence of shabu. [7]
Version of the Defense

Mirondo denied the charges against him, claiming that he was not arrested in a buy-bust operation. In his Brief for the Accused-
Appellant,[8] Mirondo gave his version as follows:

On 21 May 2006 at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, ENRICO MIRONDO was at their house in Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro,
Laguna, watching television inside his room with his child Racel, when eight (8) armed men destroyed their gate and forcibly entered
their residence and immediately handcuffed him. He asked them why he was being handcuffed but he was not given any answer. He
was not shown any warrant of arrest or search warrant before the group searched his residence. The group, however, found nothing.
Afterwards, he was brought outside and boarded their vehicle. While inside the vehicle, he was forced to admit that he was selling
shabu but he refused. He was then incarcerated at around 11:00 o'clock in the evening.

EMELINDA LIZARDA CAPACETE, a councilor of Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna, received a phone call regarding a
commotion on 21 May 2006 at around 2:00 to 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. She then went to Purok 3, Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro,
Laguna, where the commotion was reportedly at; there, she saw Enrico Mirondo already handcuffed. She, thereafter, reported the
incident to the barangay.

On 21 May 2006, at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, GINO BERGANTINOS was on his way out of his house when he met a
group of armed men who forced their way inside the house of Enrico Mirondo by destroying the gate of the latter's house. The men
were able to enter the house of Enrico Mirondo and eventually searched it. He, thereafter, saw Enrico Mirondo already handcuffed. [9]
The Ruling of the RTC

On August 19, 2011, the RTC found Mirondo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.
It accorded weight and credence to the collective testimonies of PO1 Jifford Signap (PO1 Signap) and SPO4 Melchor de la Pefia
(SPO4 de la Peña), stating that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor of the said police operatives
had not been overturned in the absence of a clear showing that they had been impelled by any ill motive to falsely testify against
Mirondo. The RTC debunked the defense of denial interposed by Mirondo, declaring that it could not prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, Mirondo was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to
pay a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs of suit.

The Ruling of the CA

In its assailed August 28, 2013 Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment of conviction. The appellate court found that all the
elements of the offense of illegal sale of shabu were sufficiently established by the prosecution. The CA stated that the alleged non-
5
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 would not result in the acquittal of Mirondo because the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu were duly preserved. The CA likewise rejected Mirondo's defense of denial as it
was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court added that the testimonies of defense witnesses Emelinda
Capacete and Gino Bergantinos failed to support Mirondo's claim of innocence. Thus, the CA adjudged:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision of Branch 93, Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna,
dated 19 August 2011, is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.[10]
The Issues

Insisting on his plea for exoneration, Mirondo filed the present appeal, submitting for review the following assigned

ERRORS

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE.

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE BROKEN
CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED SHABU.

III

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 21 OF R.A. 9165 (THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002).[11]
Mirondo essentially asserts that the charge of illegal drug deal is a complete fabrication and frame-up inasmuch as no sufficient
evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove that a legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted against him. He argues that the
omission of the police operatives to observe the procedures outlined by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly on the taking of
photographs and the physical inventory of the subject narcotic in the presence of the personalities mentioned in said law, creates
serious doubt on the existence of such allegedly confiscated drug.

He points out the material inconsistency between the testimonies of PO1 Signap and SPO4 de la Peña as to who marked the subject
narcotic before it was brought to the crime laboratory for examination. He assails the prosecution evidence for its failure to establish
the proper chain of custody of the seized shabu which shed uncertainty on its identity and integrity. He asserts that the plastic sachet
containing 0.03 gram of shabu which was allegedly recovered from him was not presented before the trial court for identification. He
contends that his constitutional right to presumption of innocence remains because there is reasonable doubt that calls for his acquittal.

The OSG, on the other hand, prays for the affirmance of the challenged August 28, 2013 Decision of the CA. The OSG avers that
Mirondo was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, which justified his warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules
of Court. It submits that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the shabu seized from Mirondo during
the conduct of the buy-bust operation and that its authenticity and identity were not compromised. The OSG asserts that all the
elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been duly proven by the prosecution.

The Court's Ruling

Settled is the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole records of the case open for review and it is the duty of the
appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors that may be found in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned.[12]Given the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case, an examination of the entire records of the case may be
explored for the purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion as the law and justice dictate.

After an assiduous review of the records of the case at bench, the Court finds the appeal to be impressed with merit.

It is a well-established doctrine that the trial court's findings of fact are, as a general rule, entitled to great weight and will not be
disturbed on appeal, especially when affirmed by the CA. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of
weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or
misapplied.[13] The case at bench falls under such exception and, hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted.

For a successful prosecution of an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that
the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller
were identified.[14] Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. The narcotic substance itself constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. [15]

Further, in People v. Gatlabayan,[16] the Court held that it is of paramount importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be
established beyond reasonable doubt; and that it must be proven with certitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation
6
is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. In fine, the illegal drug must be produced before the court as
exhibit and that which was exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect.

In the case at bench, the Court finds that the second element is wanting. It appears that the subject 0.03 gram of shabu allegedly
confiscated from Mirondo was never presented in evidence during the trial for identification by the prosecution witnesses PO1 Signap
and SPO4 de la Peña, albeit the same had been formally offered by the prosecution. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the
indispensable element of corpus delicti of the case.

Quoted at length are excerpts of testimonies of PO1 Signap and SPO4 de la Peña:

Public Prosecutor Ibana

Direct Examination ofPOl Signap:
Q: And after you arrested him, what happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: We brought him to our office, Ma'am.
Q: What did you do with the plastic?
A: I put some marking, Ma'am.
Q: Can you still recall what was the marking you put, Mr. Witness with the plastic sachet?
A: EM-B Ma'am, initial of Eric Mirondo.
Q: And what about that B, what does that stands for?
A: I cannot remember but it is reported in the blotter, Ma'am.
Q: And what was placed on the blotter Mr. Witness, if you still recall?
A: Serial Nos. of the money that we utilized, Ma'am.[17]
xxx
Mr. Witness, you mentioned in your statement and a while ago of two pieces of P100.00 bill and in your statement Serial No.
Q: NB630077 and Serial No. TB400315, can you tell us Mr. Witness where are the originals of the money you utilized? A: We
submitted them to the office, Ma'am.[18]
xxx
Continuation of Direct Examination of PO1 Sianap:
Mr. witness, the last time you testified on February 2, 2007, you stated that you submitted the original of the two (2) pieces of
Q: the one hundred peso bills (Php100.00) together with the documents of evidence of this case Mr. witness, what did you do with
the said money?
A: We have the photographs of the said money.
I'm showing to you several photographs Mr. witness, depicting the accused and the two (2) money bills, what is the
Q:
relation of this photograph to the one you just referred to?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And who is this person standing, fronting the money?
A: Enrico Mirondo.
Q: I noticed a white thing beside the two money bills, can you please tell us what was this white thing?
A: Suspected shabu ma'am.
Your Honor, these photographs, were previously marked as Exhibit "I". I'm also showing to you "I-1" and "I-2", what is the
Q:
relation of these photographs that you allegedly took?
A: That is the photograph of the same marked money.
May we offer for stipulation Your Honor, the fact that the photograph of the marked money attached to the record, likewise
Q:
marked as Exhibit "D" and "D-1" are the faithful reproduction of the original money bills inside the vault of this Court?
Atty. Ilagan: Admitted Your Honor.
xxxx. You also mentioned the last time you testified Mr. witness that you marked the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu,
Q: which was the subject of the buy-bust operation, after you marked it, what did you do with the plastic sachet containing
suspected shabu, as you say?
A: We brought it to the crime laboratory.
Q: Do you have any proof Mr. Witness that you indeed brought the specimen to the Crime Laboratory Office?
A: Yes ma'am.[19]
xxx
Q: Did you come to know the result of the examination conducted in the Crime Laboratory Office?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What was the result?
A: Positive for shabu.
On Exhibit "G" Your Honor may I request that the name of suspect Enrico Mirondo be marked as our Exhibit "G-1" and the
Q: specimen submitted Your Honor as "G-2" and the stamp marked RECEIVED by the Crime Laboratory Office as "G-3". That is
all Your Honor.
Court: Cross Atty. Ilagan?
Atty. Ilagan: We move for the deferment of cross Your Honor.[20]
Direct Examination of SPO4 de la Peña:
You also stated that the calling of Police Office Signap to your telephone signifies that the buy-bust operation was positive, so
Q:
what happened Mr. witness to the subject of the buy-bust operation, if you know?
A: The illegal drug was brought to PNP crime laboratory for examination.
Q: Can you describe the subject of the buy-bust operation?
A: One small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white substance ma'am.
Q: Before it was brought to the crime laboratory for examination, what was done to it, if you know?
A: I made a marking on the plastic sachet ma'am.
Q: What was the marking placed on the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance?
A: With initial EM-B ma'am.[21]
xxx
7
 xxxx. Before the case was filed and before you brought the specimen to the Crime Laboratory Office Mr. witness, what else did
Q:
you do with them?
A: Photograph of the subject and evidences ma'am.
Q: If this photograph will be shown to you, will you be able to identify it Mr. witness?
A: Yes ma'am.
I'm showing to you three (3) photographs marked as Exhibit "I", "I-1" and "I-2", are these the same photographs
Q:
taken during the investigation?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Who is this person in Exhibit "I"?
A: Enrico Mirondo.
Q: What about these money bills in front of him Exhibit "I", "I-1" and "I-2"?
A: These are the money which were utilized during the buy-bust operation.
Q: And beside this money bill Mr. witness is a white plastic sachet with white thing, Exhibit "I," "I-1" and "I-2," what is this?
A: That is the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu ma'am.
Q: Did you come to know the result of the examination conducted by the Crime Laboratory?
A: Positive in Methamphetamine Hydrochloride ma'am.
Fiscal: Nothing further Your Honor.[22]

(Emphases Supplied)
Indeed, there was nothing in the records that would show that the shabu, subject of Criminal Case No. 5819-SPL, was ever presented
by the prosecution before the trial court. Neither PO1 Signap nor SPO4 de la Peña was actually confronted with the subject shabu for
proper identification when they were called to the witness stand. Also, the said prosecution witnesses were not given an opportunity to
testify as to the condition of the seized item in the interim that the evidence was in their possession and control. Instead, the
prosecution endeavored to establish the existence and identity of the narcotic substance supposedly seized from Mirondo through
mere photographsdepicting him together with the subject shabu and the buy-bust money consisting of two (2) one hundred peso bills.
The photographs were marked as Exhibits "I", "I-1" and "I-2." This flaw strongly militates against the prosecution's cause because it
not only casts doubt on the existence and identity of the subject shabu but likewise tends to discredit, if not negate, the claim of
regularity in the conduct of official police operation. In People v. Remigio,[23] the Court wrote:

In this case, no illegal drug was presented as evidence before the trial court. As pointed out by appellant, what were presented were
pictures of the supposedly confiscated items. But, in the current course of drugs case decisions, a picture is not worth a thousand
words. The image without the thing even prevents the telling of a story. It is indispensable for the prosecution to present the drug itself
in court.[24]
Verily, the subject 0.03 gram of shabu in a plastic sachet was never adduced before the court as evidence by the prosecution and was
not one of those marked as an exhibit during the pre-trial or even in the course of the trial proper. The Court notes that in the pre-trial
order of the RTC, dated October 30, 2006, it was indicated therein that the "subject specimen was reserved for marking during
trial."[25] Nowhere in the records, however, was it shown that the prosecution made any effort to present the very corpus delicti of the
drug offense during the trial proper. Curiously, the plastic sachet containing the subject shabu was formally offered by the prosecution
as Exhibit "L-1-a"[26] and was admitted by the RTC per its Order,[27] dated October 21, 2009, despite its non-presentation. Obviously,
this omission fatally flawed the decision of conviction.

It is lamentable that the RTC and even the CA overlooked the significance of the absence of this glaring detail in the records of the
case. Instead, the lower courts focused their deliberations on the warrantless arrest of Mirondo in arriving at their respective
conclusions. In sustaining the prosecution's case, the RTC and the CA inevitably relied on the evidentiary presumption that official
duties had been regularly performed. Let it be underscored that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can
be rebutted by contrary proof, being a mere presumption, and more importantly, it is inferior to, and could not prevail over, the
constitutional presumption of innocence.[28]

The failure to produce the corpus delicti in court could not be cured by the following stipulation entered into by the prosecution and
the defense during the hearing when Forensic Chemical Officer Daisy Catibog Ebdane was called to testify, to wit:

Fiscal Ibana - We are offering the testimony of the witness to prove that on May 22, 2006 while she was still assigned at the Regional
Crime Laboratory Office, CALABARZON, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City, their office received letter request dated May 21, 2006
from the San Pedro Municipal Police Station together with the specimen, a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu with marking
EM-B and on that basis she conducted an examination on the specimen and she put into writing her findings and conclusion that the
specimen contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, she will identify the letter request submitted for examination, Chemistry Report
No. D-208-06 and the specimen with methamphetamine hydrochloride placed in a plastic sachet with marking EM-B Your Honor.

Court - Any comment to the offer?

Atty. Ilagan - Subject to cross.

Fiscal Ibana - We offer for stipulation Your Honor, to abbreviate the proceedings, the existence and due execution of letter
examination request date May 21, 2006, that this letter was received by the Regional Crime Laboratory Office on May 22, 2006
together with the specimen, the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-208-06 and the existence of the Specimen
stated in the letter request as well as in the chemistry report Your Honor.

Court - Atty. Ilagan?

Atty. Ilagan - We admit the existence of the specimen submitted for examination, the Chemistry Report as well as the request for
laboratory examination.[29]

8
xxx.
To begin with, it was not clearly and convincingly shown that what was submitted for laboratory examination was the same shabu that
was actually recovered from Mirondo. Secondly, the defense made no stipulation that the alleged confiscated substance contained in a
plastic sachet was the same substance that the forensic chemist examined and found positive for shabu. There was no stipulation with
respect to the ultimate source of the drug submitted for examination by the forensic chemist. Thirdly, the forensic chemist did not
testify at all as to the identity of the person from whom she received the specimen for examination. Lastly, the forensic chemist failed
to testify in court regarding the handling of the specimen in a plastic sachet in the forensic laboratory and the analytical result of the
qualitative examination. Considering the vacuity of proof as to the existence and identity of the supposedly confiscated shabu and the
transfer of its custody from the apprehending officer to the forensic chemist, as well as the limited matters stipulated upon by the
parties, the Court could not accord evidentiary value to the document that merely states that the plastic sachet presented to the forensic
chemist contained prohibited drug.

Finally, the Court notes that there were nagging questions about the post-examination custody that were left unanswered by the
prosecution evidence, particularly, as to who exercised custody and possession of the specimen after the chemical examination and
how it was handled, stored and safeguarded pending its presentation as evidence in court. The failure of the prosecution to provide
details pertaining to the said post-examination custody of the seized item created a gap in the chain of custody which again raised
reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.[30]

In light of the above disquisition, the Court finds no further need to discuss and pass upon the merits of Mirondo's defense of denial
and frame-up. Well-settled is the rule in criminal law that the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the
prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense. [31] The accused has no burden to prove his
innocence and the weakness of the defense he interposed is inconsequential. He must be acquitted and set free as the prosecution
failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor.

The disposition of this appeal once again emphasizes the need for trial courts to be more circumspect and meticulous in scrutinizing
the evidence for the prosecution so as to make sure that the stringent standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is met with due regard
to relevant jurisprudence. This would, after all, redound to the benefit of the criminal justice system by amply protecting civil liberties
and maintaining the respect and confidence of the community in the application of criminal law while at the same time, inculcating in
the prosecutors the need to properly discharge the onus probandi.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed August 28, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
05406, which affirmed the August 19, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93, in Criminal Case
No. 5819-SPL, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, accused-appellant Enrico Mirondo y Izon is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the immediate release of the accused-appellant, unless the latter is being
lawfully held for another cause and to inform the Court of the date of his release or reason for his continued confinement, within five
(5) days from notice.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIET PANCHO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:
The subject of this review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 01135 dated 16 July 2012, which
affirmed the Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 57, in Criminal Case No. CBU 74672, finding
accused-appellant Juliet Pancho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Information filed on 22 September 2005 alleged:

That on or about the 14[th] day of September, 2005, at about 2:40 [p.m.], more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there have in [her] possession and under
[her] control three (3) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic bags each of white crystalline substance weighing 14.49 grams locally known
as shabu, containing [m]ethamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without authority of law.[3]

On arraignment, accused-appellant entered a non-guilty plea. Trial ensued.

The prosecution witnesses narrated that on the basis of a search warrant, members of the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence
Bureau of Cebu City conducted a search in the house of accused-appellant and her husband Samuel Pancho located in Sitio Plastikan,
9
Barangay Duljo-Fatima, Cebu City. Police Superintendent Pablo Labra served the search warrant on accused-appellant. Police Officer
1 Roy Carlo Veloso (PO1 Veloso) was designated as the searcher, while PO2 Benigno Andrew Ilagan (PO2 Ilagan) was assigned as
the recorder of the raiding team. The raiding team was accompanied by three barangay tanods. The search yielded three big plastic
packets of suspected shabu weighing a total of 14.49 grams, which were recovered under a jewelry box placed on top of a cabinet
divider. PO1 Veloso handed the packets of shabu to PO2 Ilagan who recorded them in the confiscation receipt and made markings on
the plastic packets.

The raiding team brought accused-appellant to the police station. PO1 Veloso accompanied PO2 Ilagan in handing over the seized
articles and the letter-request to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. The PNP Crime Laboratory later issued
Chemistry Report No. D-1381-2005, confirming that the three heat-sealed transparent plastic bags, weighing a total of 14.49 grams,
were tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Chemistry Report states:

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED

A- Three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic bags each white crystalline substance having a total net weight of 14.49 grams each with
marking "SW-SP & JP-01 to 03" and further marked as A-l thru A-3. x x x

PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION

To determine the presence of dangerous drugs.

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of
Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, x x x

CONCLUSION:

Specimens A-l thru A-3 contain Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[4] x x x

Accused-appellant denied the charge against her and alleged that she was sewing a blanket in her bedroom on the second floor when
two police officers barged into her room and ordered her to go down. When she went down, two other police officers came and one of
them went up to the bedroom. After a few seconds, the said police officer went back down and called the barangay tanods. When
the barangay tanods arrived, accused-appellant was handcuffed and brought to the police station. Accused-appellant later learned that
she was being charged with illegal possession of shabu.

On 5 October 2009, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of shabu and sentencing her to
life imprisonment and to pay a P1,000,000.00 fine.

Accused-appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal[5] before the Court of Appeals. On 16 July 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the judgment of the RTC, with modification in the fine imposed which was reduced to P500,000.00.

Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.[6] On 8 July 2013, we issued a Resolution requiring the parties to file their supplemental
briefs, if they so desire.[7] Both parties manifested that they would adopt the same arguments in their separate briefs filed before the
Court of Appeals.[8]

Accused-appellant asserts that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were plagued with inconsistencies with respect to where
the search of the house started and where the markings were made. Accused-appellant insists that the barangay tanods should have
been made to testify to corroborate the testimonies of the police officers relative to the search. Accused-appellant avers that the
requisites under Section 21, paragraph 1, Article 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with. Moreover, accused-appellant contends
that the packs of shabuallegedly recovered from her house should first be submitted to the court which issued the search warrant in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) dismisses the inconsistencies as trivial, and maintains that the elements of the crime of
illegal possession of a prohibited drug were proven by the prosecution. The OSG agrees that the prosecution was able to establish the
chain of custody of the corpus delicti; and despite the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution has shown
that the integrity and evidentiary. value of the seized items had been duly preserved.

Whether accused-appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is the crux of this controversy.

In Valleno v. People,[9] the Court ruled that -

In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in
possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3)
the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[10]

The prosecution has duly established all these elements. By virtue of a search warrant, POl Veloso found three packets of
suspected shabuin one of the rooms of accused-appellant's house, thus:

10
Pros. Lapinid (to witness)
Q: How long have you been a police officer?
A: 4 years.
Q: In September of 2005 can you recall where were you then assigned?
A: I was assigned at Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Bureau, Cebu City Police Office.
Q: Specifically on September 14, 2005 at around 2:40 p.m., can you recall where you were?
I was together with the elements of our office led by Police Supt. Pablo G. Labra because we [were] serving a Search
A:
Warrant against Juliet and Samuel Pancho at Sitio Plastikan, Brgy. Duljo-Fatima.
Q: You mentioned that you were serving a search warrant. That search warrant is for what violation of the law Mr. Witness?
A: Violation of Sec. 11 Article II of RA 9165.
Q: Do you have a copy of that Search Warrant with you?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Pros. Lapinid:
We pray your Honor that this certified true copy of the Search Warrant as certified by Atty. [D]ela Cerna Capacio of
RTC Branch 13 be marked as our Exhibit "D."
COURT: Mark it. Pros. Lapinid (to witness)
Q: Who were with you at that time Mr. Witness?
As I've said, our team created by our Head of Office, Police Supt. Pablo G. Labra II was serving a Search Warrant at
A:
Brgy. Duljo-Fatima. PO2 llagan and I were designated as searcher and recorder of the raiding team.
You said that you were designated as the searcher in the implementation of the Search Warrant. Upon reaching the place
Q:
what happened?
A: When we reached at (sic) their place we noticed that their door was slightly opened.
Q: By the way, before that, could you describe to us what was this building that you were about to search at that time?
A: It was a two-storey semi-concrete house ma'am.
Q: You mentioned that upon arrival at the area[,] the door was slightly opened?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And upon seeing that, what did you do?
Inside we saw a woman particularly in the living room and we called her attention that we were serving a search warrant
A:
against the Sps. Juliet and Samuel Pancho.
Q: So after you called the attention of that woman whom you saw inside the house at the living room what did she do?
She walked towards us because we were outside of their house and this PO2 Ilagan who was in possession of the search
A:
warrant showed to her a copy of the search warrant for her to read.
Q: And after the woman was shown a copy of that search warrant by Police Officer Ilagan what happened?
When the woman whom we later knew to be Juliet allowed us to enter the house, we thereafter immediately started the
A:
search.
Aside from that woman whom you later knew to be Juliet Pancho, were there other persons inside that house at that
Q:
time?
I cannot recall anymore ma'am the other persons who were there inside the house except I, the accused, PO2 Ilagan, and
A:
the three barangay tanods who acted as witnesses.
You mentioned earlier that this Search Warrant was against Juliet and Samuel Pancho. Do you know where this Samuel
Q:
Pancho was at that time that you were conducting the search.
A: He was not around when we began the search.
Q: Did you ask Juliet Pancho where this Samuel Pancho was?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And what was her reply?
A: She replied that Samuel Pancho went out of the house.
You said that after Juliet Pancho was shown a copy of the search warrant she allowed you to enter the house and
Q:
thereafter you immediately conducted the search. Where did you first start your search?
A: We [began] searching in the living room.
Q: And the living room is located where since you said that it was a two storey house?
A: It is located in the first floor.
Q: What was the result of your search of the living room?
A: We did not find any contraband or anything that is illegal.
COURT (to witness)
Q: You yourself conducted the search in the living room?
A: The search was conducted by me, together with the recorder PO2 Ilagan, the three barangay tanods, and the accused.
[COURT]: Proceed prosecutor.
Pros. Lapinid
Considering that you said you did not find any contraband which was illegal after searching the living room, what did
Q:
you do?
A: We continued our search towards the kitchen.
Q: Since you stated that thereafter you searched the kitchen, what was the result of your search?
A: The result was negative.
Q: And after the search of the kitchen yielded negative result, what did you do? 
A: We went upstairs and started searching in one of the three rooms located at the second floor.
You said that there were three rooms at the second floor and you conducted your search in one of the rooms. At that time
Q:
do you know the occupant of this room that you searched first?
At first I personally do not know who the occupant of the first room was. It was later that we knew that the room which
A:
we searched first was occupied by Juliet and Samuel Pancho.
Q: You mentioned that you searched the first room among the three at the second floor. What was again the result of your
11
 search?
When we went inside the room we saw a big divider and on the divider was a jewelry box which covered the three (3)
A:
big plastic packets of suspected shabu.
Q: Where was Juliet Pancho when you recovered these three (3) big plastic packets of shabu?
A: She was with the group who conducted the search.
Q: So, you are saying that she (Juliet) was inside the room when you recovered the items?
A: Yes, ma'am.
COURT:
Q: What about the three barangay tanods, where were they?
A: They were also inside the room.[11]

The three packets of suspected shabu were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory. An examination was conducted on the seized
items, and the result yielded a positive finding for the presence of shabu.

