Republic of the 

Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
 
 
THIRD DIVISION
 
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,   G.R. No. 182420
Plaintiff-Appellee,  
Present:
   
- versus - YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
  Chairperson,
  CHICO-NAZARIO,
  VELASCO, JR.,
ELSIE BARBA y BIAZON, NACHURA, and
Accused-Appellant. PERALTA, JJ.
 
Promulgated:
 
July 23, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
 
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
 
 
This is an appeal from the August 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01587 entitled People of the Philippines v. Elsie Barba y
Biazon,which affirmed the September 14, 2005 Decision in Criminal Case No. Q-
03-114526 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103 in Quezon City. The
RTC convicted accused-appellant Elsie Barba y Biazon of violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
 
The Facts
 
An Information was filed charging Barba with drug pushing under RA 9165,
quoted below:
  
That on or about the 16th day of January, 2003, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized to sell, deliver,
transport or distribute any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully
and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport and distribute or act as
broker in the said transaction, 0.04 (zero point zero four) gram of white
crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.
 
Contrary to law.[1]
 
According to the prosecution, PO2 Rodel Rabina, PO2 Arnulfo Aguillon, and PO1
Michael Almacen conducted a surveillance operation against Barba in Pag-
asa, Quezon Cityon January 16, 2003. Satisfied that Barba was engaged in the sale
of illegal drugs, they conducted a buy-bust operation the next day. PO2 Rabina
acted as poseur-buyer.[2] PO2 Rabina went to Barbas house with their informant
and asked Barba if he could buy PhP 200 worth of shabu from her. Barba left to go
inside her house. As she was going inside, PO2 Rabina noticed three (3)
men inside who were engaging in a pot session. These men were identified as
Barbas co-accused Eduardo Silvestre, Rene Banzuelo, and Reynaldo Labrador.[3]
 
After a few moments, Barba came back with two (2) sachets which she gave
to PO2 Rabina. She then asked if he would like to test the purity of the sachets
contents, to which PO2 Rabina replied in the negative. He gave a PhP 200 marked
bill to Barba and then scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal for the other
members of the buy-bust team to join them. Barba, Silvestre, Banzuelo,
and Labrador were all arrested. The PhP 200 marked bill, shabu, and drug
paraphernalia found were retrieved and brought to the police station along with the
accused.[4] PO2 Rabina marked the plastic sachets with RR, his initials. [5] PO1
Almacen, on the other hand, marked the confiscated tooter with MA01-17-03, his
initials included. That same day, Inspector Rodrigo Legaspi Bauto submitted a
Request for Laboratory Examination[6] (Exhibit F) of the seized drug and
paraphernalia addressed to the Crime Laboratory of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Central Police District. In turn, Forensic Chemist Leonard M. Jabonillo
prepared Chemistry Report No. D-086-2003[7] (Exhibit G) which showed that of
the specimens[8] submitted, the plastic sachets and the strip of aluminum foil
contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
 
 Barba was subsequently charged for drug pushing. The others arrested were
charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. All four accused pleaded not guilty
at their arraignment.
 
Barba denied the charge against her by claiming she had been framed.
On January 17, 2003, at around 2:30 in the morning, she was awakened by the
sound of someone knocking on her door. The door was then forcibly opened and
eight (8) persons entered her house and searched the premises. Although no illegal
drugs had been found she was arrested along with Banzuelo and brought to the
police station. She denied knowing her co-accused Silvestre and Labrador and
claimed they were arrested by the police on their way to the police vehicle. Her
testimony was corroborated by Banzuelo, who said he was sleeping in Barbas
house when they were arrested and that the arresting officers found no illegal drugs
or paraphernalia during their search.[9]
 
The RTC ruled against Barba. The dispositive portion of its Joint Decision
reads:
 
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
 
1.                  In Criminal Case No. Q-03-114526, accused ELSIE
BARBA y Biazon is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of drug pushing and she is
hereby sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
2.                  In Criminal Case No. Q-03-1145267, accused EDUARDO
SILVESTRE y Agua, RENE BANZUELO y Sigaan and
REYNALDO LABRADOR y Padua are hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime possession
of drug paraphernalia and each is hereby sentenced to a jail
term of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day to One (1) Year
and each to pay a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00)
Pesos.
 
The drugs involved in these cases, including the drug paraphernalia, are
hereby ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for proper
disposition.
 
SO ORDERED.[10]
 
  
On October 5, 2005, Barba filed a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision.
 
In her Appellants Brief,[11] Barba assigned the following errors: (1) the trial
court gravely erred in convicting Barba, when her guilt has not been proved
beyond doubt; and (2) the trial court gravely erred when it gave credence to the
conflicting and unsupported testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses.
 
The CA in its decision[12] affirmed the RTC decision. The CA held that the
prosecution presented sufficient evidence to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence. The two police officers who took the stand both
testified that Barba was caught in flagrante delicto, and their testimonies agreed on
the essential facts. According to the CA, the elements required for proving the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs were met in consonance with People v. Mala: first,
the identity of the seller and the buyer, as well as the object and the consideration
of the sale, was proved; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
for it was likewise shown.[13]
 
Moreover, the appellate court held that no evidence was offered to overturn
the legal presumption that the police officers have performed their duties regularly.
No improper motive was given as to why they, being involved in the buy-bust
operation, would fabricate the charges against Barba and her co-accused.
 
The CA also held that the so-called inconsistency in the police officers
testimony was inconsequential. Whether or not there was a prior surveillance was
immaterial.
 
On September 13, 2007, Barba filed a Notice of Appeal of the CA Decision.
On June 18, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if
they so desired. The parties manifested their willingness to submit the case on the
basis of the records already submitted.
 
The Issues
 
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT, WHEN HER GUILT HAS NOT BEEN
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
 
II
 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT GAVE
CREDENCE TO THE CONFLICTING AND UNSUPPORTED
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTIONS WITNESSES
 
 
Our Ruling
 
To reiterate, the essential elements in a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs
are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. [14] The prohibited drug is
an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime of possession or selling of
regulated/prohibited drug; proof of its identity, existence, and presentation in court
are crucial.[15] A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the
identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with
moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are
present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is
the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the
same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.[16]
 
The identity of the subject substance is established by showing the chain of
custody. In Espinoza v. State, an adequate foundation establishing a continuous
chain of custody is said to have been established if the State accounts for the
evidence at each stage from its acquisition to its testing, and to its introduction at
trial.[17] In a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs, this foundation takes more
significance because of the nature of the evidence involved.[18] The more fungible
the evidence, the more significant its condition, or the higher its susceptibility to
change, the more elaborate the foundation must be. In those circumstances, it must
be shown that there has been no tampering, alteration, or substitution.[19]
 
The chain of custody presented by the prosecution in this case suffers from
incompleteness. After the illegal drugs were seized from Barba, PO2 Rabina
marked the plastic sachets with his initials. PO1 Almacen marked the tooter in the
same manner. The seized aluminum foil was marked AA, presumably after PO2
Arnulfo Aguillon but there is no testimony on this. Once at the police station, the
drugs and paraphernalia were then made the subject of a Request for Examination
issued by Inspector Bauto. The specimens were then turned over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory Office where Forensic Chemist Jabonillo made his conclusion that the
sachets and the aluminum foil contained shabu. During trial, he testified that the
specimen he examined was the same one he brought to the court. Exhibit G or
Chemistry Report No. D-086-2003 was also presented as evidence to show that the
seized items were positive for dangerous drugs. Pieced together, the prosecutions
evidence, however, does not supply all the links needed in the chain of custody
rule. The records do not tell us what happened after the seized items were brought
to the police station and after these were tested at the forensic laboratory. Doubt is
now formed as to the integrity of the evidence.
 
The latest jurisprudence on illegal drugs cases shows a growing trend in
acquittals based on reasonable doubt. These reasonable doubt acquittals underscore
the lack of strict adherence that law enforcement agencies and prosecutors have
shown with regard to the chain of custody rule.
 
In Malillin v. People, we laid down the chain of custody requirements that
must be met in proving that the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court:
(1) testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked
up to the time it is offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should 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
item.[20]
 
 
In People v. Sanchez,[21] the accused was acquitted since the prosecution did
not make known the identities of the police officers to whom custody of the seized
drugs was entrusted after the buy-bust operation. Likewise absent from the
evidence is any testimony on the whereabouts of the drugs after they were
analyzed by the forensic chemist.
 
In People v. Garcia,[22] the conviction was overturned due in part to the
failure of the state to show who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory and
who had custody of them after their examination by the forensic chemist and
pending their presentation in court.
 
In People v. Cervantes,[23] a total of five (5) links in the chain of custody
were not presented in court: the desk officer who received the drugs at the police
station; the unnamed person who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory; the
recipient of the drugs at the forensic laboratory; the forensic chemist who did the
examination of the drugs; and the person who acted as custodian of the drugs after
their analysis.
 
 Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to an
unbroken chain of evidence may in some instances be excused, there should be a
justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies. [24] Here,
however, no explanation was proffered as to why key individuals who had custody
over the drugs at certain periods were not identified and/or not presented as
witnesses. Uncertainty, therefore, arises if the drugs and paraphernalia seized
during the buy-bust operation on January 2003 were the same specimens presented
in court in December of that same year.
 
The very identity of the illegal drug is in question because of the absence of
key prosecution witnesses. No one knows if the drug seized at the time of the buy-
bust operation is the same drug tested and later kept as evidence against Barba.
Though there was a stipulation during trial that the specimens submitted as
evidence yielded positive for shabu, this only touches on one link in the chain of
custody. Thus, given the failure of the prosecution to identify the continuous
whereabouts of such fungible pieces of evidence, we are unable to conclude that all
elements of the crime have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
 
 
 
 
 
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01587 finding accused-appellant Elsie Barba y
Biazon guilty of drug pushing (Crim. Case No. Q-03-114526) and possession of
drug paraphernalia (Crim. Case No. Q-03-1145267) is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accused-appellant Elsie Barba y Biazon is ACQUITTED on the ground
of reasonable doubt and is accordingly immediately RELEASED from custody
unless she is being lawfully held for some lawful cause.
 
SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION
 
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 199403
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
- versus - PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.
 
 
GOMER S. CLIMACO, Promulgated:
Appellant. June 13, 2012
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
 
 
DECISION
 
 
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
 
This is a consolidated criminal case filed against appellant Gomer S. Climaco
(Climaco) for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession (Criminal
Case No. 4911-SPL) and illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL) of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in its Decision
dated 20 January 2009 (RTC Decision), found Climaco guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, and sentenced him to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14
years and 8 months with a fine of ₱300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL.
[1]
 In Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL, the RTC found Climaco guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale ofmethamphetamine hydrochloride,
and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, the
Special Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated 29
March 2011 (CA Decision), affirmed the RTC Decision. [2] Climaco appealed to
this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal in accordance with Section 3(c), Rule 122
of the Rules of Court.[3]
 
Prosecutions Version
 
The prosecutions version of events is summarized in the RTC Decision:[4]
 
 The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses in the persons of PO1
Alaindelon M. Ignacio, who gave his testimony on 5 January 2005, 8
February 2006 and 2 August 2006; and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa
Huelgas, whose testimony was dispensed with on 5 January 2005 upon
defenses admission of the existence of the following: 1) Written Request
for Laboratory Examination as Exhibit A; 2) The Chemistry Report No.
D-1102-04 as Exhibit B; 3) 1 white envelope as Exhibit C; 4) the
existence of two (2) plastic sachets with markings GSC-1 as Exhibit C-1;
and 5) another one with markings GSC-2 as Exhibit C-2.
 
PO1 Ignacio testified that he is a member of the Philippine National
Police since 15 October 1999 and was assigned at Intelligence Division,
San Pedro Municipal Police Station. As member of the Intelligence
Division, he was tasked to conduct surveillance operation and apprehend
persons engaged in illegal drug activity. On 7 September 2004, he was
on 24-hour duty at PAC base located at United Bayanihan, San Pedro,
Laguna. At around 6:00 in the evening of the same day, PO1 Ignacio,
SPO3 Samson, SPO4 Balverde, some members of the Laguna Special
Operation Team, Members of the Provincial Intelligence and
Investigation Division conducted a briefing regarding a drug operation
against a certain Gomer Climaco, No. 5 in the drug watch list in San
Pedro, Laguna. During the briefing, PO1 Ignacio was tasked to act as the
poseur-buyer and SPO4 Almeda as the overall team leader. The buy-bust
money was prepared, which consist of P500.00 bill and some boodle
money. The team was also armed with a Warrant of Arrest for illegal
drugs issued by Judge Pao. After the briefing, the team proceeded to the
target area. When they arrived, PO1 Ignacio saw the suspect standing in
front of his house. The other members of the team strategically
positioned themselves. Since PO1 Ignacio already knew the suspect, PO1
Ignacio just told Gomer that he would buy shabu. Gomer entered his
house and took something. When he came out, Gomer showed to PO1
Ignacio the shabu. PO1 Ignacio scratched his head to signal the team that
item was shown to him and he would execute the buying of the
shabu. After Gomer asked for the money and PO1 Ignacio gave it to him,
SPO3 Samson and the rest of the team immediately moved in to effect
the arrest of the suspect. Since he was caught in the act, Gomer did not
resist anymore. The team likewise showed Gomer his warrant of
arrest. PO1 Ignacio saw SPO3 Samson frisk and ask Gomer to empty his
pockets. SPO3 Samson was able to recover another plastic sachet, which
was inserted between Gomers fingers. The plastic sachet, which was the
product of the buy-bust, and the one recovered from Gomer were turned
 over to SPO4 Teofilo Royena, who turned them over to the Office of the
Special Operation Group located at Brgy. Tubigan, Bian, Laguna. The
plastic sachet product of the buy-bust was marked TR-B, which means
Teofilo Royena and the letter B means Bust. While the plastic sachet
recovered from Gomer was marked TR-R, which means Teofilo Royena
and the letter R means Recovered. PO1 Ignacio identified the accused
Gomer Climaco in open court. He likewise identified his sworn
statement. During the cross-examination, PO1 Ignacio admitted that he
learned of the warrant of arrest on 7 September 2004 only. It was SPO4
Valverde who instructed PO Ignacio to conduct surveillance operation
against Gomer, who was engaged in rampant selling of shabu. [5]
Aside from the testimony of PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio (Ignacio), the following
documentary exhibits were offered for the prosecution: (1) Exhibit A Letter dated
7 September 2004; (2) Exhibit B Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04; (3) Exhibit C
One-half white envelope; (4) Exhibit C-1 Plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance with markings GSC-1; (5) Exhibit C-2 Plastic sachet with white
crystalline susbtance with markings GSC-2; and (6) Exhibit D Pinanumpaang
Salaysay of PO1 Ignacio.[6]
 
 
 
Defenses Version
 
 
Appellant Climaco, on the other hand, presented three witnesses and denied the
prosecutions allegations of sale and possession of shabu. The defenses version of
the events, as narrated in the RTC Decision, is as follows:
 
The defense presented three (3) witnesses in the persons of the accused
himself, Gomer S. Climaco, who testified on 13 May 2008, Michael M.
Basihan, who gave his testimony on 7 October 2008, and Cristina
Gamboa Climaco, who gave her testimony on 25 November 2008.
 
Gomer S. Climaco testified that prior to 7 September 2004, he did not
know SPO2 Wilfredo Samson and PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio. On 7
September 2004, Gomer, together with his wife and five (5) children,
were inside their house. When Gomer was feeding the chicken in front of
his yard, four (4) unidentified armed men suddenly arrived and frisked
him. When nothing was found in his possession, the men handcuffed and
brought him to the police station. At the police station, the men filed a
 case against him. Gomer denied having sold and delivered shabu to a
police poseur-buyer and that he was in possesion of shabu. During the
cross-examination, Gomer said that while he was being frisked by the
men, Gomer asked the men what was his violation. The men replied that
somebody bought shabu from him. Gomer told the men that he did
nothing wrong, but the men continued to handcuff him. Gomer was not
aware that he was included in the list of top 20 illegal drug
pushers. Gomer did not know of any ill motive on the part of the police
officer why he would be charged with so grave an offense. He did not
file any case against the police officer who arrested him.
 
Michael M. Basihan testified that Gomer Climaco was his neighbor in
Bagong Silang. On 7 September 2004, Michael went to Gomers
manukan to gather guava fruits. When he arrived there, Gomer was
tending to his cocks. While he was gathering guava fruits, Michael saw
four (4) unidentified armed men suddenly barge into the premises and
arrest Gomer. After he was handcuffed, Gomer was made to board a
vehicle where he was brought to Jaka Subdivision. Michael could not
remember whether it was morning or evening when Gomer was arrested
by unidentified armed men because the incident happened a long time
ago.
 
Cristina Gamboa Climaco testified that she is the wife of Gomer
Climaco. She did not know SPO2 Wilfredo Samson and PO1 Alaindelon
Ignacio. On 7 September 2004, she was inside their house taking care of
her child. At around 3:00 in the afternoon of the same day, Gomer
arrived in their house, who just came from Barangay Cuyab. After taking
a bath, Gomer went outside of their house. While in front of their house,
Gomer called the person taking care of his chickens. Gomer and that
person went to the back of the house. Meanwhile, Cristina went inside
the house.Although she was inside of the house, Cristina could see
Gomer and the person through the window. At around 4:00 in the
afternoon, Cristina saw four (4) unidentified armed men approach and
ask something from Gomer. After a few minutes, Gomer left the back of
the house, while the men were left standing there. Cristina went out the
house and saw her husband go toward the direction of St. Reymond. At
around 6:00 in the evening, Cirstina went down from their house to ask
Michael if he saw Gomer. Michael told Cristina that he saw Gomer
loaded into a van by several men. During the cross-examination, Cristina
said that she did not know of any reason why SPO2 Samson and PO1
Ignacio would arrest her husband.[7]
  
 
 
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court
 
The RTC declared Climaco guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. The
dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
 
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL, the Court finds the
accused, Gomer S. Climaco, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences
him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of ₱500,000.00.
 
In Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL, the Court finds the accused, Gomer S.
Climaco, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of
Sec. 11 of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years
and eight (8) months and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos
(₱300,000.00).
 
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the plastic sachets subject matter of these
cases, for said agencys appropriate disposition.
 
SO ORDERED.[8]
 
 
The RTC found that the elements for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal
possession of shabu were sufficiently established by the prosecution.[9] The RTC
held that Climacos defense of frame-up is viewed with disfavor as it can be easily
concocted.[10] The RTC gave full faith and credit to the testimony of PO1 Ignacio,
and declared the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation were
properly performing their duties because they were not inspired by any improper
motive.[11]
 
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the conviction of Climaco. The dispositive portion of the CA
Decision reads as follows:
 
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the judgment dated January
20, 2009 of the RTC in Criminal Case Nos. 4911-SPL and 4912-SPL
finding appellant Gomer S. Climaco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED. [12]
 
 
 
The CA declared that all the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs were proven.[13] The CA found that based on the
testimony of PO1 Ignacio, it was established that the chain of custody over the
seized drugs was unbroken from the arresting officers to SPO4 Royena, and then
to the forensic chemist for examination.[14]
 
The Issue
 
The sole issue in this case is whether the guilt of Climaco for the crimes of illegal
sale and illegal possession of shabu, a dangerous drug, was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
 
The Ruling of this Court
 
We resolve to acquit Climaco for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
 
PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the dangerous drugs seized from
Climaco were marked by SPO4 Teofilo Royena as TR-B and TR-R. [15] However,
the Chemistry Report submitted to the trial court shows that the dangerous drugs
examined and confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu by the
forensic chemist were marked as GSC1 and GSC2. [16] Since what was seized (TR-
B and TR-R) by PO1 Ignacio from Climaco at the time of the buy-bust operation
was different from the dangerous drugs submitted (GSC1 and GSC2) to the
forensic chemist for review and evaluation, the chain of custody over the
dangerous drugs was broken and the integrity of the evidence submitted to the trial
court was not preserved, casting doubt on the guilt of Climaco.
 
