G.R. No. 202709. July 3, 2013.

*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROMEO ONIZA y ONG and MERCY
ONIZA y CABARLE, appellants.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule; Buy-Bust Operations; Compliance
with the procedures in keeping custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, especially the
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.

724

72 SUPREME
4 COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Oniza
required physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, the
media, and responsible government functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police had carried out
a legitimate buy-bust operation.―The law prescribes certain procedures in keeping custody and
disposition of seized dangerous drugs like the shabu that the police supposedly confiscated from Romeo
and Mercy on June 16, 2004. Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 reads: 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; x x x. (Emphasis supplied) Compliance with the above, especially the required
physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, the media, and
responsible government functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police had carried out a legitimate
buy-bust operation. Here, the prosecution was unable to adduce such evidence, indicating that the police
officers did not at all comply with prescribed procedures. Worse, they offered no excuse or explanation at
the hearing of the case for their blatant omission of what the law required of them.
Same; Same; Same; The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty
formalities — these are safeguards against abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion.―The police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or justification for their failure to
make an inventory and take pictures of the drugs immediately after their seizure in the presence of the
accused and the other persons designated by the law.
725

VOL. 700, 725

JULY 3, 2013
People vs. Oniza
Both the RTC and the CA misapprehended the significance of such omission. It is imperative for the
prosecution to establish a justifiable cause for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by
law. The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty formalities — these are
safeguards against abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for appellants.
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the need to absolve the accused of the charges against them because of the
police officers’ outright failure without any justification to abide by the law governing the
conduct of seizure operations involving dangerous drugs.
The Facts and the Case
On June 21, 2004 the Public Prosecutors Office of Rizal filed separate charges of possession
of dangerous drugs1 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rizal, Branch 2, against the
accused spouses Romeo in Criminal Case 7598 and Mercy Oniza in Criminal Case 7599. The
prosecution further charged the spouses with selling dangerous drugs in Criminal Case 7600, all
allegedly in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The prosecution’s version is that at about 9:30 p.m. on June 16, 2004, PO1 Reynaldo M.
Albarico, PO1 Fortunato P. Jiro III, and PO1 Jose Gordon Antonio of the Rodriguez Police
Station in Rizal received information from a police asset that
_______________
1 The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

726
72 SUPREME COURT
6 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Oniza
accused Mercy Oniza was selling dangerous drugs at Phase 1-D Kasiglahan Village, Barangay
San Jose.2 They immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. After coordinating
its action with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the police team proceeded to
Kasiglahan Village on board an owner-type jeep. They brought with them two pieces of pre-
marked P100 bills.3
On arrival at the place, the team members positioned themselves at about 15 to 20 meters
from where they spotted Mercy Oniza and a male companion, later identified as her accused
husband Romeo Oniza. The police informant approached Mercy and initiated the purchase.4 He
handed the two marked P100 bills to her which she in turn gave to Romeo. 5 After pocketing the
money, the latter took out a plastic sachet of white crystalline substance from his pocket and
gave it to the informant. The latter then scratched his head as a signal for the police officers to
make an arrest.6
The police officers came out of concealment to arrest Mercy and Romeo. 7 On seeing the
police officers, however, the two quickly ran into their house, joined by Valentino Cabarle
(separately charged) who had earlier stood nearby, and locked the door behind them. The officers
rammed the door open to get in. They apprehended Mercy, Romeo, and Valentino. 8 Officer Jiro
recovered four heat-sealed plastic sachets believed to contain shabu from Mercy. Officer
Albarico retrieved two marked P100 bills and a similar plastic sachet from Romeo. Officer
Antonio seized an identical sachet from Valentino.9
_______________
2 Records, p. 9.
3 TSN, August 3, 2006, pp. 3-5.
 4 Supra note 2.
5 Id.; TSN, August 3, 2006, p. 8.
6 Supra note 2.
7 Id.
8 TSN, April 11, 2005, p. 7.
9 Supra note 2.