The three packets of shabu were found not on accused-appellant's person but on top of a cabinet divider inside her room.  Accused-
appellant was deemed to have been in constructive possession of the packets of shabu because they were under her control and
management.

"[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."[12] Accused-appellant is not authorized by law to possess the shabu. Mere
possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an
accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of
knowledge or animus possidendi.[13] Accused-appellant's bare denials will not suffice to overcome the  presumption of knowledge.

Accused-appellant emphasizes the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the two police officers. PO1 Veloso stated that the living room
on the first floor of accused-appellant's house was searched first, while PO2 Ilagan narrated that the search started on the second floor
of the house. Moreover, accused-appellant claimed that PO1 Veloso initially related that markings were done in the police station,
only to backtrack and declare that markings were done in accused-appellant's house. The inconsistency on the order of the search is a
trivial matter and does not detract from the fact that all elements for the crime were duly established. In relation to the marking of the
seized shabu, PO1 Veloso repeatedly declared that the marking was done in accused-appellant's house, thus:

Q: At the office, the three packs of shabu were marked subsequently, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
So the three packs claimed to be shabu were not marked at the place or at the room where it was confiscated but in the
Q:
office?
A: After the search was done, it was already marked in the house of the accused.
Did you not say earlier that the packs were marked was in the office because after the confiscation you brought the
Q:
accused to the office? Did you not say that earlier?
A: We brought the accused to the office, sir.
I am asking you, did you not say earlier that the packs of shabu were marked in your office after you brought the accused
Q:
to the office? Did you not say that?
A: The shabu was marked, sir.
That indeed you made an answer [to] the statement that the three packs believed to be shabu were marked in your office
Q:
after its confiscation. You told that, right? But later on, you changed your mind.
Because in normal search and seizure after the alleged shabu is seized, after the search is through, you mentioned the
A:
marking [in] the house. I was mistaken when I said it was marked in the office.
COURT: (To Witness)
Q: So who made the marking?
A: It was PO2 Ilagan, Your Honor.
ATTY. GONZALE[S]:
May I take in from here, Your Honor.
Q: You said normal, are you saying that all police officers participating in the implementation of search warrant do that?
A: In our office, sir.
Q: So the marking was done in your office?
COURT: (To Atty. Gonzale[s])
The procedure in their office is to have the shabu marked at the scene.
That is what he mean[t].
ATTY. GONZALES:
I was not able to get that way, Your Honor.
Q: You know officer Mendaros, SPO4 Mendaros?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: He is with your office, correct?
A: Yes, sir.[14]

It was actually accused-appellant's lawyer who asked if the markings were done at the office, and PO1 Veloso inadvertently answered
in the affirmative, but he immediately corrected himself when the mistake was pointed out to him.

The non-presentation of the barangay tanods is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The more relevant testimonies are those of the
members of the raiding team who testified that they recovered packets of shabu from accused-appellant's house.

With respect to non-compliance with procedure laid down in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, the primordial consideration
12
is the preservation of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:

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[.]

The provisions of Article II, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (1RR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide:

SECTION 21. x x x.

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

Accused-appellant cites as an irregularity the failure of the prosecution to present photographs of the seized items and that there were
no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the conduct of the inventory of the seized items.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 (a) of R.A. No. 9165 offer some flexibility when a proviso added that "non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items."[15]

In People v. Salvador,[16] this Court ruled that the failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and
the photograph, as well as the absence of a member of the media or the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, is
not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.

"What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and [the] evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." [17]

In the instant case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was not broken. The prosecution established that PO1 Veloso seized
three packets of shabu from the bedroom of accused-appellant. He handed them over to PO2 Ilagan, who made markings on the items
and prepared a confiscation receipt of the same while in appellant's house. PO2 Ilagan brought the confiscated shabu to the police
station where he prepared a letter-request addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory. It was PO2 Ilagan, accompanied by PO1 Veloso,
who went to the PNP Crime Laboratory to bring the specimen and the letter-request. PO2 Roma received the shabu and forwarded the
same to the forensic chemist. The chain of custody was testified to by the police authorities. Clearly, the recovery and the handling of
the seized illegal drugs were satisfactorily established in this case.

The failure of the members of the raiding team to deliver the seized items to the judge who issued the warrant becomes immaterial
because records show that the chain of custody is intact.

Accused-appellant was caught in possession of 14.49 grams of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride. The illegal possession of
dangerous drugs is punishable under Section 11, paragraph 2(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50)
grams[.]

We affirm the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. It was specified in the Information that the shabu found in the possession of
the accused-appellant weighted 14.49 grams. This weight is as certified to in the Chemistry Report. Such weight is within the range
stated for by law.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 16 July 2012 of the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 01135 affirming the conviction of
accused-appellant Juliet Pancho by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 57, for violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is

13
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 195194, November 25, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. KAMAD AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "MHADS" AND BAINHOR
AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "BHADS," ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the 19 February 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03376 which affirmed the
Decision dated 22 May 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City, Branch 21 finding the accused-appellants Kamad
Akmad y Ulimpain (Kamad) and Bainhor Akmad y Ulimpain (Bainhor) guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Factual Antecedents

Kamad and Bainhor were charged before RTC, Branch 21, Malolos, Bulacan for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in
an information that reads:

That on or about the 25th day of September, 2003 in the [M]unicipality of Meycauayan, [P]rovince of Bulacan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one
(1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 49.606 grams in conspiracy with each other. [2]

On 11 November 2003, Kamad and Bainhor, assisted by their counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Pre-trial and trial
thereafter ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

On 25 September 2003, senior Police Officer 1 Hashim Maung (SPO1 Maung) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agengy (PDEA),
Bulacan Provincial Office received a report from a civilian informant regarding the illegal drug activities of Kamad and Bainhor in the
area of Meycauayan, Bulacan. The two were allegedly capable of disposing large volumes of shabu through consignment basis. SPO1
Maung instructed the civilian informant to set up a drug deal with the suspects.

At around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same date, the informant returned and reported that he had already negotiated for the
delivery of 50 grams of shabu worth Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The delivery would allegedly take place in front of
McDonald's restaurant in Barangay Banga, Meycauayan, Bulacan.[3]

A team composed of Police Officer 3 Rolando Navarette (PO3 Navarette), as poseur-buyer, and SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co, as backup,
was immediately formed to conduct a buy-bust operation.[4]

Upon arrival at the locus criminis at around 5:45 o'clock in the afternoon, the informant introduced PO3 Navarette to Kamad and
Bainhor as an interested buyer. Kamad then took a medium-sized plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from his pocket and gave
it to Bainhor, who, in turn, handed it to PO3 Navarette. Upon receipt of the plastic sachet, PO3 Navarette immediately executed their
prearranged signal by scratching the back of his head with his right hand. SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co immediately rushed in and
introduced themselves as PDEA operatives. The accused were informed of their rights and brought to the police station for disposition
and documentation.[5]

PO3 Navarette testified that he marked the plastic sachet with his initial "RCN." He likewise testified that he prepared the request for
the laboratory examination that was brought by SPO1 Maung to the crime laboratory together with the specimen, which later on tested
positive for shabu.[6]

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellants denied the accusations against them. They maintained that they were merely drinking softdrinks at the
McDonald's fastfood restaurant in Barangay Banga, Meycauayan, Bulacan when three men suddenly approached them and poked a
gun at Kamad. They were dragged out of the restaurant and forced to board a red car. Then, they were brought to a small house and
were ordered to remove their clothings. They Were bodily searched but the three men did not find anything on them. Thereafter, they
were brought to the provincial jail.

14
 Ruling of the RTC

On 22 May 2008, the trial court promulgated a Decision[7] finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00). The trial court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution successfully established the elements of illegal sale
of a dangerous drug as accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto in a valid buy-bust operation. It noted that the defense of
denial and frame-up offered by the defense cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
accorded to the apprehending officers.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On intermediate appellate review, the CA found no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC and upheld its ruling. The appellate court
agreed with the RTC that the testimony of the lone prosecution witness was sufficient to establish the culpability of accused-
appellants. It also held that the apprehending officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized
drug and that the identity of the corpus delicti was properly preserved and established by the prosecution.[8]

Issue

Whether the lower courts gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged notwithstanding the prosecution's
failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[9]

Our Ruling

We deny the appeal.

Accused-appellants allege that PO3 Navarette testified that they were informed by a civilian informant that the accused-appellants can
dispose large volume of shabu through consignment basis, which means that, at first, they will be given the shabu and on the next
delivery, they will give the payment for the shabu earlier delivered. Accused-appellants maintain that the testimony defeated the
prosecution's claim of illegal sale of drugs. They insist that no sale transaction was consummated between them and PO3 Navarette
because one of the essential elements of a sale, i.e. the price certain in money or its equivalent is absent.[10]

The argument is erroneous. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not
create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drug is adequately proven and the drug subject of
the transaction is presented before the court.[11] Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-
bust operation.[12] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti as evidence.[13] In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish the consummated transaction between the
poseur-buyer and accused-appellants.

Moreover, we note that accused-appellants were charged with selling, trading, delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and
transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.[14] The charge was not limited to the selling of dangerous
drugs. The aforesaid provision of law punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to
buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. In the distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration
is immaterial. The mere act of distributing the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a punishable offense. [15]

Accused-appellants also submit that the lower courts failed to consider the procedural flaws committed by the arresting officers in the
seizure and custody of drugs as embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.[16] They allege that the arresting team
should have conducted a physical inventory of the item seized and took photographs thereof in their presence and in the presence of a
representative each from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall further be required to sign
copies of the inventory.[17]  They further allege that the prosecution was not able to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the
dangerous drug when it failed to present SPO1 Maung, the one who prepared the request and delivered the alleged confiscated
specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Bulacan Provincial Office, Malolos, Bulacan.

We are not persuaded. The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section
21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which states:

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

15
The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the exception to the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, "substantial
compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient. [18] This Court has consistently ruled that even
if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not
fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. [19] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
[20]
 In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts
of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the. arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating
officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as
long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected. [21]

Here, the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug. After the arrest of the accused-
appellants and the seizure of the suspected shabu, PO3 Navarette conducted an inventory in the presence of Princesita Gaspar and Ma.
Theresa Lienado, officials of the barangay where the crime was committed. PO3 Navarette then marked the item with his initials,
prepared the Receipt of Property Seized and had it signed by the barangay officials. These were done in the presence of the accused-
appellants who refused to sign on the receipt. A request for laboratory examination was thereafter prepared and the item was
transmitted to the crime laboratory for examination.[22] The seized item was received by Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Sta. Maria,
who conducted a chemistry examination of the substance. In his Chemistry Report No. D-727-2003,[23] the forensic officer stated that
the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

It is clear from the foregoing that the substance marked, tested and offered in evidence was the same item seized from accused-
appellants. This position by the prosecution was bolstered by the defense's admission during the pre-trial conference of the existence,
due execution and genuineness of the request for laboratory examination, the Chemistry Report and specimen submitted. [24]

We have previously ruled that as long as the state can show by record or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been
compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the
possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory, then the prosecution can maintain that it was able to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[25]

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. Acussed-appellants bear 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.[26] Accused-appellants in this case failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the
part of the arresting officers. Thus, the testimony of PO3 Navarette deserves full faith and credit. In fact, accused-appellants did not
even question the credibility of the apprehending officers. Nor did they present any reason why the apprehending would fabricate a
story to arrest them. They simply anchored their appeal on denial and the alleged broken chain of the custody of the seized drug. We
have previously ruled that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it
can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act.[27]

Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the penalty for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, viz.:

Sect. 5 Sale, Trading, Administration; Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (PI0,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.

We find the penalty imposed on accused-appellant in conformity with the above-quoted provision of the law.

In fine, there is no reason to modify or set aside the Decision of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. We thus adopt its findings of fact
and conclusions of law.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03376 finding the accused Kamad Akmad y Ulimpain
and Bainhor Akmad y Ulimpain guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," sentencing them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
ordering them to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 215731, September 02, 2015 ]

16
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO CARRERA Y IMBAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is an appeal[1] from the June 10, 2014 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05885 modifying
the November 27, 2012 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 127, Caloocan City, finding appellant Rolando Carrera
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,[4] Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165[5] or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

After a buy-bust operation conducted on July 14, 2009, an Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was filed
against appellant reading:

That on or about the 14th day of July, 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 sell and deliver to [IO1]
JOSEPH L SAMSON, who posed as buyer, METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 4.5722 grams,
4.1451 grams, 4.2055 grams, 3.8220 grams, 3.4999 grams, 4.5061 grams & 4.7124 grams, a dangerous drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription therefore, knowing the same to be such.

Contrary to Law.[6]

On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.[7] Trial on the merits ensued after pre-trial.

The Prosecution's Version

Prosecution presented Maria Criser Abad, Intelligence Officer (IO) 2 Liwanag Sandaan, IO2 Joseph Samson and IO1 Darwin Reed.

On July 13, 2009, a confidential informant of IO2 Sandaan arrived at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency - Metro Manila
Regional Office (PDEA-MMRO) and reported illegal drug activities of a certain Latif in Caloocan City. The informant alleged that
Latif was engaged in selling shabu and capable of selling large amounts of bulto.[8] IO2 Sandaan instructed the informant to call Latif
and order seven bultoof shabu and learned that each bulto would cost P27,000.00. The informant confirmed the transaction.

IO2 Sandaan called a team composed of IO1 Frederick Santos, IO1 Reed, IO1 Samson and IO1 Leverette Lopez and briefed them on
the alleged drug activities in Caloocan City. At about 4:00 a.m. the following day, IO2 Sandaan conducted a briefing on the buy-bust
operation. IO1 Samson was the designated poseur-buyer while IO1 Santos was the immediate back-up arresting officer. IO2 Sandaan
handed two P500-bills as buy-bust money to IO1 Samson who marked the bills with his initials. They made it appear that the money
was in a bundle placing one P500-bill at the top of the stack and another at the bottom.

They agreed that if the deal was consummated, IO1 Samson would remove his cap as the signal. IO2 Sandaan asked her team to
prepare the Pre-Operation Report and Authority to Operate. Before leaving, the team coordinated with the Tactical Operation Center,
the Quezon City Police and the Caloocan City Police.

The team with the informant went to Brgy. Malaria, Caloocan City on-board a red L-300 van. Upon arriving at around 9:30 a.m., IO1
Samson and the informant alighted from the van and proceeded to the designated area, an eatery near the barangay hall. The rest of the
team stayed at a nearby burger place about eight meters away.

With the team positioned, the informant called Latif. A short male person, subsequently identified as appellant, arrived shortly after
the call. The informant introduced IO1 Samson as the buyer and asked whether he had the item with him. Appellant replied in the
affirmative and asked IO1 Samson if he brought the money. IO1 Samson replied in the affirmative and partly opened the plastic bag
containing the money showing the top portion to appellant. He then informed appellant that he will only hand the money when he
received the item.

Appellant pulled out from his pocket a transparent plastic wrapped with electrical tape and handed it to IO1 Samson. Upon receipt of
the plastic packet with the crystalline substance, IO1 Samson grabbed appellant, introduced himself as PDEA agent, and removed his
cap to notify the team. The team approached the target area and IO1 Santos assisted IO1 Samson in arresting appellant by handcuffing
him and reading to him his constitutional rights.

There being a commotion caused by the arrest and spectators drawn to the sight, IO2 Sandaan called the driver to the target area. A
person introducing himself as the barangay captain approached her and asked what had happened. IO2 Sandaan introduced herself as a
PDEA agent and told him that they were arresting someone. She learned that appellant was a member of a Muslim drug group and a
tricycle driver. Noting that she only had five agents with her she decided to promptly leave the area and conduct an inventory of the
seized articles in Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City. En route, IO1 Samson maintained custody and possession of the items taken from
appellant.

When the team arrived at the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan, they opened the plastic bag and found seven sachets of shabu. These
were included in the list along with electrical wrapper and plastic bag. An Inventory of Seized Properties/Items [9] was prepared by IO1
Samson in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Melinda Gaffud. Inventory was made and the evidence marked by IO1 Samson while
IO1 Lopez photographed the same. After finalizing the inventory and markings, the team went back to the PDEA-MMRO to prepare
the requests for laboratory examination and drug test examination. IO1 Samson personally brought the specimen and the request to the
17
PDEA Crime Laboratory Service on the same day.

Upon receipt of the request, Maria Criser Abad, the Crime Laboratory Chemist on duty, personally performed the examination on the
seven sachets containing white crystalline substance submitted by IO1 Samson. Appellant's urine sample was likewise submitted.

The evidence was found pos1t1ve for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.[10] On the other hand, appellant's urine sample was found
negative for the presence of shabu and marijuana.[11]

The Defense's Version

The defense's evidence consisted of the testimonies of Jocelyn Garcia-Carrera, live-in partner of appellant, and appellant.

Appellant denied owning and possessing the plastic sachets containing the white crystalline substance. Appellant, a tricycle driver,
asserts that he was working on that day. His services were contracted by a passenger who wanted a ride from Phase 12, Tala, Caloocan
to Brgy. Malaria and back. Jocelyn decided to ride with appellant and the passenger to Brgy. Malaria because she wanted to buy
medicines. When they arrived at Brgy. Malaria, the passenger alighted and told appellant to wait for him. While he was waiting with
Jocelyn for the passenger's return, they were suddenly handcuffed by the members of the buy-bust team. He identified his passenger as
one of the people who arrested him. Both he and Jocelyn were frisked. They took his wallet but the same was returned without his
driver's license. Both he and Jocelyn then were placed inside a van. Jocelyn was let-off at Lagro, Quezon City. He was then asked if
he knew a person named Latif which he answered in the negative.

They left Caloocan, stayed for a while at Quezon City Memorial Circle, and then proceeded to the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan. It
was when they were in the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan that appellant saw for the first time the prohibited drugs.

In its November 27, 2012 Decision, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165. The RTC ruled:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring [appellant] Rolando Carrera y Imbat for Violation of Sec.
5, Art. II, R.A. 9165 guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos, as provided for by law.

The drugs subject matter of this case are hereby confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.[12]

On appeal, the CA in its June 10, 2014 Decision found appellant guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It ruled:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The November 27, 2012 Decision of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, in
Criminal Case No. C-81635, finding [appellant] Rolando Carrera y Imbat guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 is hereby MODIFIED in that this Court instead finds [appellant] GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of prohibited drugs penalized under Section 11, Art. II of [R.A. No.] 9165. Accordingly,
[appellant] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to PAY A FINE OF FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P400,000.00).

All other aspects of the assailed decision are maintained.

SO ORDERED.[13]

In our February 23, 2015 Resolution, parties were notified that they may tile their supplemental briefs. Both parties [14] decided to
forego the tiling of such pleadings and opted to adopt the briefs they had submitted before the CA.

The issue for our consideration is whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of illegal
drugs.

We deny the appeal and affirm with modification the July 10, 2014 Decision of the CA.

We note at the outset that appellant was charged in the information with selling and delivering shabu[15] and was apprehended during a
buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA.