Constitutional Presumption of Innocence; Weight of Evidence
 
The Constitution guarantees the accuseds presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. Section 14(2) of the Bill of Rights (Article III) provides that, in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
 
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise states that, in a criminal case,
the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof,
excluding possibility of error, which produces absolute certainty. Only moral
certainly is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
 
Chain of Custody Over the Confiscated Items
 
The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu are: (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. [17] Similarly, it is essential that the
transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti which means the actual
commission by someone of the particular crime charged. [18] The corpus delicti in
cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself.
 
On the other hand, 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 drug.[19]
 
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the chain of
custody over the dangerous drug must be shown to establish the corpus
delicti. In People v. Alcuizar,[20] the Court held:
 
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under
Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This
requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drugs 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 or uncertainty 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; otherwise, the prosecution for possession
under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.
 
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, [21] which
implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines chain of
custody as follows:
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping
to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and
custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the 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.
 
 
In Malillin v. People,[22] the Court explained the importance of the chain of
custody:
 
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that
the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established
with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not
authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a
judgment of conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the
identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Be that as it
may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create
in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of
guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance
illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in
court as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
 
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 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.
 
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because
it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody
becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is
not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the
time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe
its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence
is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of
susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering without regard to
whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of
strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
 
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an
exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances
familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham v. State positively
acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance was later
analyzed as heroin was handled by two police officers prior to
examination who however did not testify in court on the condition and
whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possession was
excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the
white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been
sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by
records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least
between the time it came into the posession of the police officers until it
was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of
the state as to the laboratorys findings is inadmissible.
 
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily
identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine
their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes
 to the likelihood or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the
chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering,
alteration or substitution of substances from other cases by accident or
otherwise in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar
evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating
the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving
objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting
standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient
completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has
either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered
with.
 
In this case, PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the substances seized from
Climaco during the buy-bust operation were marked as TR-R and TR-B:
 
Q: When SPO4 Almeida handed over the items to SPO4 Teofilo Royena,
what if any did SPO4 Royena do with the items?
A: He placed markings on it, maam.
 
Q: Where were you when he placed the markings?
A: I was present, maam.
 
 
 
Q: Do you know what markings was made?
A: He placed his initials TR which means Teofilo Royena and the letter
B which means bust, maam.
 
Q: Im showing to you a plastic sachet with the markings TR-B, please go
over this and tell if this is the same item which you confiscated from the
accused?
A: Yes, maam. This is the same.
 
PROS. CASANO: Your Honor, the brown envelope which contains the
plastic sachet has already been marked as Exhibit C, the plastic sachet as
Exhibit C-1 and the markings TR-B as Exhibit C-2 (Continuing).
 
xxxx
 
Q: Tell us the markings that was placed?
A: Its TR-R, the R means recovered, maam.
  
Q: How sure are you that the items marked by SPO4 Teofilo
Royena TR-R was the same item taken by SPO3 Samson from the
accused?
A: Because there was a difference between the two plastic sachets,
the items recovered by SPO3 Samson was a little bit bigger, maam.
 
Q: Im showing to you a bigger plastic sachet with the markings TR- R,
are you referring to this?
A: Yes, maam.[23]
 
Based on the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, the substances retrieved from Climaco and
submitted to the court were contained in two (2) plastic sachets with the markings
TR-R and TR-B. However, according to the Chemistry Report executed by
Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas on 8 September 2004, the plastic sachets
submitted for examination carried the markings GSC-1 and GSC-2, different from
the plastic sachets marked TR-R and TR-B containing the drugs retrieved from
Climaco:
 
CHEMISTRY REPORT NUMBER: D-1102-04
 
xxxx
 
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with markings GSC1,
containing 0.35 gram of white crystalline substance and placed in a
staple-sealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly bought by the Police
Poseur-Buyer)
 
 
B One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with markings GSC2,
containing 0.14 gram of white crystalline substance and placed in a
staple-sealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly found from the
posession of Glomer Climaco)[24]
 
 
In addition, in the Index of Exhibits submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the
RTC, Exhibit C-1 was described as a plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance with markings GSC-1 while Exhibit C-2 was described as a plastic
sachet with white crystalline substance with markings GSC-2,[25] contrary to the
testimony of PO1 Ignacio and the declaration of Prosecutor Casano that the
specimens submitted to the court carried the markings TR-B and TR-R.
 
Likewise, in the handwritten Minutes dated 5 January 2005, Exhibit C-1 was
identified as a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with marking GSC-1,
and Exhibit C-2 was identified as a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance
with marking GSC-2.[26]
 
Clearly, what was submitted to the trial court were plastic sachets bearing the
markings GSC-1 and GSC-2, instead of the plastic sachets bearing the markings
TR-R and TR-B that contained the substances recovered from Climaco. This fact is
evident from the RTC Decision, recognizing Exhibits C-1 and C-2 to bear the
markings GSC-1 and GSC-2, while acknowledging the testimony of PO1 Ignacio
that the plastic sachets containing the substances recovered from Climaco bore the
markings TR-R and TR-B:
 
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses in the persons of x x
x Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas, whose testimony was
dispensed with on 5 January 2005 upon defenses admission of the
existence of the following: 1) Written Request for Laboratory
Examination as Exhibit A; 2) The Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04 as
Exhibit B; 3) 1 white envelope as Exhibit C; 4) the existence of two (2)
plastic sachets with markings GSC-1 as Exhibit C-1; and 5) another
one with markings GSC-2 as Exhibit C-2.
 
xxxx
 
The plastic sachet product of the buy-bust was marked TR-B, which
means Teofilo Royena and the letter B means Bust. While the plastic
sachet recovered from Gomer was marked TR-R, which means Teofilo
Royena and the letter R means Recovered. [27] (Emphasis supplied)
 
The prosecution did not explain why the markings of the plastic sachets containing
the alleged drugs, which were submitted to be TR-B and TR-R, became GSC-1 and
GSC-2 in the Chemistry Report, Index of Exhibits and Minutes of the Hearing. In
their decisions, the RTC and CA were silent on the change of the markings. In fact,
since the markings are different, the presumption is that the substance in the plastic
sachets marked as TR-B and TR-R is different from the substance in the plastic
sachets marked as GSC-1 and GSC-2. There is no moral certainty that the
substance taken from appellant is the same dangerous drug submitted to the
laboratory and the trial court.
 
As held in Malillin v. People,[28] to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt in cases involving dangerous drugs, it is important that the substance
illegally possessed in the first place be the same substance offered in court as
exhibit. This chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts are
removed concerning the identity of the evidence. When the identity of the
dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug
presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same
dangerous drug presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is not
preserved due to the broken chain of custody. With this, an element in the criminal
cases for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus
delicti, is not proven, and the accused must then be acquitted based on reasonable
doubt.For this reason, Climaco must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable
doubt due to the broken chain of custody over the dangerous drug allegedly
recovered from him.
 
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the 29 March 2011 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03860 affirming the judgment of conviction of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna in Criminal Case Nos.
4911-SPL and 4912-SPL dated 20 January 2009. We ACQUIT appellant Gomer
S. Climaco based on reasonable doubt and we ORDER his immediate release from
detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
 
We DIRECT the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to implement this Decision
and to report to this Court on the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of
this Decision.
 
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
 
SECOND DIVISION
 
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 197371
Plaintiff-Appellee,  
  Present:
   
versus CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
  BRION,
  DEL CASTILLO,*
JOEL ANCHETA y OSAN, JOHN PEREZ, and
LLORANDO y RIGARYO, andJUAN SERENO, JJ.
CARLOS GERNADA yHORCAJO,  
Accused-Appellants. Promulgated:
 
June 13, 2012
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

SERENO, J.:

Before the Court is an appeal from the 30 November 2010 Decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA)[1] affirming the 17 September 2008 Decision of the Makati
City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 04-2777, 04-2778, and 04-
2779.[2] The RTC Decision convicted Joel Ancheta y Osan, John
Llorando y Rigaryo, and Juan Carlos Gernada y Horcajo of violation of Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

We quote the narration of facts of the CA as follows:

[Version of the Prosecution]

On 10 August 2004, [Police Officer (PO) 1] Honorio Marmonejo, a police

officer assigned at the Makati Police Station Anti Illegal Drugs Special Operation
Task Force (SAID-SOTF), received a confidential information regarding the drug
pushing activities of a certain alias Joker at Llorando Compound, Barangay East
Rembo, Makati City. This alias Joker was also listed in the said offices watchlist
of suspected drug pushers.
 Thereafter, an anti narcotics operation was planned by the police officers
in order to apprehend alias Joker. A buy-bust team was formed comprising of four
policemen and eight [Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)] operatives
from Cluster 5. PO1 Marmonejo was designated to act as poseur buyer while the
rest of the team served as his back-up. Thereafter, five pieces of ₱100-bills were
provided and marked for use in the operation. PO1 Voltaire Esguerra likewise
coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) by
accomplishing the necessary coordination form which was acknowledged and
received by the PDEA.