727
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 727
2013
People vs. Oniza
The police officers brought their three captives to the police station for investigation and
booking. Officer Jiro marked all the items the police seized and had these brought to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. 10 After forensic chemical
analysis, the contents of the sachets proved to be shabu.11
The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the specimens that PO1 Annalee R. Forro, a
PNP forensic chemical officer, examined were methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). They
further stipulated, however, that Officer Forro “could not testify on the source and origin of the
subject specimens that she had examined.” 12 As a result, PO1 Forro did not testify and only her
report was adduced by the prosecution as evidence.
The evidence for the accused shows, on the other hand, that at around 9:30 p.m. on June 16,
2004, the spouses Mercy and Romeo were asleep at their home when Mercy was suddenly
awakened by the voice of Belen Morales calling on her from outside the house. As Mercy
peeped through the window, Belen told her that the police had arrested and mauled Mercy’s
brother, Valentino. Mercy hurriedly ran out of the house to find out what had happened to her
brother.13
When Mercy got to where Valentino was, she saw some police officers forcibly getting him
into an owner-type jeep while Zenaida Cabarle, Mercy and Valentino’s mother, kept pulling him
out of the owner-type jeep. When Mercy approached Valentino, the police officers told her to
accompany him to the police station. This prompted her to shout for her husband’s help.14
_______________
10 Supra note 8, at pp. 8, 11.
11 Records, p. 15.
12 Id., at pp. 78-79.
13 TSN, January 21, 2008, pp. 4-5.
14 Id., at pp. 5-6.

728
72 SUPREME COURT
8 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Oniza
Meanwhile, when Romeo had awakened, he came out of the house, and saw two police
officers in black jackets, Albarico and Antonio, who approached him. They seized and shoved
him into the owner-type jeep to join Mercy and Valentino. Romeo noticed that Valentino was
grimacing in pain, having been beaten up by the police.15
At the police station, the police officers asked their three captives to produce P30,000.00 in
exchange for their release.16 Officer Antonio took out something from his pocket, showed it to
them, and told them that he would use it to press charges against them. Afterwards, PO1 Antonio
took Mercy to the kitchen room and hit her head with two pieces of pot covers (“pinompyang”).17
Nearly after five years of trial or on April 2, 2009 the RTC rendered a decision 18 that found
Romeo and Mercy guilty of possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Cases 7598 and 7599,
respectively, and imposed on them both the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20
years and a fine of P300,000.00. Further, the trial court found them guilty of selling dangerous
drugs in Criminal Case 7600 and imposed on them both the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of P500,000.00. The trial court, however, acquitted Valentino of the separate charge of
possession of dangerous drugs filed against him in Criminal Case 7597.
On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04301, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgments of
conviction against Romeo and Mercy, hence, the present appeal to this Court.
Issue Presented
The issue presented in this case is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable
doubt that Romeo and
_______________
15 TSN, March 24, 2008, pp. 4-6.
16 TSN, January 21, 2008, p. 8.
17 Supra note 15, at pp. 7-8.
18 CA Rollo, p. 268.

729
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 729
2013
People vs. Oniza
Mercy were in possession of and were selling dangerous drugs when the team of police officers
arrested them on June 16, 2004.
Ruling of the Court
The law prescribes certain procedures in keeping custody and disposition of seized dangerous
drugs like the shabu that the police supposedly confiscated from Romeo and Mercy on June 16,
2004. Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 reads:
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; x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Compliance with the above, especially the required physical inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs in the presence of the accused, the media, and responsible government
functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police had carried out a legitimate buy-bust
operation. Here, the prose-
730
73 SUPREME COURT
0 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Oniza
cution was unable to adduce such evidence, indicating that the police officers did not at all
comply with prescribed procedures. Worse, they offered no excuse or explanation at the hearing
of the case for their blatant omission of what the law required of them.
Apart from the above, the prosecution carried the burden of establishing the chain of custody
of the dangerous drugs that the police allegedly seized from the accused on the night of June 16,
2004. It should establish the following links in that chain of custody of the confiscated
item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission
of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.19
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first required link —
immediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the presence of the accused and others 20 —
namely, that (a) there must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and
(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
Here, the prosecution’s own evidence as recited by the CA and the RTC is that the police
officers did not make a physical inventory of the seized drugs nor did they take a picture of the
same in the presence of the accused, someone in the media, a Department of Justice (DOJ)
representative, and any elected public official.
_______________
19 People v. Fermin, G.R. No. 179344, August 3, 2011, 655 SCRA 92, 106-107.
20 People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 236. 