FEAR FOR LOSS OF LIFE AND LIMB

IS A SUITABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT
CONDUCTING THE INVENTORY AND
MARKING AT THE NEAREST BARANGAY
HALL OR POLICE STATION

Buy-bust operations are recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of entrapment of the persons suspected of being involved

18
in drug dealings.[16] In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in a buy bust operation, there must be a concurrence of all the
elements of the offense: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment thereof. The prosecution must also prove the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs and present the corpus delicti in
court as evidence.[17]

We have stated that strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required for the prosecution of illegal sale because of the illegal
drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution
either by accident or otherwise.[18] It is thus important that the "chain of custody," provided under Section 21(1), [19] Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 and Section 21(a),[20] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, be established to allay
any suspicion of tampering. In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized
from the accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity
and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved. [21]

We have recognized that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible
under field conditions. As the IRR states, "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[.]" These lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in terms of their
justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. [22] It is thus
the prosecution's burden to prove justifiable cause.[23]

Here, IO1 Samson narrated:

Q: So, what happened when you arrived in Bgy. Malaria at 9:30 a.m. of July 14, 2009?
A: I went ahead together with the confidential informant, sir.
Q: And how about the other members of your team, where did they go if any at that time?
A: They dispatched in the vicinity, sir.
Q: So, you said that you and the confidential informant went ahead, what happened after you arrived at that area?
A: We waited for a while and then we contacted alias Latif, sir.
Q: How did you contact alias Latif?
A: Thru cell phone, sir.
Q: So, what happened after the confidential informant contacted alias "Latif" thru cell phone?
A: They said to wait for a while and then after a while a male person arrived, sir.
Q: What did this male person do, if any?
A: I was introduced by the confidential informant to him as buyer, sir.
Q: What happened after that?
A: And then I asked him if he has the shabu, sir.
Q: What was his answer?
A: He answered, "yes."
Q: What else happened?
A: He answered "yes" we have shabu and then he also asked me if I have money, sir.
Q: What was your answer?
A: I said yes I have the money.
Q: So, what happened after that?
I told him that I will pay the item if he. will give it to me. He pulled from his pocket a transparent plastic wrapped with
A:
electrical tape and handed that something from his pocket to me, sir.
Q: What was [it that] he handed to you?
A: An item that was wrapped on an electric tape and then I saw a crystalline substance suspected to be shabu, sir.
Q: What did you do with the thing which he handed to you, a white crystalline substance which [is] suspected to be shabu?
After he handed to me the thing which I suspected to be shabu, I removed my bullcap as the pre-arranged signal and I
A:
grabbed him, sir.
xxxx
COURT BUTT[S] IN:
Q: When you removed the bull cap, is Latif around?
Not yet, your Honor, after getting a transparent plastic wrapped with electrical tape, I saw white crystalline substance. I
A:
did not give the money anymore because I remove my bull cap.
Q: Why did you not give him the money that was agreed upon?
I was afraid because that is only boodle money and that money was placed on a plastic bag and then I showed it to him
A:
telling him that is the money, your Honor.
Q: How much money was contained in that plastic bag?
A: I only open the upper portion of the plastic bag I showed him the top portion of the money, your Honor.
Q: When Latif handed to you that thing wrapped with an electrical tape did he not ask for the payment?
A: No more, your Honor, he has no time to ask me because I immediately grabbed him.
What do you mean by the word I grabbed him, you immediately grab him after seeing the content of the electrical tape
Q:
was shabu?
A: Ycs, your Honor.
Q: So, what happened when you grab[bed] alias "Latif''?
I introduced myself as PDEA Agent and then I removed my bull cap, Frederick Santos assisted me in the arrest of alias
A:
Latif, your Honor.
PROS. CANSINO:
Q: How did Frederick Santos assist you in arresting alias "Latif'?
A: It was Frederick Santos who handcuffed and apprised Latif of his constitutional rights, sir.
19
Q: So, what happened after affecting the arrest of alias Latif?
A: We immediately go to the Barangay Hall of Pinyahan, Quezon City, sir.
Q: Who ordered you to proceed to Barangay Hall of Pinyahan, Quezon City?
A: Our team leader IO2 Liwanag Sandaan, sir.
You said you went through from the area of operation you proceed to Barangay Pinyahan, what happened at the
Q:
Barangay Hall of Pinyahan?
A: The photographer took pictures of the evidence seized from the accused, sir.
Q: What did you do if any as regards the marking of the seized evidence?
A: I marked all the evidence confiscated from the accused, sir.
Q: Can you please tell us what are those pieces of evidence confiscated from the accused?
A: The seven (7) sachets of shabu which was wrapped in an electric tape and place[d] in a plastic bag, sir.
So, you said that you made markings on those seized evidence you mentioned, can you please tell what those markings
Q:
placed on the plastic sachet containing shabu?
A: Exhibit A-1 to A-7, sir.
Q: How about on the electrical tape used as wrapper in those evidences?
A: I marked it as Exhibit A-1 to A-7 JLS-07-09,[24] sir.[25]

IO1 Samson then proceeded to describe the process of taking pictures of the seized items. To justify the conduct of inventory and
marking in another place IO2 Sandaan testified:

PROS. CANSINO:
Q. So what happened after that when you ordered your men to proceed for the arrest of that male person?
WITNESS:
When the male person was arrested I immediately called the driver to proceed to the area because during that time there
was a commotion and because we were armed and we were in front of the barangay hall and because that place is a
A. terminal of the tricycle there were already many people and then there was one person who introduced himself as
barangay captain and asked "Ano po ba 'yong kaguluhang nangyayari?" and I introduce[d] myself as PDEA Agent and I
told him "may hinuli lang po kami, aalis na rin po kami" and then we left the area, sir.
Q. Where did you proceed if any Madam Witness after effecting the arrest of accused?
After the arrest we proceeded to the barangay hall but the barangay hall we went to was located at Brgy. Pinyahan in
A.
Quezon City, sir.
Q. So what happened at the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City?
A. At the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan in Quezon City we inventoried the seized evidence, sir.
xxxx
COURT butts in:
Before you go to that point may I just ask again.
You said that the operation was conducted just beside the barangay hall of Brgy. Malaria so after the arrest why you still
Q. have to proceed to Brgy. Pinyahan instead of going directly to that barangay hall near to where the operation was
conducted?
WITNESS:
The reason why I decided not to conduct the inventory in that barangay hall, your Honor, because it happened that our
subject learned I mean because our subject told me that [he was] one of the member[s] of the Muslim drug group that's
A. why I cannot risk my agents to stay longer at the barangay hall and aside from that this subject happened to be a tricycle
driver and the tricycle terminal was only beside the barangay hall so I decided not to conduct the inventory there because
we are only five agents there and I cannot take [the] risk of my agents staying longer in that area. [26]

On cross-examination, IO2 Sandaan was asked why she ordered the team to leave Brgy. Malaria and conduct the inventory and
marking at Brgy. Pinyahan and she explained as follows:

And as you said instead of conducting your inventory at the barangay hall of Malaria you proceeded to a barangay hall in
Q.
Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City which is beside your very main office, isn't it?
A. Not beside our office, sir, it is on the other side of East Avenue.
Q. But it is already Quezon City, isn't it, because your [main] office is located at Brgy. Pinyahan?
A. Yes, sir.
It was just a puzzle to me why you proceeded to Brgy. Pinyahan instead of any barangay in Caloocan City referring to
Q: the second district, there were many barangay in Bagong Silang, in Camarin, did it not occur to your mind that
procedurally it is proper to conduct an inventory at the nearest barangay or maybe not in Brgy. Malaria itself?
My option was if ever we cannot conduct the inventory at the place or in that particular barangay which has the
A.
jurisdiction of the place of transaction we will conduct our inventory at the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan, sir.
So with your action of leaving the area immediately after your alleged buy bust operation I assume that you did not make
Q.
any markings at the alleged scene of the crime?
A. No, sir.[27]

We thus agree with the CA and the RTC that under the circumstances the buy-bust team was justified in not conducting the inventory
or marking at Brgy. Malaria.

APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL

DELIVERY OF A PROHIBITED DRUG

We agree with the CA that appellant may not be held guilty of illegal sale of a prohibited drug. In order to establish the crime of
20
illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of
the object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. [28] It is thus
imperative that proof of the transaction or sale be established together with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court.

Here, IO1 Samson, as the poseur-buyer, admitted that while he was in possession of the marked money he failed to effect payment
even after the seller delivered the item to him. There being no payment, no sale was ever consummated between the parties. There
being no consummated sale, appellant cannot be found guilty of illegal sale.

While we agree with the CA that appellant is still liable for an offense under R.A. No. 9165, we disagree with its conclusion that
appellant is guilty of illegal possession of a prohibited drug. We previously held that Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 punishes
acts in addition to selling prohibited drugs. We stated:

It must be emphasized that appellants were charged with selling, trading, delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and
transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The charge was not limited to selling. Said section
punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been
accepted by the seller. In the distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial. The mere act of
distributing the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a punishable offense. x x x[29]

As we noted, appellant was charged with illegal sale and delivery of a prohibited drug under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Appellant thus based on the information and the evidence presented may be found liable of illegal delivery of prohibited drugs.

In People v. Maongco,[30] we stated that a person may be convicted of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs if it is proven that (1) the
accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. In this case, we convicted a person
charged with illegal sale of shabu of illegal delivery of shabu for non-payment by the poseur-buyer.

Likewise, in People v. Reyes,[31] we convicted a person of illegal delivery of shabu instead of illegal sale of a prohibited drug because
the prosecution did not establish payment - an essential element of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug.

In the present case, the prosecution established that appellant based on a prior arrangement knowingly passed the shabu to IO1
Samson. Being a tricycle driver, appellant was without authority to hold and deliver the drug. Thus, appellant is guilty of illegal
delivery of shabu.

Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a tine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who shall be found guilty of
illegal delivery of a prohibited drug.[32]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Appellant ROLANDO CARRERA y IMBAT is hereby

found GUILTY of Illegal Delivery of Prohibited Drugs as defined under Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

With costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 193388, July 01, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO BOCADI Y APATAN, ACCUSED, ALBERTO
BATICOLON Y RAMIREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of
the 29 May 2009 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00709. In that Decision, the CA affirmed the
Regional Trial Court's (RTC) 15 February 2007 Decision in Criminal Case No. 17494 finding the accused-appellant Alberto.Baticolon
y Ramirez (Baticolon), together with Rodolfo Bocadi y Apatan (Bocadi), guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Factual Antecedents

Accused-appellant Baticolon, together with Bocadi, was charged before RTC, Branch 30, Dumaguete City with violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.ANo. 9165 in an information that reads:

21
That on or about the 1st day of March 2005, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused, conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, not being authorized by law, did then and there, wilfully (sic),
unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver to an NBI poseur buyer one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram
of white crystalline substance of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.[2]

Having been found in possession of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.17 gram of white crystalline substance
of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, Bocadi was separately charged for violation of Section 11, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165.

Upon arraignment, the two accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. The two cases were consolidated
and thereafter trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

At around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of 1 March 2005, Special Investigator Arnaldo Fineza (SI Fineza) and SRA Miguel Dungog
(Agent Dungog) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information from a confidential asset regarding the open sale
of shabu inBarangay Looc. After verification of the information received, a team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation wherein
SI Fineza was designated as the poseur buyer to handle the marked money.

Before proceeding at the target area, a briefing was conducted and the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was
informed of the operation.

SI Fineza, together with two informants, went to Barangay Looc. As they reached the locus criminis, they were met by four men, one
of whom was identified by the informant as Baticolon. A man later identified as Bocadi offered them shabu. This led to the agreement
for the purchase of P300.00 worth of the illicit drug. Bocadi then went inside a house, and when he came back, he gave to SI Fineza
one transparent sachet of suspected shabu. Simultaneously, SI Fineza handed over the marked bills to Baticolon who was then nearer
to him.

Thereafter, the group immediately arrested Bocadi. During this time the other suspects, including Baticolon, were prompted to scatter
and escape. SI Fineza and one of the informants pursued and caught up with Baticolon who ran inside a nearby house. Baticolon was
apprehended and dragged back to the locus criminis. SI Fineza informed the accused of the nature of their arrest and of their
constitutional rights. SI Fineza then pre-marked the sachet of suspected shabu.

SI Fineza then physically searched Bocadi and discovered from him another sachet of suspected shabu. This was also pre-marked by
SI Fineza. SI Fineza also recovered the marked money from Baticolon after a search was made on the latter's person.

Subsequently, the suspects, as well as the seized and recovered items, were brought to the NBI Office where these were photographed
and inventoried. The inventory was prepared, signed and witnessed by SkyCable media man Juancho Gallarde, Barangay Looc
Kagawad Rogelio Talavera, Agent Dungog and PDEA representative SPO1 Manuel Sanchez.

The seized items were then brought to the Negros Oriental PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. Tests results
revealed that the contents of the two confiscated sachets yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or more commonly
known as shabu. The urine samples from the two accused also confirmed the presence of shabu.[3]

Version of the Defense

Both accused denied the allegations against them. The defense claimed that on 1 March 2005, Baticolon was merely resting in his
house when he heard someone call out his name. When Baticolon responded, a man by the name of Walter Adarna (Walter) barged
inside his house and yanked him out. Walter is allegedly a known police asset with whom Baticolon had a previous altercation. While
outside, Walter punched Baticolon on the stomach and told the latter that he can finally exact his revenge. Thereafter, Walter bodily
searched Baticolon and took his wallet. Baticolon was thereafter handcuffed and brought to the NBI office together with co-accused
Bocadi. Baticolon testified that Bocadi came into the picture only when the latter was asked by Walter to pinpoint his house.
Baticolon's version was corroborated by defense witness May-May Artus, a neighbor of Baticolon who allegedly saw the entire
incident.[4]

Ruling of the RTC

On 15 February 2007, the trial court rendered a Decision[5] finding accused Bocadi and Baticolon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the offense of illegal sale of shabu and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to each pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00.). Bocadi was also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession
of 0.17 gram of shabu and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to
fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).

The trial court held that the elements of illegal sale of drugs were clearly established through the evidence presented by the
prosecution. It ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the fact that both accused were caught in flagrante delicto in a valid buy-
bust operation. It noted that the defense of denial offered by the accused cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties accorded to the apprehending officers.

22
The trial court likewise held that the acts of the accused demonstrated the presence of conspiracy. It averred that the conduct of the
two accused during the entrapment revealed a common design or community of interest between them as they acted in concert in
committing the crime.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Only Baticolon appealed the Decision of the RTC. On intermediate appellate review, the CA found no reason to disturb the findings of
the RTC and upheld in toto its ruling. The appellate court was convinced that the testimonial and object evidence on record amply
support the RTC's finding that the guilt of Baticolon has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.[6] It agreed with the RTC that credence
should be accorded to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in holding that the apprehending officers complied with the
proper procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs.

Issues

Whether the trial courts erred in upholding the existence and validity of the buy bust operation conducted by the NBI.

Whether the trial courts erred in ruling that conspiracy to sell illegal drugs was established by the prosecution.

Whether the trial courts erred in convicting Baticolon of the crime charged despite the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.[7]

Our Ruling

We find the appeal bereft of merit.

In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the prosecution is able to establish the following
essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation
in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked
money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[8]

The evidence for the prosecution clearly established all these elements. The prosecution proved that a valid buy-bust operation was
conducted with SI Fineza as the buyer and Baticolon, in connivance with Bocadi, as the sellers of the shabu. Likewise, the prosecution
presented in evidence the plastic sachet containing shabu as the object of the sale and proved that P300.00 was received as
consideration thereof. Finally, the delivery of the shabu sold and its payment were clearly testified to by the prosecution witnesses.

Baticolon's defense which is anchored principally on denial and frame-up cannot be given credence. It does not have more evidentiary
weight than the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses. His defense is unavailing considering that he and his cohort were
CEiught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation. This Court has ruled that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi,
has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense
ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[9]

We agree with the trial court that the testimony of prosecution witness SI Fineza not only established the fact of sale of shabu, but also
the fact that Baticolon and Bocadi acted in concert in committing the crime, thus:

Pros. Zerna -
DIRECT EXAMINATION
xxxx
Q: What transpired when you arrived at Barangay Looc?
Arriving at the vicinity sir after entering a narrow pathway, a group of men whom one of them was positively identified by the
A: informant as Alberto Baticolon and we approached them and then there was one man who was wearing black sleeveless shirt
and shorts who offered us shabu.
Q: Can you still remember how many men were in this group?
A: [There] were four of them.
Q: And what were they doing before you approached them?
A: Maybe they were talking to each other sir.
Q: When you said one of them asked or offered to you a sachet of shabu, what then did you do?
We agreed that we were going to buy sachet of shabu worth P300 and this man wearing black T-shirt sir went inside the house
A:
leaving the three of them; one of them beside me.
Q: You mean to say, you first gave your money before this man went into the house?
A: No sir.
Q: You did not give the money first?
A: No sir.
Q: And when you said you would buy P300 worth of shabu and this man went into the house, did he come back?
Yes sir, he went out and then he handed over to me sachet of shabu and then the money, I gave it to the person standing beside
A:
the door wearing white sando and maong shorts.
Q: How many sachets were handed over to you?

23
A: Only one sachet sir.
xxxx
Now you said after you have received the sachet handed to you by accused Rodolfo Bocadi you gave the money to another
Q:
person, is that correct?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Do you know this other person to whom you gave the money?
A: The man wearing white sando and maong shorts sir was positively identified by our informant as Alberto Baticolon.
xxxx
Q: You said, Mr.Witness, that you gave to Alberto Baticolon P300?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Is this the same money that was handed to you by Miguel Dungog in your office?
A: Yes, that is the marked money sir.
Q: After you have handed the P300 marked money, what happened next?
We immediately made an arrest of Rodolfo Bocadi sir and this Alberto Baticolon, upon seeing the arrest of Rodolfo Bocadi, ran
A:
inside the nearby house sir.
xxxx
Q: So, as you said, when you arrested Mr. Bocadi, Mr. Baticolon ran but you were still able to arrest him?
A: Yes sir.
Q: How were you able to arrest Mr. Baticolon?
A: After he entered the house, we were able to catch him sir.
Q: Where did you bring him after you caught Mr. Baticolon?
We brought Alberto Baticolon near Rodolfo Bocadi and that time I informed them the reason for their arrest and their
A:
Constitutional Rights sir.[10]
The aforesaid testimony gave a complete picture on how Baticolon and Bocadi connived with each other in the consummation of the
offense of illegal sale of a dangerous drug. The trial court found SI Fineza's testimony to be positive, clear and credible, especially
during cross-examination where he remained steadfast and unwavering. His testimony, being candid and straightforward, is sufficient
for a finding of guilt.

On the other hand, the trial court did not err in not giving much weight on the testimony of May-May Artus, the neighbor of Baticolon
who testified for the defense, since she buckled and even admitted on cross-examination that she cannot remember the description of
the apprehending officer who accompanied the informant and that she was not very sure of the details of the arrest of Baticolon and
Bocadi.[11]

As correctly noted by the appellate court, although baticolon was not the one who offered and delivered the shabu to the poseur buyer,
his act in thereafter receiving the marked money gives rise to the inference that he was in connivance with the seller. [12] Indeed, no
person in his right mind would receive and keep the money given in payment for an illegal drug unless he is a part of such sale. We
also took into consideration the fact that after the arrest, the P300 was found still in Baticolon's possession.

Baticolon questions the validity of the buy-bust operation. He contends that with the enactment of R.A. No. 9165, it is now required
that all anti-drug operations shall be coordinated with the PDEA, and only specially trained and competent drug enforcement
personnel shall conduct drug enforcement operations. He argues that the NBFs operation is highly questionable considering that it is
neither a deputized agent of PDEA nor is buy-bust operations its primary mandate.

The provision relevant to the issue raised is Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:

SEC. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. -
The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the 'NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby
abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail service with the ' PDEA, subject to screening, until
such time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is
sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated
into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by
the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments
to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in their original mother
agencies.

The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect within eighteen
(18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years
to finally decide to join the PDEA.

Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in
their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-
drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any
of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs
shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.
Baticolon's argument is no longer novel. In People v. Sta. Maria,[13] this Court has already ruled that a buy-bust operation, albeit made
without the participation of PDEA, does not violate appellant's constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest. There is nothing
in Republic Act No. 9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an arrest made without the
participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not deprive the
PNP of the power to make arrests.

Further, such contention is untenable because in  this case the prosecution was able to establish that coordination with the PDEA was
made prior to the buy-bust operation and even after the arrests were made. It is therefore evident that the arrests made by the NBI were
24
legal and the evidence seized therefrom admissible in evidence.

Baticolon also submits that the evidence presented against him were insufficient for his conviction, especially considering the non-
presentation of the marked money by the prosecution.

The procedure to be followed by arresting officers in apprehensions involving dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21 (a), Article II
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which states:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
It is clear from the aforesaid issuance that the presentation of the marked money is not essential in the validity of a arrest. Neither law
nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. It is sufficient to show that the illicit
transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti in evidence. These were done, and were proved
by the prosecution's evidence.[14]

In this case; the prosecution has successfully established the unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. After the buy-bust
operation was completed, SI Fineza pre-marked the items seized and brought these to the NBI office for photograph and inventory. At
the NBI office, an inventory of the seized items was conducted and these were photographed in the presence of a Sky Cable media
man, barangay kagawad and a PDEA representative. A photograph of the accused with the seized items was also taken. SI Fineza
then prepared a written request for laboratory examination. The written request for laboratory examination and the item seized were,
thereafter, delivered by SI Fineza to the Negros Oriental PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination. The request and seized
item were received by PSI Llena, the forensic chemist who conducted a chemistry examination of the substance. [15] In her Chemistry
Report No. D-039-05, Police Senior Inspector Josephine S. Llena (PSI Llena) certified that the specimen tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.[16] The substance tested was .the same item marked; offered in evidence as Exhibit "D" 17494; and
positively identified during trial by SI Fineza as the very same item sold by and taken from Bocadi during the buy-bust operation.

We have previously ruled that as long as the state can show by record or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been
compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the
possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory, then the prosecution can maintain that it was able to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[17]

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. 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.[18] Appellant in this case failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the arresting
officers. Thus, the testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit.[19] We note that appellant did not even
question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. His appeal harped primarily on the fact that it was not a PDEA initiated operation
and that the marked money was not presented in evidence.

Finally, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the penalty for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, viz.:

Sect 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
We sustain the penalty imposed on appellant as this in conformity with the above-quoted provision of the law.

Finding no reason to depart from the rulings of the trial court and the CA, we hereby adopt the same.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 May 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
00709 AFFIRMING the Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court finding Rodolfo Bocadi y Apatan and Alberto, Baticolon y
Ramirez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of selling shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," sentencing them to each suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
ordering them to each pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 198314, September 24, 2014 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
25
 DECISION

PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal filed by herein accused Richard Guinto y San Andres (Guinto) from the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
dated 31 January 2011, affirming the decision of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.[2]

The Facts

The prosecution presented a buy-bust case.