At about 5:45 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team arrived
at Llorando Compound, 25th Street, Barangay East Rembo, Makati City for the
conduct of the buy bust operation. As the rest of the team positioned themselves
strategically in places where they can monitor the transaction, PO1 Marmonejo as
the poseur buyer, accompanied by PO1 Mendoza and the informant, entered a
slightly opened gate through an alley way where they met a man who asked them
where they were going. The informant replied that they were looking for Joker as
they were going to purchase shabu from the latter. The man asked how much they
were going to buy, to which the informant answered him that he was to purchase
₱500.00-worth of shabu. The man told them to wait for a while and then called
for Joker. The same man thereafter told Joker that there were people who were
going to buy from him. Joker asked him how much they were going to purchase,
and the man replied that they were going to purchase ₱500.00-worth of shabu.
Joker came out from inside the house, and it was at this instance that PO1
Marmonejo took out the marked money. Joker, in turn, gave him one plastic
sachet containing white crystalline powder. The man they met at the alley took the
marked money from him and handed it over to Joker. While the transaction was
ongoing, the police officers noticed a man, more or less 3 to 4 meters away from
them, washing clothes. After having received the buy bust money, Joker faced the
man washing clothes and gave the latter one plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance as payment for his laundry service.

The transaction having been consummated, PO1 Marmonejo gave the pre-
arranged signal of sending a missed call to PO1 Voltaire Esguerra, one of the
back-up police officers. PO1 Mendoza, upon receiving the missed call, together
with MADAC [operative Juan Siborboro], immediately went inside the house
where the entrapment took place and assisted in effecting the arrest of the
accused. PO1 Mendoza held alias Joker, who was later on identified as accused-
appellant Joel Ancheta, and placed him under arrest. PO1 Marmonejo, on the
other hand, arrested the man they met at the alley, who was later identified to be
accused-appellant John Llorando. MADAC [operative] Siborboro, for his part,
apprehended the man washing clothes, who was later identified as accused-
appellant Juan Carlos Gernada.

Recovered from the possession of accused-appellant Ancheta after the

latters arrest were the marked money and five (5) other plastic sachets containing
the white crystalline substance. On the other hand, accused-appellant Gernada
 yielded one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline substance when requested to
empty the contents of his pockets.

After informing all of the accused-appellants of their violations and nature

of their arrest as well as their constitutional rights, they were subsequently
brought to the office of the Makati City Police SAID-SOTF.

Consequently, the plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance

were thereafter brought to the crime laboratory for examination and analysis. The
results of the laboratory examination revealed that the substance was positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, the defense presented as its witnesses the three (3)
accused-appellants.

In his defense, the accused-appellant Llorando denied the charge against

him and claimed that, at 8:30 p.m. on 10 August 2004, he was cooking inside his
house at 25th Avenue, East Rembo, Makati City when three (3) men suddenly
entered his house and poked a gun at him and frisked him. When he was
subsequently arrested by the three men, accused-appellant Llorando tried to
struggle, but to no avail. His brother, who was inside the house, tried to intervene,
but was not able to do anything.

Meanwhile, a few meters away from his house lived his brother-in-law,
accused-appellant Ancheta and the latters adopted son, accused-appellant
Gernada.

The accused-appellants Ancheta and Gernada testified that on 10 August

2004, while Gernada was at the kitchen doing the dishes and Ancheta was
sleeping in his room with his wife, five (5) men barged into their house without
warning and arrested them. They were brought to a white vehicle, where they saw
the accused-appellant Llorando, who was likewise apparently taken by the same
group.

All the accused-appellants were subsequently brought by their unknown

captors to the latters office at J.P. Rizal, South Avenue, where they were charged
afterwards for their alleged illegal drug activities.[3]

Thus, the following Informations were filed by the prosecutor before the
Makati City RTC:

Criminal Case No. 04-2777:

 The undersigned Prosecutor accuses JOEL ANCHETA y OSAN alias
Joker and JOHN LLORANDO y RIGARYO alias John of the crime of
Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. 9165,
committed as follows:

That on or about the 10th day of August 2004, in the City of Makati,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping
and aiding one another, without the corresponding license or prescription, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and
deliver zero point ten (0.10) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),
which is a dangerous drug.

Criminal Case No. 04-2778:

The undersigned Prosecutor accuses JOEL ANCHETA y OSAN alias

Joker of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165,
committed as follows:

That on or about the 10th day of August 2004, in the City of Makati,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession direct custody and control a
total weight of zero point twenty nine (0.29) grams of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited
law.

Criminal Case No. 04-2779:

The undersigned Prosecutor accuses JUAN CARLOS GERNADA y

HORCAJO of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165,
committed as follows:

That on or about the 10th day of August 2004, in the City of Makati,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession direct custody and control zero
point zero three (0.03) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which
is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

Criminal Case No. 04-3015:

 The undersigned Prosecutor [accuses] JOHN LLORANDO y
RIGARYO alias Jake of the crime of Use of Dangerous Drug under Section 15
of Republic Act No. 9165, committed as follows:

That sometime on or before or about the 10th day of August 2004, in the

City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to use dangerous drug, and
having been arrested and found positive for use of Methamphetamine after a
confirmatory test, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use
Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug in violation of the said law.

The RTC Ruling

In its 17 September 2008 Decision, the Makati City RTC found accused-
appellants guilty of violating Article II of R.A. 9165 as
follows: (a) Ancheta and Llorando were found guilty of violating Section 5 (Sale,
Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation
of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals) and
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000;
(b) Ancheta and Gernada were found guilty of violating Section 11 (Possession
of Dangerous Drugs) and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and
one (1) day as maximum and to pay a fine of ₱300,000; and (c) Llorando was
found guilty of violating Section 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) and sentenced to
undergo rehabilitation for a period not less than six (6) months at a government
drug rehabilitation. According to the RTC, the prosecution was able to establish
the existence of all the elements necessary to convict a person of the offenses of
illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs. It also gave credence to the
arresting officers narration of the incident, as they were presumed to have
performed their official duties in a regular manner. It then rejected accused-
appellants claims of frame-up. Llorando pled guilty to the charge of violating
Section 15 of R.A. 9165.

The CA Ruling
 On 30 November 2010, the CA issued a Decision affirming the reasoning of
the RTC in the latters 17 September 2008 judgment. The appellate court also
explained that the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the proper
procedure for the confiscation and seizure of dangerous drugs embodied in R.A.
9165 was not fatal to the prosecutions case. The CA then ruled that noncompliance
with the procedure in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 would not absolve accused-
appellants of the crimes of which they were found guilty and would not render
their arrest illegal or the seizure of the items inadmissible. Since accused-appellant
Llorando pled guilty of violating Section 15 of R.A. 9165, he no longer appealed to
the CA his conviction for the use of dangerous drugs.

Issue

Whether or not noncompliance of the arresting officers with the procedure

drawn in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 would discharge accused-appellants from the
crimes of which they were convicted.

Discussion

Accused-appellants question the CA affirmation of their conviction by

arguing[4] that the arresting officers failed to comply with the requirements for the
proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. They claim that the
officers failed to conduct the following: (1) make a physical inventory of the seized
items; (2) take photographs of the items; and (3) establish that a representative
each from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official had been contacted and was present during the marking of the items.
Accused-appellants then contend that the prosecution did not prove that
noncompliance with procedure was on justifiable grounds. They also aver that the
prosecution was unable to establish that the apprehending team properly preserved
the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.

In contrast, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeks the affirmation of the
CA Decision by asserting[5] that the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and
possession of dangerous drugs were established beyond reasonable doubt. The
OSG insists that the positive testimonies of the arresting enforcers carry more
weight than the negative assertions of accused-appellants, especially because the
officers were presumed to have performed their duties regularly. It then maintains
that there is no indication that the arresting officers were impelled by improper
motive when they testified against accused-appellants.

On the issue of noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the OSG

posits  that any failure to conform to the procedure therein would not cause the
[6]

invalidity of the buy-bust operation and the inadmissibility of the confiscated items
as evidence. It stresses that the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items is the most important consideration in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused. It then claims that the marking of the items
ensured that the drugs seized from accused-appellants were the same as those
presented during trial.

In the very recent case People v. Umipang,[7] we explained that the nature of

a buy-bust operation necessitates a stringent application of the procedural
safeguards specifically crafted by Congress in R.A. 9165 to counter potential
police abuses. We held thus:

At the outset, we take note that the present case stemmed from a buy-
bust operation conducted by the SAID-SOTF. We thus recall our pronouncement
in People v. Garcia:

A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While

this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to
flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly
and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside
that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It
is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its
use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself
recognized that by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the
need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as
informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of
heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting
provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug
deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been
exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent
person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
 offenses. Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the
seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law
(R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution
must adduce evidence that these procedures have been
followed in proving the elements of the defined offense. (Emphasis
supplied and citations omitted.)

Section 21 of R.A. 9165 delineates the mandatory procedural

safeguards that are applicable in cases of buy-bust operations:

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
samein 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 supplied.)

x x x x x x x x x

Congress introduced another complementing safeguard through Section 86

of R.A. 9165, which requires the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
Philippine National Police (PNP), and Bureau of Customs (BOC) to maintain
close coordination with PDEA in matters of illegal drug-related operations:

x x x x x x x x x

Given the nature of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive

procedural safeguards crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before
giving full credit to the testimonies of those who conducted the operations.
Although we have ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a
buy-bust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecutions cause, so long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been
 preserved, courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors
that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross,
systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the
law. Consequently, Section 21(a) of the [2002 Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. 9165 (IRR)] provides for a saving clause in the procedures
outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which serves as a guide in ascertaining
those procedural aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable grounds, viz:

x x x x x x x x x

We have reiterated that this saving clause applies only where the
prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited
justifiable grounds after which, the prosecution must show that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved. To repeat,
noncompliance with the required procedure will not necessarily result in the
acquittal of the accused if: (1) the noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and
(2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending team.

Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance

of the official duties of law enforcers, we stress that the step-by-step procedure
outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply
brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The provisions were crafted
by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses,
especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment.
In People v. Coreche, we explained thus:

The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity

for tampering with evidence found legislative expression in
Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous
drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered
requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by
imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the drugs the duty to 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 supplied and citations omitted.)