731
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 731
2013
People vs. Oniza
All that Officer Albarico could say is that his companion, Officer Jiro, marked the plastic
sachets with the initials of the accused already at the police station and then turned over the same
to the desk officer who prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination.21 Thus:
Pros. Gonzales:   And after that, what, if any, did you do
                             next?
PO1 Albarico:   After arresting them, we brought them to our
       police station, sir.
Pros. Gonzales:  And at the station, Mr. Witness, what
       happened to the items that you said was [sic]
       recovered from the possession of accused
       Romeo?
PO1 Albarico:   We have the pieces of evidence blottered, sir.
Pros. Gonzales:  And thereafter, what happened to the evidence
       gathered, Mr. Witness?
PO1 Albarico:   PO1 Jiro marked the evidence, sir.
 x x x x
Pros. Gonzales:  Mr. Witness, those substance[s] that were
       marked by PO1 Jiro, what happened to them
       after the markings?
PO1 Albarico:   After marking the pieces of evidence, he turned
         them over to the Desk Officer and prepared a
         request for examination and those were brought
        to Camp Crame for examination, sir.
  x x x x
Pros. Gonzales:  If you know, what was the result of the request
       for examination?
PO1 Albarico:   As far as we know, it is positive for
        methamphetamine hydrochloride, sir.

Yet, the police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or justification for their
failure to make an inventory
_______________
21 TSN, April 11, 2005, pp. 8, 11-12.

732
73 SUPREME COURT
2 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Oniza
and take pictures of the drugs immediately after their seizure in the presence of the accused and
the other persons designated by the law. Both the RTC and the CA misapprehended the
significance of such omission. It is imperative for the prosecution to establish a justifiable cause
for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by law. 22 The procedures outlined in
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty formalities — these are safeguards against
abuse,23 the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.24
And what is the prosecution’s evidence that the substances, which the police chemist
examined and found to be shabu, were the same substances that the police officers allegedly
seized from Romeo and Mercy? No such evidence exists. As pointed out above, the prosecution
stipulated with the accused that the police chemist “could not testify on the source and origin of
the subject specimens that she had examined.” No police officer testified out of personal
knowledge that the substances given to the police chemist and examined by her were the very
same substances seized from the accused.
In regard to the required presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media and an
elective official, the prosecution also did not bother to offer any justification, even a hollow one,
for failing to comply with such requirement. What is more, the police officers could have easily
coordinated with any elected barangay official in the conduct of the police operation in the
locality.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the February 23, 2012 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04301, which affirmed the April 2,
_______________
22 People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 211.
23 People v. Secreto, G.R. No. 198115, February 22, 2013, 692 SCRA 298.
24 People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 332.

733
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 733
2013
People vs. Oniza
2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases 7598, 7599, and 7600 and,
accordingly, ACQUITS the accused-appellants Romeo Oniza y Ong and Mercy Oniza y Cabarle
of the charges against them in those cases on the ground of reasonable doubt.
 The National Police Commission is DIRECTED to INVESTIGATE PO1 Reynaldo M.
Albarico, PO1 Fortunato P. Jiro III and PO1 Jose Gordon Antonio for the possible filing of
appropriate charges, if warranted.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to immediately RELEASE both the
above accused-appellants from custody unless they are detained for some other lawful cause.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and set aside, appellants acquitted.
Notes.―It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is
the very same substance offered in court as exhibit and that the identity of said drug be
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.
(People vs. Dumaplin, 687 SCRA 631 [2012])
Although the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21,
Article II of R.A. 9165, their noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs
seized from Hambora as the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under
the circumstances of the case. (People vs. Hambora, 687 SCRA 653 [2012])

――o0o――