As narrated by Police Officer 1 Melvin Jesus S. Mendoza (PO1 Mendoza), the operation was conducted on 20 January 2004 at around
1:00 o'clock in the morning by the members of Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Task Force (AIDSTF), Pasig City Police Station.  It was
prompted by an information given by a female caller received by AIDSTF's Team Supervisor Senior Police Officer 3 Leneal Matias
(SPO3 Matias), who in turn, coordinated with Police Inspector Melbert Esguerra (P/Insp. Esguerra), the head of AIDSTF.  According
to the female caller, a certain "Chard" was selling shabu in a place located at 137 MC Guinto, Barangay Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. 
Based on the information, P/Insp. Esguerra instructed the team to verify the call from their civilian informant residing also
in Barangay Pinagbuhatan. Upon positive verification, P/Insp. Esguerra formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO3 Matias, SPO2
Braulio Basco (SPO2 Basco), PO1 Michael Familara (PO1 Familara), PO1 Alan Mapula, and PO1 Porferio Bansuelo (PO1 Bansuelo)
and designated PO1 Mendoza to act as the poseur-buyer.  In turn, SPO3 Matias prepared the pre-operation report and coordinated with
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on the buy-bust operation.  PO1 Mendoza, as the poseur-buyer, was given two (2)
pieces of marked P100.00 bills as buy-bust money by P/Insp. Esguerra. [3]

After the briefing, the team including the informant proceeded to the target area at around eleven o'clock in the evening of 19 April
2004.  Upon arrival, PO1 Mendoza and the informant positioned themselves outside the house of this certain "Chard" (later identified
as the accused Richard S.A. Guinto) and waited for him to step out.  Meanwhile, the rest of the team stood nearby and waited for PO1
Mendoza's pre-arranged signal of raising of hand to indicate that the sale transaction was already consummated.  After two hours,
Guinto finally went out of the house. The informant approached Chard and introduced PO1 Mendoza as a person in need of illegal
drugs worth P200.00.  PO1 Mendoza then gave buy-bust money to Guinto as payment.  Guinto, in turn, drew two (2) plastic sachets
containing shabu and gave them to PO1 Mendoza.  Guinto then put the money on his left pocket. To indicate consummation of illegal
sale, PO1 Mendoza made the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the team and introduced himself to Guinto as a police
officer.  The other members of the team responded and arrested Guinto.  Immediately, PO1 Mendoza confiscated the marked money
from the left pocket of Guinto and marked the plastic sachet containing shabu with the markings "RSG/MJM." [4]

Afterwards, the buy-bust team brought Guinto to Pasig City Police Station and turned him over to SPO2 Basco for investigation.  PO1
Mendoza turned over the confiscated drugs to SPO2 Basco.  Consequently, SPO2 Basco asked for a laboratory examination request to
determine the chemical composition of the confiscated drugs.[5] Thereafter, confiscated drug was brought by PO1 Noble to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.[6]

The prosecution also presented PO1 Familara as its second witness to corroborate the statements given by PO1 Mendoza.  However,
several inconsistencies were apparent in his testimony.

When asked during his direct examination on who gave the buy-bust money to PO1 Mendoza, PO1 Familara answered that it was
SPO3 Matias.[7]  Likewise, the pre-arranged signal was differently described as scratching of the nape instead of raising of hand. [8]  He
also testified that their asset arrived at around one o'clock in the morning to accompany them to Pinagbuhatan. [9]  Another
inconsistency which surfaced was when PO1 Familara testified that upon the consummation of illegal sale, he went to the place of the
arrest and saw PO1 Mendoza arresting Guinto.  PO1 Mendoza then positively identified Guinto as the one who sold one (1) plastic
sachet of illegal drug instead of two (2) sachets.[10]

Finally, the last witness presented by the prosecution was Police Officer 2 Richard Noble (PO2 Noble). [11]  He corroborated the
statements given by his fellow police officers but again, presented an inconsistency as to the time of the asset's arrival compared to the
one narrated by PO1 Familara.  A conflict came out as to the time of the team's arrival to the target area and as to how long they
waited for the accused to go out.  In his direct, he testified that the asset arrived at the police station before eleven o'clock in the
evening prior to the buy-bust operation.[12]  Afterwards, they had a briefing on the operation.  He recalled that they waited for around
15 to 20 minutes before the accused came out[13] while PO1 Mendoza testified that they waited for the accused for two hours.  When
asked again by the Court on the time of their arrival, he answered that it was at around one o'clock in the morning. [14]

The defense interposed denial.

Guinto narrated that at the time of the arrest at 10:00 o'clock in the evening of 19 January 2004, he was in their house cooking with his
family.  Several men suddenly entered the house, grabbed his arm and searched the premises.  When asked why the men entered their
home, the men did not give them any reason.  Afterwards, Guinto was brought to the police headquarters and investigated by the
police.[15]

Jane P. Guinto (Jane), the wife of the accused Guinto, corroborated the statements of her husband.  She recalled that several armed
male persons entered their house while she and her family were cooking to celebrate fiesta the next day.  The men were not authorized
to search nor arrest the person of his husband and failed to introduce themselves to them.  Thereafter, these male persons frisked her
husband, handcuffed him and brought to the police station. Meanwhile, Jane left her two children under the care of her aunt to follow
her husband.  It was there at the station where the police officers tried to extort money from her in the amount of P50, 000.00. [16]
26
Finally, John Mark P. Guinto (John Mark), one of the two children of Guinto, affirmed the narration of his parents on material points. 
He testified that he and his younger brother were watching television at the time of the illegal arrest of his father.  His parents were
then cooking when some uniformed police officers arrested his father and brought him to the police station.  However, he testified that
he went to their neighbor's house and hid there out of fear, contrary to the statement of his mother that she brought them to her aunt. [17]

Guinto was eventually charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs punishable under Section 5 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165:

On or about January 20, 2004 in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Melvin Santos
Mendoza, a police poseur buyer, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag each containing two centigrams (0.02 gram) of white
crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of said
law.[18]

When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

Based on the Pre-Trial Order,[19] the prosecution and defense stipulated that Forensic Chemist Annalee R. Forro (Forro) of the PNP
Crime Laboratory conducted an examination on the samples submitted and they yielded positive results for methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as shabu.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court on 8 October 2008 rendered a Decision[20] finding Guinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and
imposed upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
with all the accessory penalties under the law.  It held that all the elements to constitute illegal sale was present to convict the accused
of the offense.  Likewise, it affirmed the testimonies of the police officers on the conducted buy-bust operation and the presumption of
regularity in the performance of their duties as against the claim of unsubstantiated denial of Guinto.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.  It ruled that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug were proven as
testified by the police officers PO1 Mendoza and PO1 Familara.  It found credible the straightforward and categorical statements of
the prosecution witnesses on what transpired during the buy-bust operation. [21]  Further, it held that the prosecution has proven as
unbroken the chain of custody of evidence and the regularity of performance of the police officers who conducted the operation. 
Finally, it affirmed that the non-compliance of the strict procedure in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 did not invalidate the seizure and custody of the seized items as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the operatives. [22]

Our Ruling

After a careful review of the evidence, we reverse the finding of the trial courts.  We find that the prosecution failed to prove the
identity of the corpus delicti.  This is fatal in establishing illegal sale.  Moreover, the conflicting statements of the policemen on
material points tarnished the credibility of the testimony for the prosecution.

Primarily assailed by the accused are the inconsistent statements of the apprehending police officers with respect to the circumstances
of his illegal arrest and the broken chain of custody which would warrant his acquittal.

We are convinced.

In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration
of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. [23]  Hence, to establish a concrete case, it is an utmost
importance to prove the identity of the narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its
existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore imperative for the prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable
doubt the identity of the dangerous drug before asserting other arguments. [24]

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that each and every element that constitutes an illegal sale of dangerous drug was present
to convict the accused.  Upon evaluation of the testimonies of PO1 Familara and PO1 Mendoza, it is apparent that there is an
inconsistency on the identity and number of plastic sachets bought from the accused.  In his statement, PO1 Familara recalled that
upon arrival at the place of arrest, PO1 Mendoza told him that he was able to buy one plastic sachet of shabu from Guinto.  On the
other hand, PO1 Mendoza recalled that he was able to buy two plastic sachets instead of one.  The pointed inconsistency is not a minor
one that can be brushed aside as the discrepancy taints the very corpus deliciti of the crime of illegal sale. A vital point of contention,
the prosecution's evidence places in reasonable doubt the identification of the dangerous drug that was presented in court.

We likewise see that the conflicting statements of the police officers defeat the presumption of the regularity of their performance of
duties ordinarily accorded by the lower courts.

We find several inconsistencies on points material to the credibility of the buy-bust operation.

27
Among those are the inconsistencies on the pre-arranged signal, length of time the police officers spent in waiting for the accused and
the exact time of the arrest.

Aside from those alleged by defense, this Court found several more evident inconsistencies, which when put together, erodes the
presumption of regularity of performance of duty.

We discuss.

First, as already pointed out, as to identity of the corpus delicti of the crime.

PO1 Mendoza and PO1 Familara fatally contradicted each other's testimony as to the number of sachets bought from Guinto.  In his
direct testimony, PO1 Mendoza positively identified that the accused gave two plastic sachets in exchange of the P200 marked money.
[25]
  However, the same identification was refuted when PO1 Familara testified that PO1 Mendoza informed him that he (Mendoza)
successfully bought one plastic sachet of shabu from Guinto.[26]

Second, as to where the marked money was recovered after the buy-bust operation.

According to PO1 Mendoza, he was able to obtain possession of the buy-bust money from the left front pocket of Guinto as
transcribed in his direct testimony dated 19 August 2004.  However, in his direct testimony dated 18 August 2005, Mendoza testified
that he was able to recover the buy-bust money from the right hand of Guinto, as opposed from his previous narration that he
recovered the money from Guinto's left pocket.[27]

Third, conflicting circumstances before the arrest.

In his first testimony, PO1 Mendoza recalled that upon their arrival at the target area at around eleven o'clock in the evening, the team
waited for almost two hours for the accused to come out from his house.[28]  However, PO1 Familara testified that they arrived at the
target area at around one o'clock in the morning of 20 January 2004.[29]  Witness PO1 Noble, on the other hand, recalled that they left
for the area at around eleven in the evening[30] and waited for 15 to 20 minutes[31] for Guinto to come out but contradicted his former
statement and testified that they arrived at around one o'clock in the morning.[32]

Fourth, as to the pre-arranged signal.

PO1 Mendoza testified that the agreed upon signal will be the raising of hand to signify the consummation of illegal sale. [33]  Again, it
was contradicted by PO1 Familara's statement that what was agreed upon during the meeting was the scratching of the nape as the pre-
arranged signal of PO1 Mendoza.[34]

Finally, the source of the buy-bust money.

During his direct examination, PO1 Mendoza was asked on who gave him the buy-bust money.  In his answer, he identified that it was
P/Insp. Esguerra[35] as the source.  On the contrary, PO1 Familara identified SPO3 Matias as the one who gave PO1 Mendoza the
marked money during their meeting.[36]

We find support in several jurisprudential rulings.

In People v. Roble,[37] the Court ruled that generally, the evaluation of the trial court of the credibility of the witnesses and their
testimonies is entitled to great weight and generally not disturbed upon appeal. However, such rule does not apply when the trial court
has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of weight or substance. In this present case, the contradictions, numerous and
material, warrant the acquittal of accused-appellant.[38]

Similarly, one of the means used by the Court in determining the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is the objective test.
Following this test, in order to establish the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation,
prosecution must be able to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation from the initial contact between the poseur-
buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the
delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment
of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding
citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.[39] In light of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to
present a clear picture on what really transpired on the buy-bust operation.

In People v. Unisa[40] this Court held that "in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drug Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to
the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers."

True, the absence of ill motive or ill will is ordinarily considered by this Court as proof that the statements of the police officers is
credible.  As maintained by the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, in the absence of any improper motive,
presumption of regularity of performance of duty prevails.  However, it must be similarly noted that the presumption of regularity in
the performance of duty of public officers does not outweigh another recognized presumption - the presumption of innocence of the
accused until proven beyond reasonable doubt.[41]

In several occasions, the Court had declared that the presumption of regularity of performance of duties must be harmonized with the
other interest of the State which is the interest of adherence to the presumption of innocence of the accused.

28
However in case of conflict between the presumption of regularity of police officers and the presumption of innocence of the accused,
the latter must prevail as the law imposes upon the prosecution the highest degree of proof of evidence to sustain conviction. [42]

In conclusion, this case exemplifies the doctrine that conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecution's evidence, not on the
weakness of the defense. Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt
falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter
of course.[43]

The present case shows that the prosecution fell short in proving with certainty the culpability of the accused and engendered a doubt
on the true circumstances of the buy-bust operation. In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance,
acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.[44]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 31 January 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03844
affirming the judgment of conviction dated 8 October 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 164 of Pasig City is
hereby REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant RICHARD GUINTO y SAN ANDRES is hereby ACQUITTED and
ordered immediately released from detention unless his continued confinement is warranted for some other cause or ground.

SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 199087, November 11, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY PUNZALAN AND PATRICIA PUNZALAN, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Accused-appellants Jerry Punzalan and Patricia Punzalan seek the reversal of the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
October 28, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04557 which affirmed the Joint Decision[2] dated March 29, 2010 and the Order[3] dated
June 21, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 116 in Crim. Case No. R-PSY-09-01162-CR convicting them
of violation of Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165).

Accused-appellants were charged under the Information[4] docketed as Crim. Case No. R-Y-09-01162-CR for violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which reads as follows:

That on or about the 03rd day of November 2009, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
their possession, custody and control 40.78 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, (shabu) a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge.

During the trial, the prosecution presented Intelligence Officer 1 Aldwin Pagaragan (IO1 Pagaragan), Special Investigator 2 Juancho
Esteban (SI2 Esteban), Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores and Barangay Kagawad Larry Fabella as witnesses.

The prosecution established that on November 3, 2009, at around 4:30 in the morning, Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan (IA1
Sandaan) and her team implemented a search warrant[5] issued on October 28, 2009 by then Manila RTC Judge Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
to (i) make an immediate search of the premises/house of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, Vima Punzalan, Jaime
Punzalan, Arlene Punzalan-Razon and Felix Razon who are all residents of 704 Apelo Cruz Compound, Barangay 175, Malibay,
Pasay City; and (ii) to seize and take possession of an undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs, including the proceeds or
fruits and bring said property to the court.

Since there are three houses or structures inside the compound believed to be occupied by the accused-appellants, a sketch [6] of the
compound describing the house to be searched was prepared and attached to the search warrant.

The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Team tasked to conduct the search was composed of IA1 Sandaan as team leader,
SI2 Esteban and IO2 Jessica Alvarado (IO2 Alvarado) as arresting officers and IO1 Pagaragan as seizing officer. [7] IO1 Pagaragan
made lateral coordination with the Southern Police District, Tactical Operations Unit, as evidenced by the Pre-Operation

29
Report[8] dated November 3, 2009 and Authority to Operate[9].

Before proceeding to the target area, they passed by the barangay hall to coordinate with Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores,
Kagawad Larry Fabella and Kagawad Edwin Razon. The team likewise brought with them a media representative affiliated with
"Sunshine Radio" to cover the operation. From the barangay hall, they walked toward the target place using as a guide the sketch they
prepared.

When they were already outside the house of Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, which is a three-storey structure, IA1 Sandaan knocked on
the door. A woman, later identified as accused-appellant Patricia Punzalan, slightly opened the door. When they introduced
themselves as PDEA agents and informed the occupant that they have a search warrant, Patricia immediately tried to close the door
but was not successful since the PDEA agents pushed the door open. The team was able to enter the house of Jerry and Patricia
Punzalan who were both surprised when found inside the house. IO1 Pagaragan showed and read the search warrant infront of
accused-appellants.

Inside the house, the team immediately saw plastic sachets placed on top of the table. 101 Pagaragan was able to seize nine (9) heat-
sealed plastic sachets, two (2) square-shaped transparent plastic containers and a small round plastic container. All three (3) plastic
containers contained smaller heat-sealed plastic sachets of white crystalline substance of suspected shabu. There were also other
paraphernalia, guns, money and a digital weighing scale. Accordingly, SI2 Esteban and IO2 Alvarado effected the arrest of accused-
appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan after informing them of their constitutional rights. 101 Pagaragan immediately marked the
seized items by placing the marking "ADP". After searching and marking the evidence found on the first floor, the team, together with
the barangay officials and accused-appellants, proceeded to, and conducted the search on the second and third floors but found
nothing. They went downstairs where they conducted the inventory of recovered items. 101 Pagaragan prepared the Receipt/Inventory
of Property Seized[10] and a Certification of Orderly Search[11] which were later signed by the barangay officials.

After their arrest, accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan were brought to the PDEA Office in Quezon City for investigation.
IO1 Pagaragan presented the seized evidence to Atty. Benjamin Gaspe, who prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, [12] Request
for Drug Test/Physical and Medical Examination. They likewise caused the preparation of their respective affidavits. Photographs
were also taken during the actual search and inventory. Laboratory examination of the seized pieces of drug evidence gave positive
results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.[13]

Thereafter, the accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal possession of
40.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.

In denying the charge, accused-appellant Jerry Punzalan testified that at around 5:45 in the morning of November 3, 2009, he was at
his store located at 704, A-44 Apelo Cruz Street, Pasay City. Their house and store are two separate structures which are 70 meters
apart. Patricia was inside the store fixing the grains. Jerry was about to open the store when he saw men running toward their main
house, carrying a tank with hose attached to it. Jerry followed them and saw the men applying acetylene on their steel gate. Jerry
shouted at them but the men poked their guns at him and when he answered in the affirmative after being asked if he is Jerry, they
placed him in metal handcuffs, held him at the back of his shirt and brought him to his garage, about 30 meters from their house. He
was later made to board a van, which is about five meters away from the garage. Inside the van, his wife Patricia was already there
with her hands bound in plastic. They stayed there for more or less three hours. Then, Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores arrived.
They were brought by the PDEA agents to their main house. Upon reaching the house, accused-appellants noticed that their
belongings were already scattered. Inside their house, there were two kagawads, two female and two male PDEA agents, whom they
later identified as IO1 Pagaragan, IA1 Sandaan, SI2 Esteban and IO2 Alvarado, Kagawad Larry Fabella and Kagawad Edwin Razon.
Their pieces of jewelry, cash amounting to P985,000 or almost a million pesos, 3,711 US dollars, 3,100 Holland, Euro, Malaysian
Ringgit, things belonging to their children like PSP, gameboy, video camera, 14 units of cellphone, licensed gun, and three kilos of
gold were likewise missing. Jerry testified that he kept a huge amount of cash in the house because he is engaged in "5-6" money-
lending business. He also sells rice from Bulacan.

From the van, the PDEA agents made them go up to the 4th floor. He heard his children crying inside the room of his eldest child at the
third floor. Accused-appellants explained that they sleep in the store because they close late at night and wake up very early. Their
things were already scattered but no search was conducted upstairs. They were led down, brought out of the house and boarded the
van. They were later brought to the PDEA office in Quezon City.

The defense also presented as witness accused-appellants' daughter, Jennifer Punzalan, to corroborate their claim. She testified that on
November 3, 2009, between 5:45 and 6:00 o'clock in the morning, she was inside her room, together with her younger siblings. Her
parents were at the store. The last time she saw her parents was on the night of November 2, 2009. In the morning of the following
day, there were people searching their house. She was inside the room together with her siblings when somebody entered and searched
the room. They just covered themselves with a blanket. She left the room at noontime when the persons who entered the room and her
parents were no longer inside the house. They left the house only when Kagawad Edwin Razon fetched them.

Another witness presented by the defense is Kagawad Edwin Razon who testified that when he arrived at the house of accused-
appellants, after he was summoned by Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores for the purpose of conducting a search in the house of the
30
Punzalans, the door was open, there was a .45 pistol on top of the table, an agent of PDEA was marking the exhibits which seem to
be shabu, and the cabinets were already opened. There were four PDEA agents when he reached the house. He also noticed a reporter
and a photographer. He sat for a while and then accused-appellants were brought inside the house, who came from the van. Later, he
signed a document containing the list of evidence spread on the table. He said that they did not conduct any search because they just
made a house tour up to the third floor.

Lastly, accused-appellant Patricia Punzalan testified that on November 3, 2009, between 5:45 and 6:00 o'clock in the morning, she
was inside the store located at 704-A44 Apelo Cruz Street, Pasay City. Their house is 50 meters away from the store. Then, she
noticed that there were many gun-carrying men, so her husband, Jerry, followed them. She went out to check what is going on. Two
armed men then approached her and asked for her name. After she gave her name, Pat, they tied her hands with plastic. Then a van
passed by and she was asked to board the van. After the van had run a few meters, it was parked for more or less three hours.
Thereafter, the driver alighted and then the door was opened. She saw her husband who was already in handcuffs and was made to
board the van. They also saw Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores. They were made to alight from the van and were brought inside
the house. The door was already open and some PDEA agents, Kagawad Edwin Razon, Kagawad Larry Fabella and a reporter were
there. One lady was sitting and another woman was standing. The reporter was sitting. The male PDEA agent was marking some
plastic sachets, which they claimed to be shabu. They stayed inside the house for more or less one hour during which photographs
were taken by the PDEA agents. She further said that while she was in her store, her four children were inside their house. PDEA
agents brought them out and they were made to board the van.

In a Joint Decision[14] dated March 29, 2010, the trial court convicted accused-appellants for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A.
No. 9165 and sentenced them to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.

The trial court held that the issuance of a search warrant against the premises of different persons named therein is valid as there is no
requirement that only one search warrant for one premise to be searched is necessary for its validity. Also, the address of the accused-
appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan was clearly and adequately described. A sketch that specifically identifies the places to be
searched was attached to the records and such description of the place was unquestionably accurate that the PDEA agents were led to,
and were able to successfully conduct their operation in the premises described in the search warrant.

The trial court also ruled that the implementation of the search warrant sufficiently complied with the requirements of the law. Despite
accused-appellants' assertion that they were arrested outside their house and were made to board a van parked along the street beside
the river and were not allowed by the PDEA agents to witness the search conducted inside the house, the trial court was convinced that
accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan were in fact inside their house and were physically present during the conduct of the
search.

The trial court gave weight to the prosecution's version and found no reason to doubt the credibility of IO1 Pagaragan, whose
testimony was sufficiently corroborated by SI2 Esteban. The court found no showing of any improper or ill motive on the part of both
PDEA agents to testify against the accused-appellants and neither was there evidence that the two PDEA agents were not properly
performing their official duties and functions at that time. On the other hand, the defense merely offered alibi and bare denials which
cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of performance of functions accorded to 101 Pagaragan's and SI2 Esteban's detailed
declarations under oath.