Here, the records are bereft of any indication that would show that the
prosecution was able to establish the arresting officers compliance with the
procedural safeguards under R.A. 9165. Neither do the records contain any
physical inventory report or photograph of the confiscated items. None of the
arresting officers testified that they had conducted a physical inventory or taken
pictures of the items. Nor did they state that there was even any attempt to contact
a representative from the media and the DOJ, and an elected public official.
Nowhere can it be found that the marking of the items was done in the presence
of any of the said third-party representatives. In all these major lapses, no one gave
so much as an explanation of why the procedure was not followed, or whether
there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. The arresting officers and the
prosecution simply did not bother discussing these matters. The OSG does not
dispute these assertions and instead counters that noncompliance was not fatal to
the prosecutions case. It then argues that the marking of the confiscated items was
sufficient to protect the identity of the corpus delicti.

Though we have recognized that [m]inor deviations from the procedures

under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused, [8] we have also
declared that when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed
in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the
identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. [9] We then
ruled that such doubt cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or
deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an
irregularity in the performance of official duties. [10] Accordingly, the prosecution is
deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged,
creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.[11]

Indeed, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the

seized items that is of utmost importance in determining the admissibility of the
evidence presented in court, especially in cases of buy-bust operations. That is why
Congress saw fit to fashion a detailed procedure in order to ensure that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the confiscated items would not be compromised. The
marking of the seized items was only a piece in a detailed set of procedural
safeguards embodied in R.A. 9165. If the arresting officers were unable to comply
with the other requirements, they were under obligation to explain why the
procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable
ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments
that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own
convenience.

We now raise serious concerns about the drug enforcement operations of the
arresting officers. Records reveal that PDEA and the Makati City Police SAID-
SOTF had been keeping accused-appellant Ancheta under surveillance. PO1
Marmonejo testified that he was already on the watch list of suspected drug
pushers. Ancheta was known to have been regularly selling shabu at the same
location in which he was arrested. Accused-appellants were arrested within the
family compound of the Llorandos. These particular facts bolster the impression
that the buy-bust operation was a forthcoming action in which the arresting officers
had ample time to prepare, plan, coordinate, and follow processes. Their inability,
then, to follow the legal procedure in Section 21 under the present circumstances
raises more questions on the facts surrounding the buy-bust operation.
Consequently, the need to observe procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. 9165
becomes even more important.

We reiterate that R.A. 9165 has a strict mandate for the arresting officers to
comply with the afore-quoted procedural safeguards. We further note that, before
the saving clause provided under it can be invoked, Section 21(a) of the IRR
requires the prosecution to prove the twin conditions of (a) existence of justifiable
grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items. In this case, the arresting officers neither presented nor explained justifiable
grounds for their failure to (1) make a physical inventory of the seized items; (2)
take photographs of the items; and (3) establish that a representative each from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official had
been contacted and were present during the marking of the items. These errors
were exacerbated by the fact that the officers had ample time to comply with these
legal requirements, as they had already monitored and put accused-appellants on
their watch list. The totality of these circumstances has led us to conclude that the
apprehending officers deliberately disregarded the legal procedure under R.A.
9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and
identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up.
[12]
 Accused-appellants would thereby be discharged from the crimes of which they
were convicted.

The disposition of this case reminds us of our observation in People v.

Garcia, in which we took note of the statistics relating to dismissal and acquittal in
dangerous drugs cases. There we mentioned that [u]nder PDEA records, the
dismissals and acquittals accounted for 56% because of the failure of the police
authorities to observe proper procedure under the law, among others. [13] We then
noted an international study conducted in 2008, which showed that out of 13,667
drug cases filed from 2003 to 2007, only 4,790 led to convictions (most of which
were cases of simple possession); the charges against the rest were dismissed or the
accused were acquitted.[14] Our own data[15] on the cases filed with us from 2006 to
2011 show that, out of those in which this Court made acquittals and reversals,
85% involved failure of the prosecution to establish the arresting officers
compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

It is truly distressing how courts are constrained to make acquittals,

dismissals, or reversals because of the inadvertent failure of arresting officers and
the prosecution to establish compliance or justify noncompliance with a statutory
procedure. It is even more troubling when those cases involve apparently known or
long-suspected drug pushers. Congress was clear in its declaration on the
eradication of the drug menace plaguing our country. Yet, also firm and stringent is
its mandate to observe the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165. This is the reason
why we have emphasized countless times that courts must remain vigilant in their
disposition of cases related to dangerous drugs. Also, we have already called on the
police, PDEA, and the prosecution to reinforce and review the conduct of buy-bust
operations and the presentation of evidence.[16]

WHEREFORE, the appealed 30 November 2010 Decision of the CA,

which affirmed the 17 September 2008 Decision of the Makati City RTC, is SET
ASIDE. Accused-appellants Joel Ancheta y Osan, John Llorando y Rigaryo, and
Juan Carlos Gernada y Horcajo are hereby ACQUITTED of the charges in
Criminal Case Nos. 04-2777, 04-2778, and 04-2779 on the ground of reasonable
doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to

immediately RELEASE accused-appellants from custody, unless they are detained
for some other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Court

Administrator for circulation to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
 
 
FIRST DIVISION
 
 
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 189806
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
 
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR.,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ.
FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y Promulgated:
TRESBALLES,
Accused-Appellant. January 12, 2010
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
 
DECISION
  
VELASCO, JR., J.:
 
 
The Case
 
This is an appeal from the August 28, 2009 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03273, which affirmed in toto the Decision dated
July 12, 2007[2]in Criminal Case Nos. 03-4735 and 03-4961 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 64 in Makati City. The RTC found accused-appellant
Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes guilty of drug-sale and drug-use penalized by
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
 
The Facts
 
On November 25, 2003, an information was filed charging Manlangit with
violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, as follows:
 
That on or about the 24th day of November 2003, in the City of
Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then
and there willfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver
zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu), which is a dangerous drug.[3]
 
On December 11, 2003, another information was filed against Manlangit for
breach of Sec. 15, Art. II of RA 9165, to wit:
 
That sometime on or before or about the 24 th day of November
2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by
law to use dangerous drugs, and having been arrested and found positive
for use of Methylamphetamine, after a confirmatory test, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Methylamphetamine, a
dangerous drug in violation of the said law.[4]
 
 
During the arraignment for both cases, Manlangit pleaded not
guilty. Afterwards, the cases were tried jointly.
 
 At the trial of the case, the prosecution adduced evidence as follows:
 
On November 24, 2003, the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)
Cluster 4 office received information from an informant that a certain Negro was
selling prohibited drugs along Col. Santos Street at Brgy. South
Cembo, Makati City. The MADAC thereafter coordinated with the Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSTOF) and the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency to conduct a joint MADAC-police buy-bust operation. A
team was assembled composed of several members of the different offices, among
which Police Officer 2 Virginio Costa was designated as the team leader, with
MADAC operative Wilfredo Serrano as the poseur-buyer and Roberto Bayona as
his back-up. The team prepared buy-bust money for the operation, marking two (2)
one hundred peso (PhP 100) bills with the initials AAM.
 
Upon arrival on Col. Santos Street, Brgy. Cembo, Makati City, the team
spotted Manlangit standing in front of his house. The informant approached
Manlangit and convinced the latter that Serrano wanted to purchase shabu from
him. Manlangit asked Serrano how much shabu he wanted,
to which Serrano replied that he wanted two hundred pesos (PhP 200) worth
of shabu. Manlangit went inside his house and later reappeared with a plastic
sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Manlangit handed over the plastic
sachet to Serrano who, in turn, gave Manlangit the marked money. Then Serrano
gave the pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette to indicate to the rest of the
team that the buy-bust operation had been consummated. Thus, the rest of the team
approached Manlangit and proceeded to arrest him while informing him of
constitutional rights and the reason for his arrest. The marked money was
recovered from Manlangits pocket. The plastic sachet was then marked with the
initials FTM and sent to the Philippine National Police (PNP) crime laboratory
in Camp Crame, Quezon City for analysis. The PNP crime laboratory identified the
white crystalline substance as Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride in Chemistry
Report No. D-1190-03. Manlangit was also brought to the PNP crime laboratory
for a drug test, which yielded a positive result for use of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride.[5]
 
Manlangit denied that such buy-bust operation was conducted and claimed
that the recovered shabu was not from him. He claimed that he was pointed out by
a certain Eli Ballesteros to Serrano and Bayona. Thereafter, he was allegedly
detained at the Barangay Hall of Brgy. Pitogo. There, he was allegedly interrogated
by Serrano as to the location of the shabu and its proceeds, as well as the identity
of the drug pushers in the area. He also claimed that whenever he answered that he
did not know what Serrano was talking about, he was boxed in the chest. Later on,
he said that he was brought to Camp Crame for drug testing.[6]
 
On July 12, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
 
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
as follows:
 
1)      In Criminal Case No. 03-4735, finding accused Francisco
Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 5, Art II,
RA 9165 (drug-sale) and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the
amount of P500,000.00. Said accused shall be given credit
for the period of his preventive detention.
 
2)      In Criminal Case No. 03-4735,[7] finding accused Francisco
Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 15, Art II,
RA 9165 (drug-use), and sentencing him to undergo
rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a government
rehabilitation Center under the auspices of the Bureau of
Correction subject to the provisions of Article VIII, RA
9165.
 
It is further ordered that the plastic sachet containing shabu,
subject of Criminal Case No. 03-4735, be transmitted to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the latters appropriate action.
 
SO ORDERED.[8]
 
 
From such Decision, Manlangit interposed an appeal with the CA.
 
In his Brief, accused-appellant Manlangit claimed that the prosecution failed
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To support such contention, accused-
appellant claimed that there was no buy-bust operation conducted. He pointed out
that he was not in the list of suspected drug pushers of MADAC or of the
AIDSTOF. He further emphasized that the buy-bust operation was conducted
without first conducting a surveillance or test buy to determine the veracity of the
report made by the informant. He assailed the fact that despite knowledge of his
identity and location, the buy-bust team failed to secure even a search warrant.
 