In its findings, the trial court observed that there were actually two phases of the search done in the Punzalan house. The first or initial
search was done at the ground floor of the house, immediately after the PDEA agents gained entry and was beyond doubt made in the
presence of both accused. This is where the bulk of illegal drugs were found, confiscated and consequently marked. The trial court
further stated that it is of no moment that the barangay officials were not able to witness the said initial search and their failure to
arrive on time to witness the first or initial search at the ground floor of the Punzalan house, or even their total absence thereat, will
not render the subject search invalid and unlawful inasmuch as their presence is not required. The trial court held that the prosecution
successfully and sufficiently established that the two accused were present during the initial search, thus, satisfying the requirement of
a lawful and valid search.

The second phase of the search was conducted at the upper floors of the house after the markings on the 293 sachets of confiscated
specimens were completed by 101 Pagaragan. This was witnessed and participated in by the barangay officials. Finally, after the
search of the entire house was concluded, it is not disputed that an inventory of all the items seized was conducted by 101 Pagaragan
in compliance with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. In fact, it was admitted by the barangay officials that
they were requested to wait for the DOJ representative, to which they willingly acceded.

Accused-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the Order [15] dated June 21, 2010. The trial court modified
the Joint Decision by increasing the penalty to life imprisonment and the fine to P400,000.00.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants. The CA held that there was a valid search and seizure conducted
and the seized items are admissible in evidence. The prosecution was able to prove all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
31
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

The pertinent portion of the CA Decision states:

Given the foregoing, We do not find any error committed by the trial court in convicting accused-appellants for Violation of Section
11, Article II of RA 9165. From the evidence adduced, their guilt to the crime charged have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Since the seized shabu weighs 40.78 grams, the modified penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P400,000.00 is maintained pursuant
to Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Joint Decision dated March 29, 2010 and the
Order dated June 21, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 116, Pasay City are here AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.[16]

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellants set forth the following errors allegedly committed by the CA:

1. That the SEARCH WARRANT NO. 09-14814 issued by JUDGE ED[U]ARDO PERALTA, Jr., of Branch 17-RTC Manila,
was in fact illegally procured and unlawfully implemented.

2. The Prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused- appellants for alleged possession of illegal drugs as the
requirement demanded by Chain-in-Custody [chain of custody] Rule were never met.

3. The Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.[17]

In assailing the validity of the search warrant, accused-appellants claim that the PDEA agents who applied for a search warrant failed
to comply with the requirements for the procurement of a search warrant particularly the approval of the PDEA Director General.
Accused-appellants also contended that the court which issued the search warrant, the RTC of Manila, Branch 17, had no authority to
issue the search warrant since the place where the search is supposed to be conducted is outside its territorial jurisdiction.

We are not persuaded. A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, entitled "Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and
Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties" as approved by the Court in its Resolution of January 27, 2004, as amended,
provides:

SEC. 12. Issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City. - The
Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive
Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), for search warrants involving
heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code,
as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.

The applications shall be endorsed by the heads of such agencies or their respective duly authorized officials and shall particularly
describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court. The Executive
Judges and Vice-Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the said courts.

x x x x[18]

In the instant case, aside from their bare allegation, accused-appellants failed to show that the application for search warrant of the
subject premises was not approved by the PDEA Regional Director or his authorized representative. On the contrary, the search
warrant issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 17 satisfactorily complies with the requirements for the issuance thereof as determined
by the issuing court, thus:

32
Pursuant to Section 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution, Sections 2 to 5, Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, modified
by Section 12 of Supreme Court En Bane Resolution in A.M. No. 03-08-02-SC dated January 27, 2004, and Certification dated
October 28, 2009, it appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after personally examining under oath Agent Liwanag B. Sandaan
and Agent Derween Reed both of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Metro Manila Regional Office, that there is probable cause,
there are good and sufficient reasons, to believe that undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs, particularly shabu, including
the proceeds or fruits and those used or intended to be used by the respondents as a means of committing the offense, you are hereby
commanded to make an immediate search at any time in the day or night of the premises above described and forthwith seize and take
possession of the undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs including the proceeds 01 fruits and bring said property to the
undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs.[19]

Moreover, we find no merit in accused-appellants' claim that the RTC of Manila, Branch 17, had no authority to issue the assailed
search warrant since the place to be searched is outside its territorial jurisdiction. As aforecited, Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No.
03-8-02-SC clearly authorizes the Executive Judges and the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon City to issue
search warrants to be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction in special criminal cases such as those involving heinous
crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, as in this case, for as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied with.

In the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause requires such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched.
There is no exact test for the determination of probable cause in the issuance of search warrants. It is a matter wholly dependent on the
finding of trial judges in the process of exercising their judicial function. When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant is made by a trial judge, the finding is accorded respect by reviewing courts. [20]

Accused-appellants insist that they were not inside their house and were inside the closed van when their house was searched. They
allege that upon forcibly breaking into their house through the use of an acetylene torch, the members of the raiding party handcuffed
them, dragged them outside and held them for three hours inside a van while conducting the' search of the premises. They thus argue
that the shabu seized by the PDEA agents were inadmissible in evidence.

We affirm the conviction of accused-appellants.

It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are
accorded with respect, more so, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupportive
conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[21] The reason behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the
credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. This
rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial court's findings are sustained by the CA. [22]

After carefully reviewing the records of the case, we find no cogent reason to overturn the findings of both the lower courts, which
were adequately supported by the evidence on record. It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police
officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. [23]

In the instant case, like the trial and the appellate courts, we are not persuaded by accused-appellants' claim that they were not inside
their house but were inside a closed van when their house was searched. In weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-
a-vis that of the defense, we find that the former is more worthy of credit. Both IO1 Pagaragan and SI2 Esteban clearly narrated how
the search on the house of accused-appellants was conducted. As aptly noted by the trial court and concurred in by the appellate court,
there were actually two phases of the search done in the house of accused-appellants. The first or initial search was done at the ground
floor of the house, immediately after the PDEA agents gained entry. 101 Sandaan knocked on the house and a woman, later identified
as Patricia Punzalan slightly opened the door and when they introduced themselves as PDEA agents and informed the occupant that
they have a search warrant, Patricia immediately tried to close the door but was prevented by the PDEA agents from closing it and
they were able to enter the premises. IO1 Pagaragan showed and read the search warrant in front of the accused-appellants and the
agents searched the house and immediately found several heat-sealed transparent sachets of white crystalline substance of
suspected shabu. Immediately, the seized items were marked "ADP" in the presence of accused-appellants and media practitioner
Jimmy Mendoza. It has been sufficiently shown by the prosecution that accused-appellants were present when their house was
searched. The pictures taken during the marking and inventory and showing the accused-appellants in their house are clear proof that
they were present when their house was searched and the illegal drugs found were seized. It was only after the marking of the drugs
and while the PDEA agents waited for the barangay officials to arrive that accused-appellants were made to board the van. This
explains the testimony of Kagawad Edwin Razon that accused-appellants were not inside their house when he arrived. After the
barangay officials arrived, accused-appellants were brought back to the house for the continuation of the search of the upper floors but
they found no additional contrabands. They then went back to the ground floor to conduct inventory of the seized items.

The testimonies of the police officers who caught accused-appellants in flagrante delicto in possession of illegal drugs during the
conduct of a valid search are usually credited with more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that they have been inspired

33
by an improper or ill motive. Here, there is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police officers to impute such
a serious crime to accused-appellants.

On the other hand, accused-appellants hammer on the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses such as whether
barangay officials were present at the time of the conduct of the search. The latter was sufficiently explained by the prosecution while
the other inconsistencies pertain to minor details and are so inconsequential that they do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor
detract from the established fact of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

We have previously held that discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in
actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate
each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. In fact, such minor inconsistencies may even serve
to strengthen the witnesses' credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed. [24]

Notably, Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. - No search of a house, room, or any other
premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the
latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials were not present during the initial search, the search was witnessed by
accused-appellants themselves, hence, the search was valid since the rule that "two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality" must be present applies only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his
family.

To successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused
is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[25] In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish with moral
certainty the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Accused-appellants were caught in
actual possession of the prohibited drugs during a valid search of their house. It bears stressing that aside from assailing the validity of
the search, accused-appellants did not deny ownership of the illegal drugs seized. They have not proffered any valid defense in the
offense charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

As to accused-appellants' assertion that the chain of custody rule has not been complied with when no inventory or acknowledgment
receipt signed by Atty. Gaspe was submitted in evidence and that no evidence was shown as to the condition of the specimen upon its
presentation to Atty. Gaspe, who was not presented in court to explain the discrepancy, we are also not persuaded.

This Court has time and again adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which 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. This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. [26]

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs provides 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:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the

34
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 is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same
substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.
[27]
 In this case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was duly established from the time the heat-sealed plastic sachets were
seized and marked by 101 Pagaragan to its subsequent turnover to Atty. Gaspe of the PDEA Office in Quezon City. 101 Pagaragan
was also the one who personally delivered and submitted the specimens composed of 293 sachets of shabu to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for laboratory examination. The specimens were kept in custody until they were presented as evidence before the trial
court and positively identified by IO1 Pagaragan as the very same specimens he marked during the inventory.

The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and evidentiary
value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellants. The failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the
inventory of seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
[28]
 What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. [29]

With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on
the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court. It is therefore safe to conclude that, to the unprejudiced mind, the
testimonies show without a doubt that the evidence seized from the accused-appellants at the time of the search was the same one
tested, introduced and testified to in court. In other words, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence against accused-
appellants.

In fine, we find no error on the part of the CA in affirming the trial court's conviction of accused-appellants of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellants Jerry Punzalan and Patricia
Punzalan of the crime charged. We likewise find proper the modification by the trial court of the penalty imposed to life imprisonment
and a fine of P400,000.00

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 28, 2011 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04557 is hereby AFFIRMED.

With costs against the accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 212940, September 16, 2015 ]

CHRISTOPHER DELA RIVA Y HORARIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:
Challenged in this petition for review is the February 13, 2014 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
05895, which affirmed the August 30, 2012 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, Olongapo City (RTC), finding the
petitioner, accused Christopher Dela Riva y Horario (Dela Riva), guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

On April 29, 2009, an Information was filed charging accused with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory
portion of the Information reads:

That on or about the 28th day of April 2009, at about 6:00 in the morning, in Brgy. Calapacuan, Municipality of Subic, Province of
Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously without any lawful authority, give away, deliver and sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet weighing
1.3095 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, to a poseur-buyer for One Thousand (Php1,
000.00) Pesos marked money.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
On June 3, 2009, Dela Riva was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

35
Prosecution version and evidence

On April 27, 2009 a confidential agent reported to the officers at the National Headquarters Special Enforcement Services, Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Headquarters at Brgy. Piñahan, Quezon City that a certain Chris, who turned out to be appellant
herein, is doing illegal drug activities at Brgy. Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales.

Acting on the report, a briefing was conducted to entrap the suspect. IO1 Enrique Lucero was assigned as the poseur-buyer. The
briefing was followed by a pre-operation report and an authorization to operate. A Certificate of Coordination was then issued by the
PDEA National Operating Center. Such a document is issued whenever an operation is to be conducted outside the national
headquarters. Boodle money in the amount of P60,000.00 was prepared with two (2) P500.00 as the actual money placed on top of the
bundle. Said amount was for ten (10) grams of shabu as agreed between the confidential agent and herein appellant.

Said buy-[bust] operation was intended for two (2) targets, appellant herein and a certain Jun Magsaysay. After the preparation was
done, the team proceeded from Manila to Subic on April 28, 2009. The team stopped at Angeles City around 8 o'clock in the evening
and stayed there for about three (3) hours because the confidential agent received a text message from appellant that the ten (10) grams
of shabu [was] not yet complete.

At 2 o'clock, the team then proceeded to Subic and arrived at the target area around 5 o'clock. The specific location was at Maniago
Street, Brgy. Calapuan, Subic. Those who went to Maniago Street were Agent Lucero, Agent Tumabini, Agent Fajardo and the
civilian asset. The rest of the team or the back-up team stayed at the National Highway at Brgy. Calapuan.

The team waited at the vehicle near a residential place with a store and after a few moments, appellant appeared. The confidential
agent and Agent Lucero approached appellant and introduced Agent Lucero. Agent Lucero then asked appellant for the agreed item to
which the latter replied, "Andito na pare pero kulang pa." Appellant then invited them to go to a certain Abu to get the rest of the
items and then proceeded to Abu's house.

The trio walked to the house of "Abu" which was about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters away. The house is located in a squatter area
and the walls were dilapidated. The three (3) entered the house which has no bedroom but with a curtain to separate some parts of it.
Inside, they saw two (2) persons having a pot session.

Agent Lucero then asked appellant for the rest of the items who upon saying "sa akin na lang muna pare" handed to him from his
pocket a small transparent plastic sachet. Agent Lucero then put the small sachet in the right pocket of his pants. Agent Lucero again
asked for the rest and appellant asked for the payment. Agent Lucero then handed to appellant the boodle money which was placed in
an envelope.

While appellant is opening the envelope, Agent Lucero made a missed call to their team leader but after a few seconds they heard a
voice shouting from the outside, "Abu-Abu." The two (2) persons who were having pot session inside the house then rushed to the
door and run outside and Agent Lucero introduced himself to appellant as PDEA Agent and arrested him. The back-up team then
entered the house to assist in the arrest while others chased the two (2) persons who ran away. However, they were not able to catch
them.

The team saw in plain view some paraphernalia inside the house and these were two (2) pieces aluminum foil, improvised water pipe,
five (5) pieces disposable lighters and several transparent plastic sachets. They confiscated said items.

After informing appellant of his rights, they immediately left the area. The inventory was conducted at the National Headquarters of
PDEA for security and safety considerations. The inventory was witnessed and also signed by a Barangay Kagawad while
photographs were also taken.

A request for the laboratory examination of the specimen yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant's urine was also tested and yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. [4]
The prosecution offered the following exhibits as evidence:

Exhibit "A" - Pre-operation Report[5]

Exhibit "B" - Authority to Operate[6]
Exhibit "C" - Certificate of Coordination[7]
Exhibit "D" to "E" - marked money[8]
Exhibit "F" - white window envelope and boodle money
Exhibit "G" - Inventory of Seized Evidence[9]
Exhibit "H" - photograph of witnesses signing the inventory[10]
Exhibit "I" - photograph of seized drug and paraphernalia[11]
Exhibit "J" and series - shabu and drug paraphernalia
Exhibit "K" to "K-1" - Letter Request for Drug Testing[12]
Exhibit "L" - Chemistry Report[13]
Exhibit "M" - Letter Request for Drug Testing[14]
Exhibit "N" - Letter Request for Physical/Medical Examination[15]
Exhibit "O" - Result of the Physical Examination[16]
Exhibit "P" and series - Sworn Statement of the Poseur-Buyer[17]
Exhibit "Q" - PDEA Certification[18]
Exhibit "R" to "R-1" - Booking Sheet and Arrest Report[19]
Exhibit "S" and series - Chemistry Report for Drug Test[20]

36
Defense Version and evidence

According to the accused, xxx he was already detained at the PDEA on April 28, 2009 at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning, as he
was arrested on April 26, 2009 at about 10:00 in the afternoon at Barangay Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales, while at the house of his
grandfather Ronnie Horario. At that time, he received a cellphone call from a certain Jovann inviting him to go to the casino, and they
agreed that the latter would fetch accused. Accused decided to go home at Rizal, San Marcelino, Zambales, because Jovann was not
replying to his text message. While he was waiting for a passenger jeep, Jovann arrived on board a CRV, and invited accused to board.
Inside the vehicle were four passengers including the driver,and Jovann introduced accused to them. They went to SBMA and accused
thought that they would play at the casino, but instead they travelled through SCTEX and accused was told that they would play
casino at Angeles City.

Accused felt nervous and started asking where they were really heading. The driver told him to just relax and they will soon reach
their destination. Accused tried to control his fear as he was with a friend, and from then on they used to play at the Oriental Casino,
SBMA, every weekend.

Accused was brought at the PDEA Headquarters in Quezon City, and when he asked why they were there, Jovann told him to be
silent. The man seated beside accused gave him a handcuff and told him to wear it. Accused asked what his violation was, but a gun
was poked at his chest. A man told him in a loud voice to wear the handcuffs, and he obeyed. He was investigated inside an office and
was told that he was selling drugs which he denied. After asking his personal circumstances he was asked for a "palit-ulo" meaning,
that he should produce another person selling drugs in exchange for his release, but accused denied any knowledge of anyone involved
in drug trade.

Accused was then told to sign the Booking Sheet Arrest Report which he did. He just filled up the portion for his personal
circumstances and name of relatives but the other entries were provided by the investigator, and then he signed the document. The
pictures were taken on April 27, 2009 prior to the alleged arrest on April 28, 2009. Agent Enrique Lucero was not among those in the
vehicle and he first saw him at the office. Accused is not aware of the execution of the Inventory of Seized Items and he did not see
the Kagawad who allegedly signed it. At the PDEA Compound were several men in uniform and one of them investigated accused. He
did not see Jovann anymore. Accused denied that the items in the inventory were taken from him. Accused former counsel demanded
copy of the logbook and blotter of his departure and arrival to prove that he was arrested on April 26 and not on April 28, 2009, but
nothing happened to the request.[21]
Dela Riva offered the following exhibits as evidence:

Exhibit "1" - Booking Sheet and Arrest Report

Exhibit "2" - Pictures of the accused taken on April 28, 2009[22]
The RTC Ruling

On August 30, 2012, the RTC convicted Dela Riva for the offense charged, stating that the prosecution was able to establish his guilt
with moral certainty based on the consistent, positive, straightforward, convincing, and credible testimonies of the police witnesses
and the supporting documentary and object evidence it presented. The RTC found that all the elements of the crime were established,
to wit: 1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
thereof.

The RTC did not give weight to the defense of frame-up put up by Dela Riva as it could not prevail over the positive declaration of the
poseur-buyer and the compelling documentary evidence shown by the prosecution. The trial court opined that the procedural lapse
committed by the apprehending team with respect to the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not fatal to its cause
because the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved and safeguarded by the apprehending
officers.

The RTC stated that the chain of custody of the seized drug, which involved only one (1) sachet of shabu, was continuous and
unbroken. In the absence of proof of tampering of evidence, bad faith and ill will on the part of the buy-bust team, the police officers
were to be presumed to have regularly performed their duties. The RTC, thus, disposed:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds CHRISTOPHER DELA RIVA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 5, RA 9165
and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 plus cost, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The accused shall also suffer the accessory penalties under Section 35, RA 9165 and shall be credited in the service of his sentence
with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions imposed under Art. 29 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended.

The sachet of shabu marked Exh. 'J' of the Prosecution is ordered confiscated in favor of the government and to be disposed of in
accordance with law.

SO DECIDED.[23]
The CA Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. It basically stated that the integrity of the drugs seized from the accused was
preserved and that the chain of custody of the subject drugs was unbroken. The CA pointed out that the confiscated drugs remained
under the care of PDEA Agent Lucero (Agent Lucero) until he reached the PDEA National Headquarters at Barangay Piñahan,
Quezon City. He immediately marked the same with his signature in the presence of the accused and Barangay Kagawad Jose Ruiz
before turning it over to the crime laboratory for examination. Subsequently, the same sachet bearing the same markings was

37
completely examined within 24 hours of seizure by Chemist Engineer Elaine E. Erno and found to be positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

The CA pointed out that non-compliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not necessarily fatal to the
prosecution case as long as there were justifiable grounds for the lapses committed and the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized were preserved.

The CA added that when the prosecution presented the transparent plastic sachet before the Court, Agent Lucero positively identified
it as one which came from Dela Riva. The appellate court stated that the integrity of the evidence was presumed to have been
preserved unless there was a showing of bad faith ill will or proof that the evidence had been tampered with. Dela Riva had the burden
of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of the exhibits
by public officers and in the discharge of their duties. Unfortunately, Dela Riva failed to produce convincing proof that there was
tampering of the evidence of the prosecution.

Regarding the defense of frame-up and inconsistencies in the manner of operation, the CA opined that they could not prevail over the
positive, straightforward and convincing testimonies of the police operatives who performed their duties regularly, in accordance with
law and without any improper motive. The arrest of Dela Riva was made in the course of an entrapment, following a surveillance
operation, normally performed by police officers in the apprehension of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The CA concluded that
there was a consummated sale between the poseur-buyer and Dela Riva. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the: 1) August 30, 2012 Decision; and 2) October 18, 2012 Order of the Olongapo City,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, in Criminal Case No. 135-09 convicting Christopher Dela Riva y Horario for violation of Section 5
of Republic Act No. 9165, are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.[24]
Aggrieved, Dela Riva filed the subject petition seeking the reversal of the CA decision and a judgment of acquittal based on the
following

GROUNDS

I. THERE WAS A MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS, WHICH IF CONSIDERED, WOULD OVERTURN THE DECISION
RENDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

II. THERE WAS FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE DRUGS ALLEGEDLY SEIZED
FROM ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[25]

Position of the Accused

Accused Dela Riva mainly argues that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and the integrity of the drugs seized. He claims
that the PDEA operatives disregarded the procedural rules under Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
No. 9165 in conducting the seizure and identification of the drugs. He submits that the prosecution committed the following errors,
which if properly considered, would not establish his guilt with moral certainty:

There was no clear and definite testimony of IO1 Lucero as to the marking of the seized items. He mentioned only in his direct-
1) examination that he inspected the items confiscated in their vehicle. Notably, the said testimony constituted the totality in the
marking of the seized evidence.
Taking of photos and inventory of illicit materials purportedly seized from appellant and in the crime scene was not conducted
2) in the place where the purported arrest was effected. This is not surprising since, in actuality, the PDEA operatives in the instant
case had never conducted an arrest. Instead what they have done was to frame-up the petitioner;
No representative of the Department of Justice or of the media was present during the marking, taking of pictures and inventory
3)
of the illicit materials purportedly seized from petitioner and in the crime scene;
The barangay official, who the prosecution claims to have been present during the inventory, was not present during the arrest
4)
of petitioner, in violation of what the law enjoins law officers to follow;
There was a violation by the PDEA operatives of their duty to deliver petitioner to the nearest police station or jail without
5)
unnecessary delay which is in this case, their regional office in Pampanga; and
There was no written explanation as to why a) said marking, taking of pictures and inventory were not done in the place
mandated by law for the same to be done; b) no representatives from the Department of Justice or from the media were present;
6)
and c) the barangay official, who the prosecution claims to have been present during the inventory, was not present during the
arrest of petitioner.[26]
Position of the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argues that the factual findings of the CA were supported by substantial evidence and could
no longer be reviewed in the petition for review filed by Dela Riva. His guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt when the
prosecution was able to establish the elements for the illegal sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: 1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The positive, straightforward, convincing, and
credible testimony of Agent Lucero, coupled with the physical evidence on record, are enough proof that the accused committed the
offense charged.

38
 The Court's Ruling

After a review of the evidentiary records as well as the applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter, the Court finds merit in the
petition and, for said reason, renders a verdict of acquittal.

Presumption of Innocence; Burden of Proof

It is fundamental in our Constitution[27] and basic in our Rules of Court[28] that the accused in a criminal case enjoys the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty. Likewise, it is well-established in jurisprudence that the prosecution bears the burden to overcome such
presumption. If the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the accused deserves a judgment of acquittal. On the other hand, if the
existence of proof beyond reasonable doubt is established by the prosecution, the accused gets a guilty verdict.

In order to survive the test for a successful prosecution of cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to: 1)
establish the essential elements of the crime - (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and
(b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor; and 2) strictly follow the seizure and custody procedure provided under
Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21 (a) of the IRR.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 has been amended by R.A. No. 10640 (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). Considering that the buy-bust incident in this case transpired on April 28, 2009 and the old law was favorable to
the accused, the Court shall be guided by the earlier version of Section 21 and its corresponding IRR, viz.:

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;

xxx [Emphasis Supplied]

Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, states: xxx

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

xxx

[Emphases Supplied]
The above procedure serves as a proper guideline for police officers involved in drug buy-bust operations in moving the seized drugs
from the time of arrest and seizure up to the laboratory examination and finally to its presentation in court. The purpose of this legal
process is to preserve the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs through an unbroken chain of custody. The chain
of custody is divided into four (4) links: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. [29]

Chain of Custody Broken

In the case at bench, the prosecution breached the first link right away when the buy-bust team failed to immediately mark the seized
drugs, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the same after the arrest of the accused and the confiscation of the seized drugs.
The law requires that the marking, physical inventory and photograph be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. Additionally, the law requires that
the said procedure must be done 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. Surprisingly, the PDEA
agents in this case failed to observe the proper procedures.

39
In the prosecution of illegal sale, what is essential is to prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The consummation of sale is perfected the moment the buyer receives the drug
from the seller. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the four sachets which tested positive for shabu and eventually
presented in court were the same ones confiscated by the police officers due to its non-marking at the place where the buy-bust
operation was committed at the police station.

In People v. Nacua, the Court emphasized that given the unique characteristic of dangerous and illegal drugs which are indistinct, not
readily identifiable, and easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution, either by accident or otherwise, there must be
strict compliance with the prescribed measures during and after the seizure of dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia, during
the custody and transfer thereof for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court. [30]

[Emphases supplied]
Agent Lucero stated in paragraph 13 of his affidavit that the seized drugs were immediately marked after he made the arrest. Yet, he
gave a different statement during his testimony. He admitted that the marking, inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were
all made and conducted only at the PDEA National Headquarters in Quezon City located several kilometers away from the scene of
the buy-bust operation.

And what happened next Mr. Witness after you have completed the seizure of the item in a clean view and have the suspect
Q
arrested?
We immediately left the area, and proceeded to the vehicle and after proceeding to the vehicle, we inspect the items
A
confiscated.
Q Mr. witness, where were you now when you inspect all the items?
A At the vehicle, ma'am.
Q Which was parked outside of the house of the accused?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Did you prepare an inventory of all the items that were seized and the item that you actually purchased?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And where was the inventory prepared?
A It was prepared at the National Headquarters in Manila, ma'am.[31]
On cross, he testified as follows:

Q And Mr. witness, this drug items were inventoried and photographed according to you at the national office?
A Yes sir.
Q And who prepared this Mr. witness or who sealed these items?
A I was the one, sir.
Q Where?
A At the office, sir.
Q So, you were the one in this Exhibit "J" the plastic sachet of shabu you were the one who put this plastic tape and sealed it?
A This one sir, the crime laboratory, this one is my initial.
Q Also the other tape in the other item?
A Yes sir.[32]
Contrary to his statement in his affidavit, Agent Lucero never confirmed that he conducted the marking, physical inventory and
photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused, his lawyer, a media representative or DOJ representative, or an elected
official from Brgy. Calapacuan or Municipality of Subic or even the Province of Zambales. The only one present was Barangay
Kagawad Jose Y. Ruiz, Jr. (Kagawad Ruiz) who was from Barangay Piñahan, Quezon City, where the PDEA National Headquarters
was located. Kagawad Ruiz was definitely not present at the scene of the buy-bust operation.

And Mr. witness at the time of the preparing of this inventory and photography there was no presence of media,
Q
correct?
A None, sir.
Q No presence of the DOJ representative?
A None, sir.
Q No presence of elected Brgy. Calapacuan of Municipality of Subic?
A None, sir.
Q But according to you only the presence of Brgy. Official of Brgy. Piñahan?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where this National Office is located at?
A Yes, sir.
Q Mr. witness, I will go to the Inventory, this Mr. Jose Y. Ruiz is a Brgy. Kagawad of Brgy. Piñahan, do you agree?
A Yes, sir.
Q And this person was the one who witnessed the inventory?
A Yes, sir.
Q But not the seizure?
A Yes, sir.
Q So, this incorrect, witness to seizure and then below that, is the signature of Jose Ruiz, do you confirm that?
A Yes, sir.
Q So, he only witnessed the inventory that he made?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Mr. witness will you agree with me that this inventory of seized evidence is made not under oath?
A Yessir.[33]

40
Agent Lucero further admitted that they left Brgy. Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales, early in the morning and arrived at the PDEA
National Headquarters in Quezon City at past 9:00 o'clock in the morning after a stopover for more than an hour at a gasoline station
along the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX). Thereafter, they rested upon reaching the PDEA National Headquarters. After resting,
they prepared the request for laboratory examination and conducted an inventory.

Q And at what time you arrived in the National office Mr. witness?
A Past 9 A.M. sir.
Q So, what happened when you already reached the national office at Quezon City?
A We rested sir and then we prepared the request for laboratory examination and we also made an inventory.
Q Including the photography?
A Yes, sir.
Q In your office?
A Yes, sir.
Q Not at the crime scene?
A No, sir.[34]
[Emphases Supplied]

Records further show that Agent Lucero failed to give a credible and convincing justification for the delay in the marking, physical
inventory and photographing of the seized items. When asked about the delay, he gave three different answers. First, he reasoned out
that he was concerned with their security and safety; that they lacked sleep; and that there were so many operations conducted in the
area.

Q And where was the inventory prepared?

A It was prepared at the National Headquarters in Manila, ma'am.
Q Why not there at the scene itself Mr. witness?
A Because we are thinking of the security, safety at the same time we are lack of sleep.
Mr. witness, what was it in that area you which made you fear that your safety and security was going to be threatened Mr.
Q
witness?
A Because there were so many operation conducted in that area.[35]
Second, Agent Lucero explained that they proceeded to the National Headquarters so he could immediately prepare all the needed
documents.

Is that the reason why from the crime scene you straight to the headquarters because you do not know where the Regional
Q
Office?
A No, sir.
Q So, what was the reason in proceeding to the National Headquarters?
A To immediately prepare all the documents needed.[36]
Third, he immediately left Zambales upon the instruction of their team leader.

But was it not better if you will proceed with your regional office in San Fernando to prepare this inventory and photography
Q
instead of going to your office in Quezon City preparing this inventory and photography?
A That is the instruction of the team leader, sir.[37]
The buy-bust team knew that PDEA had a regional office near the area but, surprisingly, they still proceeded to the National
Headquarters in Quezon City on the flimsy excuse that Agent Lucero was not familiar with the address of the Pampanga Regional
Office.

Q Mr. witness, do you have a PDEA Regional Office?

A Yes, sir.
Q Here in Region 3 where this Brgy. Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales, is located. Do you have a Regional Office?
A We have a Regional Office in Region 3, I am not familiar with the address, sir, it is Camp Olivas, I think, sir.
Q Where is that Camp Olivas?
A I am not familiar with that address, sir.
Q Is it is Olongapo, Subic, Bataan, Pampanga?
A Pampanga, sir.[38]
Unquestionably, the immediate marking of the seized drugs is the first and the most crucial point in the custodial links. The
significance of this link was elaborately discussed in the recent case of People of the Philippines vs. Beverly Alagarme y Citoy,[39]

With this concern for the due recording of the authorized movement and custody of the seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment, the presentation as evidence in court of the dangerous drugs subject of the illegal
sale is material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. This materiality derives from the dangerous drugs being
themselves the corpus delicti. Indeed, proof of the corpus delicti is essential in every judgment of conviction. Without proof of the
corpus delicti, there is uncertainty about whether the crime really transpired or not. To eliminate the uncertainty, the Prosecution
should account for every link in the chain of custody; otherwise, the crime is not established beyond reasonable doubt. In other
words, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165 either when the dangerous drugs are missing or when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized
dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.

A reading of the record indicates that the buy-bust team did not observe the procedures laid down by Republic Act No. 9165 and its
IRR. The marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately upon seizure from the accused is crucial in proving
the chain of custody because it is the starting point in the custodial link. The marking upon seizure serves a two-fold function, the
first being to give to succeeding handlers of the specimens a reference, and the second being to separate the marked evidence from the
41
corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until their disposition at the end of criminal
proceedings, thereby obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. This requirement of marking as laid down by the
law was not complied with. Firstly, PO1 Mendoza simply stated that he did the marking of the confiscated items with his initials
inside the Toyota Revo. Although the appellant was also inside the Toyota Revo at that time, he did not state if his marking was
done within the view of the appellant, or within the view of any representative from the media, Department of Justice or any
elected public official. Secondly, both he and MADAC Operative Castillo did not indicate if any media or DOJ representative or
elected public official had been present during the buy-bust operation and when the drugs were recovered from the appellant at
the scene of the apprehension. The law unequivocally required such presence. Thirdly, there was also no showing of any inventory of
the confiscated items being undertaken or prepared. The lack of the inventory was confirmed by the absence of any certificate of
inventory being formally offered as evidence by the Prosecution. Lastly, the Prosecution did not produce any photographs taken of the
sachets of shabu immediately following their seizure.

[Emphases Supplied]
The Court would like to stress that the prosecution had the chance to redeem their cause through the saving mechanism provided in the
last paragraph of Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 which provides that non-compliance with the safeguards of the
chain of custody would not be fatal to the prosecution's cause if there would be a justified explanation for it. Unfortunately, the
prosecution failed to provide a credible and convincing explanation, justifying the marking, physical inventory and photographing of
the seized items in the far away PDEA National Headquarters in Quezon City rather than in the nearer PDEA Regional Office in
Pampanga.

The prosecution did not bother either to give a sufficient justification on why the marking, physical inventory and photographing were
not done in the presence of the accused or his counsel or a media representative or a DOJ representative or an elected official who was
at the crime scene. The prosecution chose to remain silent about their absence or the reason why they were not informed earlier.
Indeed, the prosecution's unjustified non-compliance with the safeguards of the chain of custody constitutes a fatal procedural flaw
that destroys the reliability of the corpus delicti.

Aside from the defect in the first link, there was also a fatal procedural lapse in the fourth link of the chain. Chemist Elaine Erno
testified that she received the seized drugs from Agent Lucero and his request for laboratory examination. The records, however, are
bereft of any testimonial or documentary evidence whatsoever as to how the seized drug was kept while in the custody of the evidence
custodian until it was brought to the court. There were even no details given on the identity of the evidence custodian and how the
seized drug was handled and transferred before it was presented in court. No information was given as to how the evidence custodian
preserved the seized drug while it was in his/her custody.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640

Granting that the new but more stringent provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,[40] are applicable,
the prosecution's case would still fail. Section 21 now reads 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 preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

xxx xxx xxx

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be
issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined
by the forensic laboratory. Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said
examination and certification;

xxx xxx xxx. [Emphases and Underscoring Supplied]

Under the current Section 21, noncompliance of the requirements shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said
items as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. It
must be stressed, however, that the non-compliance must be for "justifiable grounds." In this case, the PDEA agents failed to convince
the Court that they had justifiable reasons not to immediately and strictly comply with the provisions of the law so as to comply with
the chain of custody requirements.

It could be that the accused was engaged in the sale of dangerous drugs. A doubt, however, lingers because the flaws in this particular
42
link coupled with the defects in the first link are so glaring that the Court cannot ignore them as they definitely compromised the
identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

There being a doubt, the Court resolves it in favor of the accused.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February 13, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05895
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused, Christopher Dela Riva y Horario, is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him
and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to implement this decision and to inform this Court of the date of the actual
release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from receipt of copy.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMONITO B. ASIGNAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

RESOLUTION

PEREZ, J.:
This resolves accused-appellant Ramonito B. Asignar's appeal from the 31 March 2012 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 00966 affirming his conviction beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 (Criminal Case No. CBU
70735), 11 CBU 70733), and 12 (Criminal Case No. CBU 70734), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

By way of background, separate informations were filed against accused-appellant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu
City, Branch 13, as follows:

For violation of Sec. 5,[2] Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70735):

That on August 24, 2004, at about 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur
buyer the following: one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet of 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance placed in a plastic pack
locally knowns as "shabu" containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

For violation of Sec. II,[3] Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70733):

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in possession
and under his control the following: three (3) transparent plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline substance locally
knowns as "shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

For violation of Sec. 12,[4] Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70734):

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at about 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in possession
and under his control the following: two (2) disposable lighters used as an improvised burner one plastic paraphernalia for repacking
shabu which are instruments and/or equipments fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body.

The above-cited cases were consolidated.

After trial, the RTC convicted accused-appellant in a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered finding accused Ramonito B. Asignar GUILTY reasonable doubt of the following
crimes:

1. Violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165, and sentences him to Life Imprisonment, plus fine in the amount of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS;

43
 2. Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165, and sentences him to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY TO
THIRTEEN (13) YEARS imprisonment, plus fine in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00)
PESOS; and

3. For Violation of Section 12, Article II, RA 9165, and sentence him to SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY TO ONE (1)
YEAR imprisonment, plus fine in amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS.

All the shabu and shabu paraphernalia mentioned in the three informations are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government
and destroyed pursuant to the provision of RA 9165

With cost against accused in all these three (3) cases.[5]

The seller and the buyer of shabu are clearly identified. They both testified. The 0.02 gram of shabu taken from accused-appellant was
identified, marked, presented and admitted in evidence. it was found positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
[6]
The chain of custody of the object evidence was also well established. Accused-appellant was also found in possesion of three
packets with traces of shabu and shabu paraphernalia. They were clearly identified, maked, presented and admitted in evidence. There
is no doubt therefore that the accused-appellant had intent to possess them. Aggrieved, his conviction was appealed before the CA.

In its Decision[7] dated 31 May 2012, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the RTC, finding accused-appellant guilty of all the
charges. The Court of Appeals found that defense of exortion was solely on accused-appellant's testimony and no witness was
presented to corroborate his testimony.

Hence, this appeal.

The parties manifested that they will no longer file a supplemental briefs and will adopts the briefs filed before the CA.

We dismiss the appeal. As aptly stated by the CA:

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, only the following elements are essential:  (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2)the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is proof
that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of evidence of the seized item, as part of the corpus delicti. The
delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust
transaction.

The prosecution has already established the presence of all the elements. PO1 Solana,who acted as the poseur-buyer, positively
identified [accused-appellant] as the person who came out to meet him, and dealt with him and the informant during the buy-bust
operation. It was accused-appellant himself who gave a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. During the examination
of the white crystalline substance bought by PO1 Solana from accused-appellant together with the three (3) other  plastic packets
containing traces of white crystalline substance tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs, per
Chemistry report No. D-1525-2005 issued by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory.

For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution mustestablish the following elements: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. All the elements were established in this case. Incident to his lawful arrest, when
he was frisked three (3) plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline substance, later on found to be traces of a dangerous
drug, was taken from his possession.  In a number of cases, it has been declared that mere possession of a regulated drug
per seconstitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory
explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, of knowledge or animus possidendi. Mere possession of
the prohibited substance and the burden of proof is upon accused-appellant to show that he has a license or permit under law to
possess the prohibited drug. The accused-appellant failed to explain his possession of the prohibited drug. Accused-appellant was
misled in his belief that the burden to prove the lack of license or permit to possess the prohibited drug lies with the prosecution.

xxxx

It must be remembered that findings of fact as determined by the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect from appellate
courts and should not be disturbed on appeal unless for cogent reasons. These findings generally, so long as supported by evidence on
record, are not to be disturbed unless there are some facts or evidence which the trial court has misappreciated or overlooked, and
which if considered would have altered the results of the entire case. We see no reason to depart from this legal principles.

Furthermore the defense of extortion, used by accused-appellant, is greatly disfavored. Extortion can easily be concocted and
fabricated. Accused-appellant could have presented his mother-in-law to corroborate his story but failed to do so. He could even have
presented any of his nieces or nephews who he claims were nearby when he was brought to the hut. In failing to do so he was not able
to strengthen an already weak defense.[8]

In fine, no cogent reason has been adduced to warrant a reversal of the findings and conclusions of the CA and the RTC adjudging
accused-appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5, 11 and Sec. 12 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002).

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

Costs against accused-appellant.

44
SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO AND GARY YUMOL Y
TUAZON,* APPELLANTS.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:
The Case

This is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated 26 June 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04916, affirming the
Decision[2] dated 14 February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio City (trial court) in Criminal Case No. 30409-R.

The Facts

Appellants Regie Breis y Alvarado (Breis) and Gary Yumol y Tuazon (Yumol) were charged with violation of Section 11 of Republic
Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) as follows:

That in the afternoon of February 10, 2010, at Gov. Pack Road, this City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their
possession, custody and control marijuana with a recorded net weight of 8,181 grams of dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops wrapped
in plastic and further wrapped with brown packaging tape and placed inside a brown box, without the authority of law and knowing
fully well that said dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops are dangerous drugs, in violation of the afore-cited provisions of law.

CONTRARY TO LAW to Sec. 11 of RA 9165.[3]

Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued, where the prosecution presented witnesses Intelligence Officers 1
Elizer Mangili (IO1 Mangili) and Ryan Peralta (IO1 Peralta) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency - Cordillera Administrative
Region (PDEA-CAR); while the defense presented the testimonies of appellants.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's version of the facts, as summarized by the trial court, is as follows:

Around 3:00 o'clock PM of February 10, 2009 (sic), an informant went to the PDEA-CAR field office at Melvin Jones, Harrison
Road, Baguio City and offered the information that the accused were bound to transport a box of marijuana from Baguio City to Dau,
Mabalacat, Pampanga. Mangili gathered that the accused have been frequently traveling from Pampanga to Baguio to get marijuana
bricks from their supplier at La Trinidad, Benguet. Mangili referred the informant to Senior PDEJA Officer Tacio for further interview
and then the matter was referred to the PDEA Officer-in-Charge Edgar Apalla, who after careful evaluation, ordered Agent Tacio to
form a team for the entrapment of the accused.

Agent Tacio created a team composed of Mangili and Peralta as arresting officer and seizing officer, respectively, and briefed them on
the operations to be conducted. Tacio disclosed to the team that the accused were to transport by a public transport bus from Baguio
City to Dau, Pampanga bricks of marijuana packed in a carton and that the departure from Baguio was scheduled at around 5:00
o'clock PM of that day. The accused Breis would be in a white t-shirt with "Starbucks" logo and dark jeans while accused Yumol
would be wearing a black t-shirt with a white print and blue jeans. Both the accused were described as standing about 5 feet and 5
45
inches, thin, and dark complexion.

When the briefing was through, the team proceeded to the Genesis Bus terminal at Governor Pack Road, Baguio City at around 4:30
o'clock PM. Due to time constraints, the PDEA team chose not to secure any warrant nor coordinate with the nearest police station.

Upon reaching the bus terminal, Mangili asked the bus conductor to identify the bus which would leave at 5:00 o'clock PM. Mangili
was directed to Genesis bus with plate number TXX 890. Thus, pretending to be passengers, Mangili and Peralta boarded the bus and
they observed two male individuals whose physical appearances fitted the descriptions given by the informant. Both agents likewise
saw a box placed in between the legs of accused Breis.

Mangili sat behind the accused while Peralta, stood near where the accused were seated. In order to have a clearer view of the box
tucked in between the feet of accused Breis if the same fit the box described by informant, Mangili took the seat opposite where the
accused were seated and saw that the box was with the markings "Ginebra San Miguel" and which was described by the informant.
Mangili then casually asked accused Yumol who owned the "Ginebra San Miguel" box, the accused replied that it was theirs.

Accused Yumol suddenly stood up and tried to leave but before he could do so, Peralta blocked his way while Mangili confronted
accused Breis and asked what was contained in the box. Instead of answering, Breis shoved Mangili and tried to flee but Mangili was
able to block his way as he was much larger than the accused Yumol (sic). Mangili ordered him to sit down.

Agent Peralta then summoned the back-up officers to help secure the bus and subdue the accused. After introducing themselves as
PDEA agents, Mangili asked the accused Breis to open the box but Breis ignored the request which made Mangili lift and open the
box. He took one brick and discovered it was marijuana. The "Ginebra San Miguel" box yielded three more bricks of marijuana.
Mangili then marked the items on site.

Agent Peralta then informed the accused that they were being arrested for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 and then he read their
constitutional rights in Pilipino to them.

Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA-CAR office of Melvin Jones, Baguio City for documentation such as the preparation of the
affidavits of Agents Mangili and Peralta, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of both accused, Request for Physical Exam and Request
for Laboratory Exam. Inventory likewise was done around 7:43 o'clock PM on February 10, 2010 at the said PDEA-CAR office.