Accused-appellant also raised the issue that the buy-bust team failed to
comply with the procedure for the custody and control of seized prohibited drugs
under Sec. 21 of RA 9165. He argued that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official function was overturned by the officers failure to follow
the required procedure in the conduct of a buy-bust operation, as well as the
procedure in the proper disposition, custody, and control of the subject specimen.
 
On August 28, 2009, the CA rendered the decision which affirmed the RTCs
Decision dated July 12, 2007. It ruled that contrary to accused-appellants
contention, prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust
operation. The case was a valid example of a warrantless arrest, accused-appellant
having been caught in flagrante delicto. The CA further stated that accused-
appellants unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to show that the witnesses
for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, in this case the members of
the buy-bust team; thus, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. After
examining the testimonies of the witnesses, the CA found them credible and found
no reason to disturb the RTCs findings. Finally, the CA found that chain of
evidence was not broken.
 
Hence, the instant appeal.
 
In a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 22, 2010,
accused-appellant expressed his desire not to file a supplemental brief and
reiterated the same arguments already presented before the trial and appellate
courts.
 
The Issues
 
The issues, as raised in the Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated September 29,
2008, are:
 
1.      The Court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant
despite the prosecutions failure to prove his built beyond reasonable
doubt.[9]
  
2.      The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the procedure for the
custody and control of prohibited drugs was complied with. [10]
 
 
The Ruling of the Court
 
The appeal is bereft of merit.
 
 
First Issue:
Accused-appellants guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt
 
The first paragraph of Sec. 5 of RA 9165 punishes the act of selling dangerous
drugs. It provides:
 
Section 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
 
While Sec. 15, RA 9165 states:
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
(P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
 
 
People v. Macatingag[11] prescribed the requirements for the successful prosecution
of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows.
 
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is
material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the
proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.
 
 
The pieces of evidence found in the records amply demonstrate that all the
elements of the crimes charged were satisfied. The lower courts gave credence to
the prosecution witnesses testimonies, which established the guilt of accused-
appellant for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. The
testimoniesparticularly those of the police officers involved, which both the RTC
and the CA found credibleare now beyond question. As the Court ruled in Aparis
v. People:[12]
 
As to the question of credibility of the police officers who served
as principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled is the rule that
prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of
the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It is a
fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in
nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no
glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary,
and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The
reason for this 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. The rule finds
an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by
the Court of Appeals, as in the present case.
 
Moreover, accused-appellants defense of denial, without substantial evidence to
support it, cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of the police officers
performance of official functions. Thus, the Court ruled in People v. Llamado:[13]
 
In cases involving violations of 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 be evidence
to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely
impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail
over appellants self-serving and uncorroborated denial. (Emphasis
supplied.)
 
Contrary to accused-appellants challenge to the validity of the buy-bust
operation, the Court categorically stated in Quinicot v. People that a prior
surveillance or test buy is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, as long as the
operatives are accompanied by their informant, thus:
 
 
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy
does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no
textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left
to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to
apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is
not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied
by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good
police work. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police
may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. In the instant case,
having been accompanied by the informant to the person who was
peddling the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have
conducted any prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-
bust operation.[14] (Emphasis supplied.)
 
 
Furthermore, accused-appellants contention that the buy-bust team should
have procured a search warrant for the validity of the buy-bust operation is
misplaced. The Court had the occasion to address this issue in People v. Doria:[15]
 
We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant
Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances
as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, to wit:
  
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;
 
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
 
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
 
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested
without a warrant if he has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense. Appellant Doria was caught in the act
of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante
delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only
authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
 
 
The Court reiterated such ruling in People v. Agulay:[16]
 
Accused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, making the
sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from him inadmissible in
evidence. Accused-appellants claim is devoid of merit for it is a well-
established rule that an arrest made after an entrapment operation does
not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless
arrest, in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the
Revised Rules of Court, to wit:
 
Section 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.
 
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent
years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending
drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime
originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him
to commit the offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional
and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.
 
 
Second Issue:
The chain of custody of the seized drug was unbroken
 
Accused-appellant contends that the arresting officers did not comply with the
requirements for the handling of seized dangerous drugs as provided for under Sec.
21(1) of RA 9165:
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;
(Emphasis supplied.)
 
In particular, accused-appellant argues that:
 
While the marking of the specimen was done in the place of incident by
MADAC operative Soriano, the inventory of the item was done at
Cluster 4. There was no photograph made of the plastic sachet in the
 presence of the accused, media, any elected local official, or the DOJ
representatives, in clear violation of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165. [17]
Based on such alleged failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedural
requirements of Sec. 21, RA 9165, accused-appellant posits that he should,
therefore, be acquitted. Such reasoning is flawed.
 
In People v. Rosialda,[18] the Court addressed the issue of chain of custody of
dangerous drugs, citing People v. Rivera, as follows:
 
Anent the second element, Rosialda raises the issue that there is a
violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, particularly the requirement that
the alleged dangerous drugs seized by the apprehending officers be
photographed 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. Rosialda argues that such failure to comply with the provision
of the law is fatal to his conviction.
 
This contention is untenable.
 
The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on this
matter in People v. Rivera:
 
The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of
seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which stipulates:
 
(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 same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165,
viz.:
 
 (a) 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: 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.
 
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police
officers conducted the required physical inventory and
photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said
guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render
accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the
implementing rules 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. The same provision clearly states as
well, that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable
grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence have been preserved.
 
This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons
existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue during
trial. Be that as it may, this Court has explained in People v. Del
Monte that 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. The existence of the dangerous drug is
a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very
 corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a
judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential that the identity of the
prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of
custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,
so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the
evidence are removed.
 
To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or
testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least
between the time it came into possession of the police officers
and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition up to the time it was offered in
evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)
 
Here, accused-appellant does not question the unbroken chain of evidence. His
only contention is that the buy-bust team did not inventory and photograph the
specimen on site and in the presence of accused-appellant or his counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected
public official. However, as ruled by the Court in Rosialda, as long as the chain of
custody remains unbroken, even though the procedural requirements provided for
in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not
be affected.
 
And as aptly ruled by the CA, the chain of custody in the instant case was not
broken as established by the facts proved during trial, thus:
 
Lastly, the contention of appellant, that the police officers failed to
comply with the provisions of paragraph 1, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
for the proper procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized
drugs, is untenable. Record shows that Serrano marked the confiscated
sachet of shabu in the presence of appellant at the place of incident and
was turned over properly to the investigating officer together with the
marked buy-bust money. Afterwards, the confiscated plastic sachet
suspected to be containing shabu was brought to the forensic chemist for
examination. Likewise, the members of the buy-bust team executed
their Pinagsanib na Salaysay sa Pag-aresto immediately after the arrest
and at the trial, Serrano positively identified the seized drugs. Indeed, the
prosecution evidence had established the unbroken chain of custody of
the seized drugs from the buy-bust team, to the investigating officer and
to the forensic chemist. Thus, there is no doubt that the prohibited drug
 presented before the court a quo was the one seized from appellant and
that indeed, he committed the crimes imputed against him.
 
 
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CAs August 28, 2009
Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03273 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
 
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Baguio City
 
SECOND DIVISION
 
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 190321
Plaintiff-Appellee,  
  Present:
   
  CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - BRION,
  PEREZ,
  SERENO, and
  REYES, JJ.
SAMMY UMIPANG y ABDUL,  
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:
 
April 25, 2012

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

SERENO, J.:
 Before the Court is an appeal from the 21 May 2009 Decision of the Court
of Appeals (CA)[1] affirming the 24 July 2007 Joint Decision of the Pasig City
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Cases No. 14935-D-TG and No. 14936-D-
TG.[2] The RTC Decision convicted Sammy Umipang y Abdul (Umipang) for
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165),
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Facts

The pertinent facts, as determined by the CA, are quoted as follows:

Acting on a tip from a confidential informant that a person named Sam

was selling drugs along Cagayan de Oro Street in Maharlika Village, Taguig City,
a buy-bust team from the [Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task
Force (SAID-SOTF)] of the Taguig City Police was dispatched on April 1, 2006
at around 6:00 in the evening. [Police Officer (PO) 2] Gasid was assigned to act
as poseur buyer and he was given a ₱500.00 marked money. The operation was
coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

Upon arrival at the area, PO2 Gasid and the confidential informant
sauntered the length of the street while the other members of the team
strategically positioned themselves. The confidential informant saw the man
called Sam standing near a store. The confidential informant and PO2 Gasid then
approached Sam. Straight off, the confidential informant said Sam, pa-iskor kami.
Sam replied Magkano ang iiskorin nyo? The confidential informant said Five
hundred pesos. Sam took out three (3) plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance with various price tags500, 300, and 100. After making a choice, PO2
Gasid handed the marked ₱500.00 to Sam who received the same.

Upon receipt by Sam of the marked money, PO2 Gasid took off his cap as
the pre-arranged signal that the sale had been consummated. Sensing danger, Sam
attempted to flee but PO2 Gasid immediately grabbed and arrested Sam. In a few
seconds, the rest of the buy-bust team [comprised of their team leader, Police
Senior Inspector (PS/INSP.) Obong, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Mendiola,
PO3 Hajan, PO3 Maglana, PO3 Salem, and PO1 Ragos] joined them. PO1 Ragos
handcuffed Sam. Five (5) more plastic sachets containing the same white
crystalline substance were recovered from Sam. PO2 Gasid marked the items with
the initials SAU [which stood for Sammy A. Umipang, the complete name,
including the middle initial, of accused-appellant]. Sam was forthwith brought to
the police station where he was booked, investigated and identified as accused-
appellant Sammy Umipang y Abdul. PO2 Gasid then brought the confiscated
items to the crime laboratory for testing. The specimens all tested positive for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu, a dangerous drug.