After the documentation and inventory, the accused were brought to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) and
Medico-Legal Certificates were issued showing that the accused had no external signs of physical injuries at the time of their
examination. Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010 indicates that the confiscated items from the accused yielded positive to (sic) the
presence of marijuana, a dangerous drugs (sic).[4]

Version of the Defense

The defense's version of the facts, as summarized by the trial court, is as follows:

Accused, both construction workers, left Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga for Baguio at around 6:00 o'clock AM of February 9, 2010 to
visit a certain Edwin Garcia, an acquaintance and a resident of Loakan, Baguio City. Edwin Garcia had offered the accused to be
upholsterers in his upholstery business way back in December of 2008.

At around 11:00 o'clock AM, the accused arrived in Baguio City and because they did not know the exact address and contact number
of Edwin Garcia, they took a chance and decided to take a cab to Loakan. However, they failed to find Garcia's house despite asking
the residents of Loakan. So, they decided to go back to the Genesis bus terminal and go back home to Pampanga.

Upon reaching the terminal, they ate and took the 4:30 o'clock PM bus for Pampanga. They were already boarded when accused
Yumol stepped out to buy a bottle of water. Thereafter, Mangili went near accused Breis and uttered something inaudible, and
thinking that the seat he was occupying was Mangili's, accused Breis stood up to give up his seat but instead Mangili pushed him and
accused Breis asked what seems to be the problem. Mangili then asked if he owns the box under the seat in front of his, Breis replied
in the negative. Mangili then opened the box, got one of the bricks contained therein, sliced the same and saw that it was marijuana.
Accused Breis, infuriated, retorted that the accusation is baseless and malicious.

Mangili then summoned his companions and they dragged accused Breis outside the bus when suddenly, accused Yumol arrived and
inquired what the commotion was all about. The group then asked if he (Yumol) was a companion of accused Breis and when he

46
answered positively, Yumol was likewise apprehended.

Both the accused were then brought to the PDEA Office and were forced to admit ownership of the box of marijuana, but they refused
and thus they were hit with the bricks of marijuana. One of the agents even squeezed the scrotum of accused Yumol in the hope that
he will admit ownership over the box of marijuana.[5]

The Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's version, upholding the presumption of regularity in favor of the PDEA agents and
finding no evil or ill-motive on their part. On the other hand, the trial court found appellants' defense of frame-up too incredible and
outlandishly preposterous. The trial court also held that the warrantless search and seizure and the warrantless arrest of appellants were
valid. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:[6]

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Regie Breis y Alvarado and Gary Yumol y Tuazon GUILTY beyond any
reasonable doubt and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and each to pay a fine of
P5,000,000.00.

Both the accused are immediately ORDERED TO BE TRANSFERRED to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, Metro
Manila.

SO ORDERED.[7]

The lone assignment of error in the Brief for the Accused-Appellants is as follows:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[8]

In their appeal, appellants argued that the PDEA agents did not comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, and that
the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody over the seized items.

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were
satisfied. Further, the Court of Appeals found no break in the custody of the seized items that might compromise their evidentiary
integrity. The appellate court also upheld the legality of the warrantless search and arrest of appellants. The dispositive portion of the
decision of the Court of Appeals reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the appealed Decision dated February 14, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Baguio City, Branch 61, in Criminal Case No. 30409-R, is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.[9]

In the present appeal, appellants and appellee adopted their respective briefs [10] filed before the Court of Appeals as their supplemental
briefs.[11]

The Court's Ruling

47
The appeal is without merit.

Procedure on Seizure and Custody of Drugs

Appellants argue that the procedure on seizure and custody of drugs, specified in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, was
not complied with. In support of this contention, appellants state that: (1) the PDEA agents did not immediately conduct the inventory
at the place where the items were seized, and did so only at the PDEA-CAR field office; [12] and (2) the representatives from the media,
barangay and Department of Justice (DOJ) were present during the inventory conducted at the field office, but not at the place of the
seizure during actual confiscation.[13]

Appellants are mistaken. The PDEA agents who apprehended appellants did not deviate from the procedure prescribed by law and
regulations. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of
dangerous drugs:

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, and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which reads:

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

Appellants insist that the PDEA agents should have conducted the inventory at the place where the drugs were seized. However, the
IRR clearly provides that in case of warrantless seizures, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. The physical inventory and photograph were conducted at the PDEA-
CAR field office, a fact that appellants themselves acknowledge[14] and testified to by IO1 Mangili[15] and IO1 Peralta.[16]

The requirement of the presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official during the physical
inventory and photograph was also complied with. The representatives from the media and the DOJ and an elected barangay official
were present at the inventory conducted at the PDEA-CAR field office, as evidenced by their signatures [17] on the Inventory of Seized
Item[18]and photographs taken during the inventory.[19] In fact, this is not contested by appellants.[20]

Hence, we find no deviation from the procedure prescribed by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR.

Chain of Custody Established

What IO1 Mangili did in the bus upon seizure of the drugs was to mark the same, which is not to be confused with taking the physical
inventory. Marking is not a requirement of RA 9165 or its IRR, but has been held to be an initial stage in the chain of custody:

Nonetheless, the Court has acknowledged the practical value of the process of marking the confiscated contraband and considered it as
an initial stage in the chain of custody - a process preliminary and preparatory to the physical inventory and photograph requirements
in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165:

48
This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 [of Republic act No. 9165] and on
allegations of robbery or theft.

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

"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. Indeed, marking upon immediate confiscation has been interpreted as to even
include marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from accused-
appellants were marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the very venue of his arrest. [21] (Citations omitted)

Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. [22] What assumes primary importance in drug
cases is the prosecution's proof, to the point of moral certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against the
accused is the same item recovered from his possession.[23]

Appellants argue that the prosecution was not able to establish the chain of custody over the seized drugs:

The irregularities in the handling procedure of the seized items are manifold. There is no indication what steps were taken after the
seizure, whether the items were turned over to the investigator or to the desk officer before SPO4 Abordo allegedly delivered it to the
crime laboratory.

How can the trial court rule that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved when in fact, the prosecution failed to identify who
was in possession of the marijuana from the place of the seizure; to whom the same was turned over; and how it came to the custody
of SPO4 Abordo who allegedly delivered the seized items at (sic) the laboratory. Nor was there any prosecution's evidence showing
the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drug after its examination and pending presentation in court. [24]

Appellants' argument fails to impress.

The links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to the chain of custody are the following: 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.[25]

In this case, the prosecution adequately established the unbroken chain of custody over the marijuana seized from appellants.

The records show that the seized drugs were marked immediately upon confiscation by IO1 Mangili with his initials and signature, the
date, and the letters A, B, C or D to distinguish the bricks, in the presence of appellants. [26]

The seized drugs were brought, together with appellants, to the PDEA-CAR field office. IO1 Mangili acted in both capacities of
apprehending officer and investigating officer. IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta testified that they conducted the investigation and the
inventory.[27]

IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta also testified that it was their evidence custodian, Senior Police Officer 4 Abordo (SP04 Abordo), who
brought the seized drugs to the Crime Laboratory for examination.[28] A thorough review of the records reveals that the Request for
Laboratory Exam[29] shows that the seized drugs were delivered on 10 February 2010 by SP04 Abordo and received by Police Officer
2 Florendo and Police Senior Inspector Rowena Fajardo Canlas (PSI Canlas). PSI Canlas was the forensic chemist who conducted the
examination on the seized drugs and signed Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010[30] (chemistry report).

The chemistry report indicates that the "specimen submitted are retained in this laboratory for future reference." [31] Through
subpoena[32] upon PSI Canlas, the marijuana was brought to court and marked during the preliminary conference held on 7 April 2010.
[33]

Appellants contend that the prosecution's failure to discuss in detail each link in the chain of custody negated the integrity of the
evidence. This is misplaced:
49
x x x It must be remembered that testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible
to obtain an unbroken chain. As such, what is of importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items.  The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that
the evidence has been tampered.[34] (Emphasis supplied)

In People v. Mali,[35] we held:

The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. To sustain conviction, its identity must be
established in that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
[36]

In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the same drugs seized and marked by IO1 Mangili were the same ones he identified
at the trial.[37] Further, the records consistently show that the markings on the bricks of marijuana consisted of the initials and signature
of IO1 Mangili, the date and A, B, C, or D, as evidenced by the photograph[38] taken during the inventory and the chemistry report
describing the submitted specimen as follows:

A-One (1) carton knot tied with gray plastic straw labeled GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL with markings '02-10-2010 ELM and signature',
containing four (4) bricks of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops each wrapped with plastic and further wrapped with brown
packaging tape with the following markings and recorded net weights:

A-1 - [02-10-2010-A ELM and signature] = 2000.1 grams

A-2 = [02-10-2010-B ELM and signature] = 2158.3 grams
A-3 = [02-10-2010-C ELM and signature] = 2051.1 grams
A-4 = [02-10-2010-D ELM and signature] = 1971.5 grams[39]
(Emphasis supplied)

The presumption is that the PDEA agents performed their duties regularly. There being no evidence showing bad faith, ill will or
proof that the evidence has been tampered, we find that the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody. Consequently,
the corpus delicti was also established.

Warrantless Search and Seizure and Arrest

Although it was not raised as an error, it is imperative that we rule on the validity of the warrantless search and seizure and the
subsequent warrantless arrest of appellants.

It is well settled that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. No
less than the Constitution guarantees this right -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. [40]

Further, any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. [41] However, the rule
against warrantless searches and seizures admits of exceptions, such as the search of moving vehicles. In People v. Libnao,[42] the
Court held:

50
Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said
circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace
officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection.
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it
upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or
other vehicle contains a[n] item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction. [43]

Although the term eludes exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
charged; or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by law are in the place to be searched.[44] The determination of probable cause must be resolved according to the facts of
each case.[45]

The Court has ruled in several dangerous drug cases[46] that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless
search. In People v. Mariacos,[47] the police received at dawn information that a baggage of marijuna was loaded on a passenger
jeepney about to leave for the poblacion. There, the informant described the bag containing the prohibited drugs. The Court held that
the police had probable cause to search the packages allegedly containing illegal drugs.[48]

In the present case, the vehicle that carried the prohibited drugs was about to leave. The PDEA agents made a judgment call to act fast,
as time was of the essence. The team arrived at the terminal around 15 minutes [49] before the bus was scheduled to depart. Upon
boarding the bus, IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta identified two men fitting the description given by the informant in possession of a box
described[50]by the informant to contain marijuana.

Moreover, the PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion based on appellants' behavior that the latter were probably committing a crime.
IO1 Mangili casually asked appellant Yumol who owned the box at their (appellants') feet. After answering that it belonged to them
(appellants), Yumol suddenly stood up and tried to leave. IO1 Peralta prevented him from getting off the bus. Then IO1 Mangili asked
appellant Breis what was contained in the box. Instead of answering, Breis shoved IO1 Mangili and tried to flee. It must be noted that
IO1 Mangili identified himself as a PDEA agent before either appellant tried to leave the bus:

Q And you wanted to confirm your suspicion by asking from Gary Yumol who owns the box?

A Yes, sir.

Q And Gary Yumol, of course, did not give you any answer?

A He said that it is theirs.

Q Did you also talk to the companion of Gary Yumol?

A After Gary stood up suddenly I also spoke to Regie Breis.

Q And did he also give you any answer?

A He just pushed me and tried to leave the bus.

xxxx

Q Before you talked to Gary Yumol did you identify yourself as PDEA agents?

A When I asked him who owns the box, I then identified myself.

Q Did you ask them if you can see the contents of the box?

A I told Regie to open the box but he did not want that's why I was the one who opened it.

Q Gary Yumol according to you stood up?

A Yes, sir.

Q And when he stood up, he was held by Agent Peralta?

A Yes, sir.

51
Q And Regie Breis also stood up after you talked to him?

A Yes, sir.

Q But he was also held by Agent Peralta?

A I was the one who told him to sit down.

Q Before you told him to sit down did you introduce yourself as a PDEA agent?

A Yes, sir.[51] (Emphasis supplied)

Appellants' act of standing up to leave the bus under different circumstances may be natural; but it is not so in this case. In People v.
Aminnudin,[52] the warrantless arrest of Aminnudin based on an informant's tip that he was carrying marijuana was declared
unconstitutional because there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. There, the Court found that "[t]o all appearances, he
was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel."[53]

In contrast to the instant case, appellants were attempting to get out of a bus that was about to leave the terminal, and not one that had
just arrived, where the other passengers were, as can be expected, seated in preparation for departure. It is unnatural for passengers to
abruptly disembark from a departing bus, leaving their belongings behind. Any reasonable observer would be put on suspicion that
such persons are probably up to no good. To a trained law enforcement agent, it signaled the probability that appellants were
committing an offense and that the objects left behind might be contraband or even dangerous articles.

Indeed, as observed by the PDEA agents, appellants were not simply passengers carrying a box in a bus. They engaged in suspicious
behavior when they tried to flee after IO1 Mangili showed interest in their box and identified himself as a PDEA agent. Worse, in his
attempt at flight, Breis pushed IO1 Mangili, already knowing that the latter was a PDEA agent. This brazen act on the part of Breis
only cemented the belief that appellants were likely hiding a wrongdoing and avoiding capture by law enforcers.

The act of Breis in physically pushing IO1 Mangili and attempting to flee constitutes resistance defined under Article 151 of the
Revised Penal Cjode (RPC).[54] Before a person can be held guilty of the crime of resistance or disobedience to a person in authority, it
must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the person he disobeyed or resisted is a person in authority or the
agent of such person who is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. [55]

As a PDEA agent, IO1 Mangili is a law enforcement agent and as such is an agent of a person in authority as defined in the RPC.
[56]
 IO1 Mangili was in the act of investigating a lead, and possibly apprehending violators of RA 9165, in accordance with the
mandate of the PDEA.[57] He announced his identity as such agent to appellants. It may even be gleaned that knowing that IO1 Mangili
was a PDEA agent was precisely the cause of the attempted flight of appellants.

The laying of hands or using physical force against agents of persons in authority when not serious in nature constitutes resistance or
disobedience under Article 151, and not direct assault under Article 148 of the RPC.[58] This is because the gravity of the disobedience
to an order of a person in authority or his agent is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it and the
real importance of the transgression, rather than the source of the order disobeyed. [59] The pushing of IO1 Mangili is not of such
serious defiance to be considered direct assault, but is resistance nonetheless.

The Court has held justified resistance to illegal or abusive acts of agents of persons in authority. In Chan Fook,[60] the Court quoted
Groizard:

A person in authority, his agent or a public officer who exceeds his power can not be said to be in the exercise of the functions of his
office. The law that defines and establishes his powers does not protect him for anything that has not been provided for.

The scope of the respective powers of public officers and their agents is fixed. If they go beyond it and they violate any recognized
rights of the citizens, then the latter may resist the invasion, specially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance must be coextensive
with the excess, and should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression.

The invasion of the prerogatives or rights of another and the excess in the functions of an office, are the sources that make for
legitimate resistance, especially, in so far as it is necessary for the defense of the persons or their rights in the manner provided for in
article 8 of the Penal Code.[61]

Unlike the officer in Chan Fook, IO1 Mangili did not exceed his authority in the performance of his duty. Prior to Breis' resistance,
IO1 Mangili laid nary a finger on Breis or Yumol. Neither did his presence in the bus constitute an excess of authority. The bus is
52
public transportation, and is open to the public. The expectation of privacy in relation to the constitutional right against unreasonable
searches in a public bus is not the same as that in a person's dwelling. In fact, at that point in time, only the bus was being searched,
not Yumol, Breis, or their belongings, and the search of moving vehicles has been upheld.

Moreover, appellants are not in any position to claim protection of the right against unreasonable searches as to the warrantless search
of the bus. The pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court (USSC) in Rakas v. Illinois[62] regarding the Fourth Amendment
rights[63] is instructive:

Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights, which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted. A person
who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third
person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt
to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have
been violated to benefit from the rule's protections.[64] (Citations omitted)

It being established that IO1 Mangili was not in violation of Yumol's or Breis' rights as he was searching the bus, there is no excess of
authority, clear and manifest or otherwise, for either Yumol or Breis to lawfully resist. Hence, the act of Breis in pushing IO1 Mangili
was an unlawful resistance to an agent of a person in authority, contrary to Article 151 of the RPC.

Breis' commission of a crime in view of, and against IO1 Mangili, and proclivity for resorting to acts of violence further justify the
warrantless search of appellants.

A further point. Appellants each attempted to alight from a departing bus, leaving behind their belongings. They may be deemed to
have abandoned the box in their flight. A thing is considered abandoned and possession thereof lost if the spes recuperandi (the hope
of recovery) is gone and the animus revertendi (the intention of returning) is finally given up.[65] That appellants got up to leave a
departing bus without bringing their box points to the absence of both spes recuperandi and animus revertendi. Indeed, although their
flight was thwarted by the PDEA agents, both appellants intended to leave the box behind without returning for it. Abandonment has
the effect of converting a thing into res nullius.[66]

In the United States, abandoned articles, such as those thrown away, are considered bona vacantia, and may be lawfully searched and
seized by law enforcement authorities.[67] Put to question in Abel v. United States[68] was the admissibility of incriminating articles,
which had been thrown away, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered without warrant. The USSC held that the articles
were abandoned and that there was nothing unlawful in the government's appropriation of such abandoned property. [69] In Hester v.
United States,[70] defendants and his associates ran away from officers, and in the process discarded a jar and a jug. The USSC held no
Fourth Amendment violation occurred when officers examined the contents of the discarded items without warrant. [71] In California v.
Hodari,[12] police officers, without warrant, pursued defendant who threw a rock of cocaine into an alley as he was running. The USSC
upheld the admissibility of the abandoned cocaine.[73]

Applied analogously, there is no objectionable warrantless search and seizure of the box of marijuana abandoned in the bus by
appellants.

Given the above discussion, it is readily apparent that the search in this case is valid.

Having been found with prohibited drugs in their possession, appellants were clearly committing a criminal offense in the presence of
IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta. The subsequent warrantless arrest falls under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

xxxx

Hence, the warrantless arrest of appellants is lawful.

Defenses of Denial and Frame-Up

53
Appellants' defenses of denial and frame-up were disbelieved by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. It is a settled rule that
the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. [74] We find
no reason to deviate from this rule.

The defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the positive and categorical assertions of the PDEA agents who were
strangers to appellants and against whom no ill-motive was established.[75] Further, such defenses failed to overcome the documentary
and physical evidence presented by the prosecution.

In light of the foregoing, appellants' conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is in order.

Penalty for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs

The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is provided in Section of RA 9165:

SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) 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:

xxxx

7) 500 grams or more of marijuana;

xxxx

The penalty imposed upon appellants is in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 26 June 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
04916, affirming the Decision dated 14 February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio City in Criminal Case No.
30409-R, isAFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014 ]

JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

SERENO, C.J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, filed by petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz, from the Decision[1] dated 22 June 2011 issued by
the Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) and Resolution[2] dated 2 February 2012 issued by the Former Twentieth
Division of the CA in CA- G.R. C.R. No. 00670.

THE ANTECEDENT FACTS

Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman
Visayas, in an Information[3] dated 14 February 2006, which reads:

54
That on or about the 31st day of January 2006, at Cebu City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named  accused, JAIME D. DE LA CRUZ, a public officer, having been duly appointed and qualified to such public position
as Police Officer 2 of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned in the Security Service Group of the Cebu City Police Office,
after having been arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in an entrapment operation, was found positive for
use of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE commonly known as "Shabu", the dangerous drug after a confirmatory test
conducted on said accused.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned, petitioner, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The records do not reveal whether De la
Cruz was likewise charged for extortion.

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

The evidence of the prosecution reveals that at 8:00 a.m. of 31 January 2006, the agents and special investigators of the National
Bureau of Investigation, Central Visayas Regional Office (NBI-CEVRO) or simply NBI, received a Complaint from Corazon Absin
(Corazon) and Charito Escobido (Charito). The complainants claimed that at 1:00 a.m. of that same day, Ariel Escobido (Ariel), the
live-in partner of Corazon and son of Charito, was picked up by several unknown male persons believed to be police officers for
allegedly selling drugs. An errand boy gave a number to the complainants, and when the latter gave the number a ring, they were
instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located along Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. In the said police office, they met
"James" who demanded from them ?100,000, later lowered to ?40,000, in exchange for the release of Ariel. After the meeting, the
complainants proceeded to the NBI-CEVRO to file a complaint and narrate the circumstances of the meeting to the authorities. While
at the NBI-CEVRO, Charito even received calls supposedly from "James" instructing her to bring the money as soon as possible.

The special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO verified the text messages received by the complainants. A team was immediately
formed to implement an entrapment operation, which took place inside a Jollibee branch at the corner of Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo
Avenues, Cebu City. The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by using a pre-marked ?500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder,
which was made part of the amount demanded by "James" and handed by Corazon. Petitioner was later brought to the forensic
laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO where forensic examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner was
required to submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the
confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology (Dangerous Drugs) Report No. 2006-TDD-2402 dated 16 February 2006.

VERSION OF THE DEFENSE

The defense presented petitioner as the lone witness. He denied the charges and testified that while eating at the said Jollibee branch,
he was arrested allegedly for extortion by NBI agents. When he was at the NBI Office, he was required to extract urine for drug
examination, but he refused saying he wanted it to be done by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory and not by the
NBI. His request was, however, denied. He also requested to be allowed to call his lawyer prior to the taking of his urine sample, to no
avail.

THE RULING OF THE RTC

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 58 of Cebu City, in its Decision[4] dated 6 June 2007, found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of compulsory rehabilitation
for a period of not less than six (6) months at the Cebu Center for the Ultimate Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents located at Salinas,
Lahug, Cebu City.[5]

Petitioner filed an appeal assigning as error the RTC's validation of the result of the urine test despite its dubiousness having been
admitted in spite of the lack of legal basis for its admission. First, he alleges that the forensic laboratory examination was conducted
despite the fact that he was not assisted by counsel, in clear violation of his constitutional right. Secondly, he was allegedly held guilty
beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the lack of sufficient basis to convict him.

55
 THE RULING OF THE CA

The CA found the appeal devoid of merit and affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

Petitioner filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration. He argued that the CA overlooked prevailing jurisprudence, which states that
drug testing conducted under circumstances similar to his would violate a person's right to privacy. The appellate court nevertheless
denied the motion.

Petitioner thus filed the present Petition for Review on certiorari. He assigns as errors the use of hearsay evidence as basis for his
conviction and the questionable circumstances surrounding his arrest and drug test.

Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment, [6] saying that "petitioner's arguments cannot be the subject
of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, as they  involve questions of facts which may not be the subject thereof; after his
arraignment, he can no longer contest the validity of his arrest, less so at this stage of the proceedings; his guilt has been adequately
established by direct evidence; and the manner in which the laboratory examination was conducted was grounded on a valid and
existing law.

THE ISSUE

We deem it proper to give due course to this Petition by confronting head-on the issue of whether or not the drug test conducted upon
the petitioner is legal.

OUR RULING

We declare that the drug test conducted upon petitioner is not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence.

We gloss over petitioner's non-compliance with the Resolution[7] ordering him to submit clearly legible duplicate originals or certified
true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution.

Petitioner was charged with use of dangerous drugs in violation of the law, the pertinent provision of which reads:

Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug,
after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first
offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall
suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty
thousand pesos (?50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (?200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where
the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this
Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.[8]

The RTC subsequently convicted petitioner, ruling that the following elements of Section 15 were established: (1) the accused was
arrested; (2) the accused was subjected to drug test; and (3) the confirmatory test shows that he used a dangerous drug.

Disregarding petitioner's objection regarding the admissibility of the evidence, the lower court also reasoned that "a suspect cannot
invoke his right to counsel when he is required to extract urine because, while he is already in custody, he is not compelled to make a
statement or testimony against himself. Extracting urine from one's body is merely a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept
of a custodial investigation."

We find the ruling and reasoning of the trial court, as well as the subsequent affirmation by the CA, erroneous on three counts.

The drug test in Section 15 does not cover

persons apprehended or arrested for any
unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts
listed under Article II of R.A. 9165.

56
First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime.The
phrase must be read in context and understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or
apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.

Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons who are apprehended or arrested for, among others, the "importation,"[9] "sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation",[10] "manufacture"[11] and "possession"[12] of dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession thereof "during parties, social gatherings or meetings" [13]; being
"employees and visitors of a den, dive or  resort";[14] "maintenance of a den, dive or resort";[15] "illegal chemical diversion of controlled
precursors and essential chemicals"[16]; "manufacture or delivery"[17] or "possession"[18] of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession of dangerous drugs "during
parties, social gatherings or meetings"[19]; "unnecessary"[20] or "unlawful"[21] prescription thereof; "cultivation or culture of plants
classified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof";[22]and "maintenance and keeping of original records of transactions on dangerous
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals."[23]To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended
for any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning. Note that accused appellant here was arrested
in the alleged act of extortion.

A charge for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 is seen as expressive of the intent of the law to rehabilitate persons apprehended or
arrested for the unlawful acts enumerated above instead of charging and convicting them of other crimes with heavier penalties. The
essence of the provision is more clearly illustrated in People v. Martinez[24]as follows:

On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be instructive on Sec. 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Sec. 15 (Use of
Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This Court notes the practice of law
enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in
the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11.  Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with
the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided that
there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for
the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug
use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone
would frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance
at life.

In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the accused were
found positive for use of dangerous drugs.  Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained admissible, and the chain of
custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there
was no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 14 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum penalty under
Sec. 12(Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any
person who shall possess any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the
maximum penalty is imprisonment of four years and a fine of P50,000.00.  In fact, under the same section, the possession of such
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the possessor has used a dangerous drug and shall be
presumed to have violated Sec. 15.

In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls on law enforcers and
prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs is
only and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs.
In such cases, to afford the accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of dangerous drugs
should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the possession of the
accused as provided for in Sec. 15. (Emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, making the phrase "a person apprehended or arrested" in Section 15 applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for
unlawful acts, not only under R.A. 9165 but for all other crimes, is tantamount to a mandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended
or arrested for any crime. To overextend the application of this provision would run counter to our pronouncement in Social Justice
Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency,[25]to wit:

x x x [M]andatory drug testing can never be random and suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are
antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion.
When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The persons
thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor's office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that

57
be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy. To impose mandatory drug testing on
the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of
RA 6195. Drug testing in this case would violate a person's right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the
Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves. (Emphasis supplied)

The drug test is not covered by

allowable non-testimonial
compulsion.

We find that petitioner never raised the alleged irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment and raises the issue only now before
this tribunal; hence, he is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest curing whatever defect may have
attended his arrest.[26] However, "a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during an illegal warrantless arrest."[27]

We are aware of the prohibition against testimonial compulsion and the allowable exceptions to such proscription. Cases where non-
testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal, however, that the pieces of evidence obtained were all material to the principal
cause of the arrest.

The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are
not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not
required. (People vs. Olvis, 238 Phil. 513 [1987]) The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is,
the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. (People vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992]; People vs. Tranca, 235
SCRA 455 [1994]; People vs. Rondero, 378 Phil. 123 [1999]) Hence, it has been held that a woman charged with adultery may be
compelled to submit to physical examination to determine her pregnancy; (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 [1920]) and an accused
may be compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a substance taken from his body for medical determination as to
whether he was suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim;(U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 [1912]) to expel
morphine from his mouth; (U.S. vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 [1917]) to have the outline of his foot traced to determine its identity
with bloody footprints; (U.S. vs. Salas, 25 Phil. 337 [1913]; U.S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 [1921]) and to be photographed or measured,
or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.(People vs. Otadora, 86
Phil. 244 [1950]) [28]  (Emphasis supplied)

In the instant case, we fail to see how a urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion. The RTC and the CA, therefore,
both erred when they held that the extraction of petitioner's urine for purposes of drug testing was "merely a mechanical act, hence,
falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation."

We note a case where a urine sample was considered as admissible. In Gutang v. People,[29] the petitioner therein and his companions
were arrested in connection with the enforcement of a search warrant in his residence. A PNP-NARCOM team found and
confiscated shabu materials and paraphernalias. The petitioner and his companions in that case were also asked to give urine samples,
which yielded positive results. Later, the petitioner therein was found guilty of the crime of illegal possession and use of prohibited
drugs. Gutang claimed that the latter's urine sample was inadmissible in evidence, since it was derived in effect from an uncounselled
extrajudicial confession.

In the Gutang et al. case, the Court clarified that "what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material." The situation in Gutang was
categorized as falling among the exemptions under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what was sought to be examined
came from the body of the accused. The Court said:

This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain
physical attributes determinable by simple observation. In fact, the record shows that petitioner and his co-accused were not compelled
to give samples of their urine but they in fact voluntarily gave the same when they were requested to undergo a drug test.

Assuming arguendo that the urine samples taken from the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence, we agree with the trial court that the
record is replete with other pieces of credible evidence including the testimonial evidence of the prosecution which point to the
culpability of the petitioner for the crimes charged.

We emphasize that the circumstances in Gutang are clearly different from the circumstances of petitioner in the instant case.  First,
58
Gutang was arrested in relation to a drug case. Second, he volunteered to give his urine. Third, there were other pieces of evidence that
point to his culpability for the crimes charged. In the present case, though, petitioner was arrested for extortion; he resisted having his
urine sample taken; and finally, his urine sample was the only available evidence that was used as basis for his conviction for the use
of illegal drugs.

The drug test was a violation of

petitioner's right to privacy and
right against self-incrimination. 

It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his
urine test. He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile, because he was still compelled to submit his
urine for drug testing under those circumstances.

The pertinent provisions in Article III of the Constitution are clear:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

In the face of these constitutional guarantees, we cannot condone drug testing of all arrested persons regardless of the crime or offense
for which the arrest is being made.

While we express our commendation of law enforcement agents as they vigorously track down offenders in their laudable effort to
curb the pervasive and deleterious effects of dangerous drugs on our society, they must, however, be constantly mindful of the
reasonable limits of their authority, because it is not unlikely that in their clear intent to purge society of its lawless elements, they may
be knowingly or unknowingly transgressing the protected rights of its citizens including even members of its own police force.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated  22 June 2011 issued by the Twentieth Division, and the Resolution
dated   2 February 2012 issued by the former Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 00670 are SET
ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 231989, September 04, 2018 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:
On appeal is the February 23, 2017 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01280-MIN, which affirmed the
September 24, 2013 Decision[2]  of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2010-1073
and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda (Lim) guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of Article II
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In an Information dated October 21, 2010, Lim was charged with illegal possession of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu),committed as follows:

That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous
drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total
weight of 0.02 gram, accused well-knowing that the substance recovered from his possession is a dangerous drug.

Contrary to, and in violation of, Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.[3]

59
On even date, Lim, together with his stepson, Eldie Gorres y Nave (Gorres), was also indicted for illegal sale of shabu, committed as
follows:

That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another,
without being authorized by law to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell and/or offer for sale, and give
away to a PDEA Agent acting as poseur-buyer One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine
hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.02 gram, accused knowing the same to be a
dangerous drug, in consideration of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) consisting of one piece five hundred peso bill, with Serial No.
FZ386932, which was previously marked and recorded for the purpose of the buy-bust operation.

Contrary to Section 5, Paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.[4]

In their arraignment, Lim and Gorres pleaded not guilty.[5] They were detained in the city jail during the joint trial of the cases. [6]

The prosecution presented Intelligence Officer (IO) 1 Albert Orellan, IO1 Nestle Carin, IO2 Vincent Orcales, and Police Senior
Inspector (PSI) Charity Caceres. Aside from both accused, Rubenia Gorres testified for the defense.

Version of the Prosecution

Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at Regional Office X of the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA). Based on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited
drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City, they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. Edwin Layese, to
gather for a buy-bust operation. During the briefing, IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan, and IOl Carin were assigned as the team leader, the
arresting officer/back-up/evidence custodian, and the poseur-buyer, respectively. The team prepared a P500.00 bill as buy-bust money
(with its serial number entered in the PDEA blotter), the Coordination Form for the nearest police station, and other related
documents.

Using their service vehicle, the team left the regional office about 15 minutes before 10:00 p.m. and arrived in the target area at 10:00
p.m., more or less. IO1 Carin and the CI alighted from the vehicle near the comer leading to the house of "Romy," while IO1 Orellan
and the other team members disembarked a few meters after and positioned themselves in the area to observe. IO1 Carin and the CI
turned at the comer and stopped in front of a house. The CI knocked at the door and uttered, "ayo, nang Romy. " Gorres came out and
invited them to enter. Inside, Lim was sitting on the sofa while watching the television. When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as
a shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get one inside the bedroom. Gorres stood up and did as instructed. After he came out,
he handed a small medicine box to Lim, who then took one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin.
In turn, IO1 Carin paid him with the buy-bust money.

After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was the pre-arranged signal. The latter,
with the rest of the team members, immediately rushed to Lim's house. When they arrived, IO1 Carin and the CI were standing near
the door. They then entered the house because the gate was opened. IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents and informed
Lim and Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of their arrest for selling dangerous drug. They were ordered to put their hands on their
heads and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them. Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a body search on
both.

When he frisked Lim, no deadly weapon was found, but something was bulging in his pocket. IOl Orellan ordered him to pull it out.
Inside the pocket were the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box about 3x4 inches in size. They could see that it
contained a plastic sachet of a white substance. As for Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was seized.

IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance, and a disposable lighter. IOl
Carin turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets.
Despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of the representative from the media and barangay officials, nobody arrived to
witness the inventory-taking.

The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with IO1 Orellan in possession of the seized items. Upon
arrival, they "booked" the two accused and prepared the letters requesting for the laboratory examination on the drug evidence and for
the drug test on the arrested suspects as well as the documents for the filing of the case. Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the Inventory
Receipt of the confiscated items. It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also, there was no signature of an elected public official and
the representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media as witnesses. Pictures of both accused and the evidence seized
were taken.

The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug specimens to Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10.
IO1 Orellan was in possession of the sachets of shabu from the regional office to the crime lab. PSI Caceres, who was a Forensic
Chemist, and Police Officer 2 (PO2) Bajas[7] personally received the letter-requests and the two pieces of heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PSI Caceres got urine samples from Lim and Gorres and conducted screening
and confirmatory tests on them. Based on her examination, only Lim was found positive for the presence of shabu. The result was
shown in Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM-196 and 197-2010. With respect to the two sachets of white crystalline substance, both
were found to be positive ofshabu after a chromatographic examination was conducted by PSI Caceres. Her findings were reflected in
Chemistry Report No. D-228-2010. PSI Caceres, likewise, put her own marking on the cellophane containing the two sachets
of shabu. After that, she gave them to the evidence custodian. As to the buy-bust money, the arresting team turned it over to the
fiscal's office during the inquest.

60
 Version of the Defense

Around 10:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, Lim and Gorres were in their house in Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City. Lim was
sleeping in the bedroom, while Gorres was watching the television. When the latter heard that somebody jumped over their gate, he
stood up to verify. Before he could reach the door, however, it was already forced opened by the repeated pulling and kicking of men
in civilian clothing. They entered the house, pointed their firearms at him, instructed him to keep still, boxed his chest, slapped his
ears, and handcuffed him. They inquired on where the shabu was, but he invoked his innocence. When they asked the whereabouts of
"Romy," he answered that he was sleeping inside the bedroom. So the men went there and kicked the door open. Lim was then
surprised as a gun was pointed at his head. He questioned them on what was it all about, but he was told to keep quiet. The men let
him and Gorres sit on a bench. Lim was apprised of his Miranda rights. Thereafter, the two were brought to the PDEA Regional Office
and the crime laboratory. During the inquest proceedings, Lim admitted, albeit without the assistance of a counsel, ownership of the
two sachets of shabu because he was afraid that the police would imprison him. Like Gorres, he was not involved in drugs at the time
of his arrest. Unlike him, however, he was previously arrested by the PDEA agents but was acquitted in the case. Both Lim and Gorres
acknowledged that they did not have any quarrel with the PDEA agents and that neither do they have grudges against them or vice-
versa.

Rubenia, Lim's live-in partner and the mother of Gorres, was at her sister's house in Pita, Pasil, Kauswagan the night when the arrests
were made. The following day, she returned home and noticed that the door was opened and its lock was destroyed. She took pictures
of the damage and offered the same as exhibits for the defense, which the court admitted as part of her testimony.

RTC Ruling

After trial, the RTC handed a guilty verdict on Lim for illegal possession and sale of shabu and acquitted Gorres for lack of sufficient
evidence linking him as a conspirator. The fallo of the September 24, 2013 Decision states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds that:

1. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1073, accused ROMY  LIM y MIRANDA is hereby found GUILTY of violating Section 11, Article II
of R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve [12] years and one [1] day to thirteen
[13] years, and to pay Fine in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos [P300,000.00] without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of non-payment of Fine;

2. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1074, accused ROMY LIM y MIRANDA is hereby found GUILTY of violating Section 5, Article II of
R.A. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay the Fine in the amount of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00].

3. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1074, accused ELDIE GORRES y NAVE is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged for failure of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Warden of the BJMP having custody of ELDIE GORRES y Nave, is
hereby directed to immediately release him from detention unless he is being charged of other crimes which will justify his continued
incarceration.[8]
With regard to the illegal possession of a sachet of shabu, the RTC held that the weight of evidence favors the positive testimony of
IO1 Orellan over the feeble and uncorroborated denial of Lim. As to the sale of shabu, it ruled that the prosecution was able to
establish the identity of the buyer, the seller, the money paid to the seller, and the delivery of the shabu. The testimony of IO1 Carin
was viewed as simple, straightforward and without any hesitation or prevarication as she detailed in a credible manner the buy-bust
transaction that occurred. Between the two conflicting versions that are poles apart, the RTC found the prosecution evidence worthy of
credence and no reason to disbelieve in the absence of an iota of malice, ill-will, revenge or resentment preceding and pervading the
arrest of Lim. On the chain of custody of evidence, it was accepted with moral certainty that the PDEA operatives were able to
preserve the integrity and probative value of the seized items.

In so far as Gorres is concerned, the RTC opined that the evidence presented were not strong enough to support the claim that there
was conspiracy between him and Lim because it was insufficiently shown that he knew what the box contained. It also noted
Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM   196 & 197-2010, which indicated that Gorres was "NEGATIVE" of the presence of any illicit drug
based on his urine sample.

CA Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. It agreed with the finding of the trial court that the prosecution adequately established
all the elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drug as the collective evidence presented during the trial showed that a valid buy-bust
operation was conducted. Likewise, all the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug was proven. Lim resorted to denial and
could not present any proof or justification that he was fully authorized by law to possess the same. The CA was unconvinced with his
contention that the prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the seized prohibited drugs. For the appellate court, it was
able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs were not compromised. The witnesses for the
prosecution were able to testify on every link in the chain of custody, establishing the crucial link in the chain from the time the seized
items were first discovered until they were brought for examination and offered in evidence in court. Anent Lim's defense of denial
and frame-up, the CA did not appreciate the same due to lack of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired
by an improper motive. Instead. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was applied.

Before Us, both Lim and the People manifested that they would no longer file a Supplemental Brief, taking into account the thorough

61
and substantial discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before the CA.[9] Essentially, Lim maintains that the case
records are bereft of evidence showing that the buy-bust team followed the procedure mandated in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165.

Our Ruling

The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and Lim should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

At the time of the commission of the crimes, the law applicable is R.A. No. 9165.[10]  Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements the law, defines chain of custody as-

the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of
the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.[11] 
The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into
evidence.[12]  To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the proponent needs only to prove a rational
basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what the party claims it to be. [13]  In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution
must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is what the government claims it
to be.[14]  Specifically in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established federal evidentiary rule in the United States is that when
the evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by tampering or contamination, courts require a more stringent
foundation entailing a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has
either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.[15] This was adopted in Mallillin v. People,[16] where this
Court also discussed how, ideally, the chain of custody of seized items should be established:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.[17]
Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. [18]

Seizure and marking of the illegal

drug as well as the turnover by the
apprehending officer to the
investigating officer

Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 states:

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[.][19]
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
mandates:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. [20]
On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. Among other modifications, it essentially incorporated the
saving clause contained in the IRR, thus:

(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 phyical inventory
62
of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
In her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, which eventually became R.A. No. 10640, Senator Grace Poe admitted 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
increasing drug addiction and also, in the conflicting decisions of the courts."[21] Specifically, she cited that "compliance with the rule
on witnesses during the physical inventory is difficult. For one, media representatives are not always available in all comers of the
Philippines, especially in more remote areas. For another, there were instances where elected barangay officials themselves were
involved in the punishable acts apprehended. "[22] In addition, "[t]he requirement that inventory is required to be done in police station
is also very limiting. Most police stations appeared to be far from locations where accused persons were apprehended." [23]

Similarly, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III manifested that in view of the substantial number of acquittals in drug-related cases due to the
varying interpretations of the prosecutors and the 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." [24]  In his Co-sponsorship Speech, he
noted:

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 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 seized illegal drugs.

xxxx

Section 21(a) of RA 9165 needs 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 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 enforement 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
wherein 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. [25]
We have held that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused in
instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are
threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a
counter-assault.[26]The present case is not one of those.

Here, IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance, and a disposable
lighter. IO1 Carin also turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the
two plastic sachets. IO1 Orellan testified that he immediately conducted the marking and physical inventory of the two sachets
of shabu.[27] To ensure that they were not interchanged, he separately marked the item sold by Lim to IO1 Carin and the one that he
recovered from his possession upon body search as BB AEO 10-19-10 and AEO-RI 10-19-10, respectively, with both bearing his
initial/signature.[28]

Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the media to witness the physical
inventory and photograph of the seized items.[29] In fact, their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt.

The Court stressed in People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro:[30]

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. 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. Strict adherence to
Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or
alteration of evidence.[31]

63
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug
seized was not obtained due to reason/s 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 was 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
the period required under Article 125 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.[32]
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos[33] requires:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a
justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnessesunder Section
21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, 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." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact
the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non- compliance. 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 full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As
such, police officers are compelled not only to state 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 circumstances, their actions were
reasonable.[34]
In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived at the crime scene because it was late at
night and it was raining, making it unsafe for them to wait at Lim's house. [35] IO2 Orcales similarly declared that the inventory was
made in the PDEA office considering that it was late in the evening and there were no available media representative and barangay
officials despite their effort to contact them.[36] He admitted that there are times when they do not inform the barangay officials prior to
their operation as they. might leak the confidential information.[37] We are of the view that these justifications are unacceptable as there
was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.

The testimony of team-leader IO2 Orcales negates any effort on the part of the buy-bust team to secure the presence of a barangay
official during the operation:

ATTY. DEMECILLO:
xxxx
Q x x x Before going to the house of the accused, why did you not contact a barangay official to witness the operation?
A There are reasons why we do not inform a barangay official before our operation, Sir.
Q Why?
A We do not contact them because we do not trust them. They might leak our information.[38]
The prosecution likewise failed to explain why they did not secure the presence of a representative from the Department the arresting
officer, IO1 Orellan, stated in his Affidavit that they only tried to coordinate with the barangay officials and the media, the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses failed to show that they tried to contact a DOJ representative.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure
presence of the required witnesses. They also failed to explain why the buy-bust team felt "unsafe" in waiting for the representatives in
Lim's house, considering that the team is composed of at least ten (10) members, and the two accused were the only persons in the
house.

It bears emphasis that the rule that strict adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and
its IRR may be excused as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved applies not
just on arrest and/or seizure by reason of a legitimate buy-bust operation but also on those lawfully made in air or sea port, detention
cell or national penitentiary, checkpoint, moving vehicle, local or international package/parcel/mail, or those by virtue of a consented
search, stop and frisk (Terry search), search incident to a lawful arrest, or application of plain view doctrine where time is of the
essence and the arrest and/or seizure is/are not planned, arranged or scheduled in advance.

To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are typically made without a warrant;
hence, subject to inquest proceedings. Relative thereto, Sections 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and
Regulations directs:

A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as
amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units
other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be presented. [39]
While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most cases elevated before Us. Thus, in
order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the
following should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:

64
 1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of
Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation
therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated
items.

3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must
not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in
order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a
commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5,
[40]

Rule 112, Rules of Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February 23, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01280-MIN,
which affirmed the September 24, 2013 Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Cases Nos.
2010-1073 and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda
is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being
lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte, for
immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this
Decision the action he has taken.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, as well as to the Head/Chief of the National
Prosecution Service, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Public Attorney's Office, the Philippine National Police, the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and
guidance. Likewise, the Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to DISSEMINATE copies of this Decision to all trial
courts, including the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

65