On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant himself and

his brother Nash Rudin Umipang. According to them:

In the evening of April 1, 2006, while they were sleeping, accused-

appellant and his family were awakened by loud knocking on the door. The
persons outside shouted Mga pulis kami. Buksan mo ang pinto kung hindi
gigibain namin ito. Accused-appellant obliged and opened the door. Five (5)
policemen barged into his house and pointed a gun at him. Against his will and
amid the screams of his wife, accused-appellant was brought to a waiting vehicle
and brought to the police headquarters. At the Taguig Police station, PO2 Gasid
tried to extort from him ₱100,000.00 for his release. He denied the charges and
that the alleged evidence were all planted by the police.[3]

Consequently, the following charges were brought against Umipang:

That on or about the 1st day of April 2006, in the City of Taguig,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly sell deliver and give away to poseur buyer PO2 Ruchyl
Gasid, one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of white
crystalline substance, which substance was found positive to the test for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as shabu a dangerous drug, in
consideration of the amount of ₱500.00, in violation of the above-cited law.

That on or about the 1st day of April 2006, in the City of Taguig,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly possess and have in his custody and control five (5)
heat sealed transparent plastic sachets, each containing 0.05 gram, 0.05 gram,
0.05 gram, 0.04 gram and 0.04 gram with a total weight of 0.23 gram of white
crystalline substance, which substances were found positive to the tests for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as shabu a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.

RTC Ruling
 In its 24 July 2007 Joint Decision, the Pasig City RTC found accused-
appellant guilty of violating Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration,
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals) and Section 11 (Possession
of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of R.A. 9165. The RTC gave more weight to the
testimonies of the arresting officers on how they conducted the buy-bust operation
than to accused-appellants claim of frame-up by the police. Thus, for violating
Section 5 (Criminal Case No. 14935-D-TG), Umipang was sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000. For violating Section 11 (Criminal
Case No. 14936-D-TG), he was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14)
years and twenty-one (21) days as maximum and to pay a fine of ₱300,000.

CA Ruling

In its 21 May 2009 Decision, the CA affirmed in toto the 24 July 2007 Joint
Decision of the RTC. According to the appellate court, the elements necessary for
the prosecution of the illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs were present
and established. Thus, it no longer disturbed the RTCs assessment of the credibility
of the prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the CA found that there was no
showing of improper motive on the part of the police officers. With the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, it ruled against the
denials of accused-appellant, and his defense of frame-up.

We have consistently declared that a review of the factual findings of the

lower courts is not a function that is normally undertaken in appeals before this
Court. However, after a careful scrutiny of the CA Decision, we find it proper to
reevaluate the factual issues surrounding the present case, especially since it is not
clear from the Decision whether the proper implementation of the strict procedural
safeguards laid down in R.A. 9165 was established.

Issue
 Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the testimonial
evidence of the prosecution witnesses were sufficient to convict accused-appellant
of the alleged sale and possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which are
violations under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. 9165.

Discussion

Accused-appellant argues[4] that since there were two versions presented

during trial one, that of the prosecution; and the other, that of the accused the latter
version must be adopted, because the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties should not take precedence over the presumption of innocence of
the accused. He also contends that a surveillance of just 30 minutes was
insufficient to establish that Umipang was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs.
Lastly, accused-appellant claims that the fact of possession of the confiscated
plastic sachets was not clearly established, and that the evidence allegedly
confiscated from him was merely planted. [5] Alluding to the testimony of PO1
Ragos, he points out that the former did not see him holding the drugs, and that the
sachet was shown only to PO1 Ragos by PO2 Gasid.

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) prays for the
affirmation of the RTC Joint Decision in all respects, as it was decided in accord
with law and evidence.[6] The OSG argues[7] that the necessary elements to convict
a person under Sections 5 and 11 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. It then
contends that, absent independent proof and substantiated evidence to the contrary,
accused-appellants bare-faced denial should be deemed merely as a self-serving
statement that does not hold merit. Finally, the OSG asserts that, where there is no
evidence of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witness to testify
falsely against accused-appellant, the testimony must be given full faith and
credence.
Substantive law requires strict observance
of the procedural safeguards outlined in
R.A. 9165

At the outset, we take note that the present case stemmed from a buy-bust
operation conducted by the SAID-SOTF. We thus recall our pronouncement
in People v. Garcia:

A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of
operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions
that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a
significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the
law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as
a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that by the very
nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use
of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or
grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial
hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of
abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying
drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe
penalties for drug offenses. Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the
seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165)
for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that
these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the defined
offense.[8] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)

Section 21 of R.A. 9165 delineates the mandatory procedural

safeguards[9] that are applicable in cases of buy-bust operations:

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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment,
the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a
qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall
be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued
within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the 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 on
the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the
next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72)
hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the
PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the
destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil
society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the
guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s
which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful
commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled
for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample,
duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or
burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s
in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having
jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative
sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the
Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed
to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence
shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or
accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing
to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the
 actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of
Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the
former; x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)

Congress introduced another complementing safeguard through Section 86

of R.A. 9165, which requires the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
Philippine National Police (PNP), and Bureau of Customs (BOC) to maintain close
coordination with PDEA in matters of illegal drug-related operations:

Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on

Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
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. (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, the 2002 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 (IRR) set
the following procedure for maintaining close coordination:

SECTION 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating

Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
(a)          Relationship/Coordination between PDEA and Other Agencies The
PDEA shall be the lead agency in the enforcement of the Act, while the PNP, the
NBI and other law enforcement agencies shall continue to conduct anti-drug
operations in support of the PDEA: Provided, that the said agencies shall, as far as
practicable, coordinate with the PDEA prior to anti-drug
operations; Provided, further, that, in any case, said agencies shall inform the
PDEA of their anti-drug operations within twenty-four (24) hours from the
time of the actual custody of the suspects or seizure of said drugs and
substances, as well as paraphernalia and transport equipment used in illegal
activities involving such drugs and/or substances, and shall regularly update
the PDEA on the status of the cases involving the said anti-drug
operations; Provided, furthermore, that raids, seizures, and other anti-drug
 operations conducted by the PNP, the NBI, and other law enforcement agencies
prior to the approval of this IRR shall be valid and authorized; Provided, finally,
that nothing in this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the NBI, other law enforcement
personnel and the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from
effecting lawful arrests and seizures in consonance with the provisions of Section
5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied.)

Given the nature of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive

procedural safeguards crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before
giving full credit to the testimonies of those who conducted the operations.
Although we have ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a
buy-bust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecutions cause, so long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved,
[10]
 courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that
constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross,
systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the
law.Consequently, Section 21(a) of the IRR provides for a saving clause in the
procedures outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which serves as a guide in
ascertaining those procedural aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable
grounds, 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. 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; (Emphasis supplied.)

We have reiterated that this saving clause applies only where the prosecution
recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable
grounds after which, the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized have been preserved.[11] To repeat, noncompliance
with the required procedure will not necessarily result in the acquittal of the
accused if: (1) the noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team.[12]

Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the

official duties of law enforcers,[13] we stress that the step-by-step procedure
outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply
brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The provisions were crafted by
Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially
considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. In People v.
Coreche,[14] we explained thus:

The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering

with evidence found legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on
the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place
a three-tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by
imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs the duty to 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 supplied.)

Consequently, in a line of cases, [15] we have lain emphasis on the importance

of complying with the prescribed procedure. Stringent compliance is justified
under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government
and liberally in favor of the accused.[16] Otherwise, the procedure set out in the law
will be mere lip service.[17]

Material irregularities in the conduct of the

buy-bust operations

In the recent case of People v. Relato, we reiterated the following:

In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine

hydrochloride prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165, the State not only carries
the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears
the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not
discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the
prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial
gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts
about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in
court. Any gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Relato
deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became
plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecutions evidence of guilt.
[18]
 (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)

The conduct of the buy-bust operations was peppered with defects, which
raises doubts on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items from accused-appellant.

First, there were material inconsistencies in the marking of the seized items.
According to his testimony, PO2 Gasid used the initials of the complete name,
including the middle initial, of accused-appellant in order to mark the confiscated
sachets. The marking was done immediately after Umipang was handcuffed.
However, a careful perusal of the testimony of PO2 Gasid would reveal that
his prior knowledge of the complete initials of accused-appellant, standing for the
latters full name, was not clearly established. Thus, doubt arises as to when the
plastic sachets were actually marked, as shown by PO2 Gasids testimony:

A [PO2 Gasid]: We conducted a buy-bust operation on April 1, 2006.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Against whom did you conduct this buy-bust operation?

A: Against alias Sam, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: What prompted you to conduct this operation against

this alias Sam?

A: We received information from our confidential informant that one alias

Sam is selling shabu at Cagayan De Oro Street,
Maharlika Village, Taguig.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Aside from this information that you received from your
informant, was there anything more that your
informant told you about the real identity of this
alias Sam?

A: Nothing more, sir, he gave us only his alias, sir.[19]

x x x x x x x x x

PROSEC. SANTOS: So, after you have taken the item and paid alias Sam and
then you executed the pre-arranged signal that you
have already purchased from him, what happened
then?

A: After I made the pre-arranged signal, mabilis po yung mata ni alias Sam, para
ho bang balisa, siguro napansin nya na hindi lang
kami dalawa (2), aakma syang tatakbo, sinunggaban
ko na po sya.

PROSEC. SANTOS: So, you held Sam already during that time?

A: Yes, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened after that?

A: I introduced myself as police officer and at that time I arrested him.

PROSEC. SANTOS: What about your companions who serves [sic] as your

immediate back up, what happened to them when
you were already hold and arrested [sic] this alias
Sam?

A: I noticed my companions approaching us.

x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC. SANTOS: And what did your colleague Ragos do when he arrived at
your place?

A: When he arrived at the place, after arresting alias Sam, he was the one who
handcuffed him.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Was there anything more that was done in that place of
occurrence during that time, Officer?

A: Yes, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Tell us please?

A: After arresting alias Sam, I frisk [sic] him for the remaining items he showed
me and the buy-bust money I gave him.

x x x x x x x x x

PROSEC. SANTOS: Was there anything that you and your team did in the items
that you confiscated from the possession of the
accused during that time and the shabu that you
bought from him?

A: I marked the items I confiscated at the place of incident.

PROSEC. SANTOS: How did you marked [sic] the item that you bought from
this alias Sam?

A: SAU, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: And what does that stand for? That SAU?

A: Stands for the initials of alias Sam.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Is that the only thing that you placed on the plastic sachet
containing the shabu that you bought from this alias
Sam during that time?

A: I marked the shabu I bought as SAU-1.

PROSEC. SANTOS: How about the other five (5) plastic sachets containing the
suspected shabu, what happened to that?

A: I marked them as SAU-2, SAU-3, SAU-4, SAU-5 and SAU-6.[20]

x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC. SANTOS: Now, after you have marked and inventoried the items
that you bought and confiscated from this alias Sam
during that time, what else happened?

A: After the inventory of the evidences, I turn [sic] them over to the

investigator.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Where did you turn these items to your investigator?

A: At the office, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Who was your investigator during that time?

A: PO1 Alexander Saez, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: When you turn these items to your investigator, where were
you?

A: At the office, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened to these items that you turn it over [sic] to
your investigator?

A: He made a request for laboratory examination of the items confiscated.[21]

x x x x x x x x x

PROSEC. SANTOS: Now, Officer, this Sam when you have already arrested

him, were you able to know his real name?

A: Yes, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: What was his real name?

A: Sammy Umipang, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Is he present here in Court?

A: Yes, sir.[22]

x x x x x x x x x

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: When you arrived at the place, by the way, where was
your target area, Mr. Witness?

A: Cagayan De Oro Street, Barangay Maharlika, Taguig City.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: When you were there, you did not buy [sic] anybody to
buy shabu from the accused?
 A: No, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, you did not conduct any test buy?

A: No, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Nor did you make any inquiry with Cagayan De Oro
Street regarding the accused?

A: Not anymore, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: At that moment, you dont have any idea regarding the
identity of the accused and also whether he was
engaged in illegal activity?

A: Regarding the identity, he was described by the informant.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: It was only the informant who knows the accused?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also your other members, they did not know the
accused?

A: Yes, sir.[23] (Emphasis supplied.)

A clearer picture of what transpired during the buy-bust operation, from the
marking of the confiscated items to the arrest of accused-appellant, is provided by
the testimony of PO1 Ragos:

PROSEC. SANTOS: And what is the effect to you of the act of Gasid taking off
his cap?

A: That is the sign that he already bought the shabu.

PROSEC. SANTOS: When you saw Gasid acting that way, being the back up of
him during that time, what did you do?

A: I run [sic] towards them.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Were you able to go near him when you run [sic] towards
him?

A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened?

A: I saw him holding Sam.

PROSEC. SANTOS: When you saw Gasid already holding Sam, what did you
do?

A: I handcuffed Sam.

PROSEC. SANTOS: After that, what happened?

A: The items confiscated by Gasid were marked with his initials.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Did you see Gasid marking those things that he took from
this Sam during that time?

A: Yes, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

PROSEC. SANTOS: What marked [sic] did he put on these plastic sachets?

A: SAU, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Do you know what SAU connotes?

A: Yes, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Tell us?

A: Sammy Abdul Umipang.

PROSEC. SANTOS: After that, what happened?

A: He was apprising [sic] of his constitutional rights.

PROSEC. SANTOS: After this person was apprised of his rights, was there
anything more that was done?

A: We went back to the office.

PROSEC. SANTOS: All the members of the team went back to the office?

A: Yes, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: And together with this alias Sam?

A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened in your office?

A: We turn [sic] over the evidence to the investigator.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Who was your investigator during that time?

A: PO1 Saez.

x x x x x x x x x

PROSEC. SANTOS: So, after the team has turn [sic] over the evidences to your
investigator in the person of Officer Saez, was there
anything more that transpired in relation to this
event, this incident?

A: We prepared an affidavit of arrest.[24]

x x x x x x x x x

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And this information regarding the accused was relayed

to you by your immediate superior?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And this information was the first information

regarding the accused, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: What was told you was that your target person was alias
Sam?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: No photographs of alias Sam was shown to you?

A: None, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: You have no derogatory records of this alias Sam in

your office?

A: None, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: You have no warrant of arrest?

A: None, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: This alias Sam was not included in your watch list?
A: No, sir.[25]

x x x x x x x x x

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, the markings were placed on the plastic sachets?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: After that Mr. Witness, you brought the accused

together with the items to your office?

PROSEC. SANTOS: Already answered, Your Honor. We are just repeating the

same pattern, Your Honor.

x x x x x x x x x

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you investigated the accused?

A: No more, it was PO1 Saez who investigated the accused.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, you did not ask the full name of the accused?

A: It was PO1 Saez who investigated him, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: It was PO1 Saez who got his full name and on
you [sic] part, that was the first time that you
were able to learned [sic] the full name of the
accused?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Because you knew him only as alias Sam?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: How about Officer Gasid, it was also the first time
that he learned the full name of the accused?

A: Maybe not, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that it was Officer Saez who
delivered the items to the crime lab?

A: No sir, it was Gasid.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: But you were not with him when he delivered the
specimen to the crime laboratory?

A: Yes, sir.
 ATTY. HERNANDEZ: No further question, Your Honor.

PROSEC. SANTOS: No re-direct, Your Honor. x x x[26] (Emphasis supplied.)

The circumstances surrounding the marking of the seized items are suspect. From
their testimonies during the trial, PO2 Gasid and PO1 Ragos both admitted that
they only knew their target by the name Sam. They both testified that, after
accused-appellant was handcuffed, frisked, and read his rights, they immediately
brought him to the police precinct. They then said that it was a certain PO1 Saez
who investigated him. In fact, in their joint affidavit, PO2 Gasid and PO1 Ragos
stated thus:

Na dinala namin siya [accused] sa aming opisina para sa pagsisiyasat at

pagtatanong tungkol sa detalye ng kaniyang pagkatao at sa layuning
masampahan ng kaukulang reklamo sa paglabag ng Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
[27]
 (Emphasis supplied.)

Evidence on record does not establish that PO2 Gasid had prior knowledge
of the complete name of accused-appellant, including the middle initial, which
enabled the former to mark the seized items with the latters complete initials. This
suspicious, material inconsistency in the marking of the items raises questions as
to how PO2 Gasid came to know about the initials of Umipang prior to the latters
statements at the police precinct, thereby creating a cloud of doubt on the issues of
where the marking really took place and whether the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items were preserved. All that was established was that it was
PO1 Saez who asked accused-appellant about the latters personal circumstances,
including his true identity, and that the questioning happened when accused-
appellant was already at the police station. We thus reiterate:

Crucial 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 after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus
it is vital that the seized contraband[s] are 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 criminal
proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held
that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises
reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, the
doctrinal fallback of every drug-related prosecution. Thus, in People v.
Laxa and People v. Casimiro, we held that the failure to mark the drugs
immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the
prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. These rulings are
refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa and People v. Dismuke that doubts
on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the prosecutions
failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same
as the one seized from the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable
doubt.[28] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)

It is true that the failure of the arresting officers to mark the seized items at
the place of arrest does not by itself impair the integrity of the chain of custody and
render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. [29] We have already clarified
that the marking upon immediate confiscation of the prohibited items contemplates
even that which was done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team.[30] We will analyze this possible seed of doubt that has been planted by the
unexplained marking of the shabu with the complete initials of Umipang, together
with the other alleged irregularities.

Second, the SAID-SOTF failed to show genuine and sufficient effort to seek
the third-party representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165.
Under the law, the inventory and photographing of seized items must be conducted
in the presence of a representative from the media, from the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and from any elected public official. The testimony of PO2 Gasid, as
quoted below, is enlightening:

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you also made the certificate of inventory,

is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And since this is a drug operation, you are required by
law to make a certificate of inventory?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And that inventory, you are required by law that there
should be a signature of any representative from the
media, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also representative from the Department of Justice,

is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also elected official, Mr. Witness?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Im showing to you Mr. Witness your certificate of

inventory, do you confirm that there are no
signatures placed by any member of the media,
representative from the Department of Justice
and any elected official?

A: Yes, sir, there is none, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And there appears to be an initial of RS above the type

written name Sammy Umipang, who wrote this
initial RS?

A: That stands for refuse [sic] to sign, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Who refuse [sic] to sign?

A: Sammy Umipang, sir.[31]

x x x x x x x x x

PROSEC. SANTOS: Why was the certificate of inventory not

witnesses [sic] and signed by any members of the
media, the DOJ and elected officials, Officer?

A: That time there is no available representative, sir.

COURT: How did you exert effort to locate available representative of those

officers or persons in the certificate of
inventory?
 A: The investigator contacted representative from the media, Your Honor.

COURT: What barangay this incident happened?

A: Barangay Maharlika, Your Honor.

COURT: Did you talk to the barangay captain?

A: No, Your Honor.

COURT: What about the barangay councilman?

A: No, Your Honor.[32] (Emphasis supplied.)

Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory

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

Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of
the apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to
Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that representatives were
unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were
employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be
regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the
positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165,[33] or that there was a
justifiable ground for failing to do so.[34]
 Third, the SAID-SOTF failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of
Inventory and to take photos of the seized items pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A.
9165. As pointed out by the defense during trial, [35] the Certificate of Inventory did
not contain any signature, including that of PO2 Gasid the arresting officer who
prepared the certificate[36] thus making the certificate defective. Also, the
prosecution neither submitted any photograph of the seized items nor offered any
reason for failing to do so. We reiterate that these requirements are specifically
outlined in and required to be implemented by Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165.[37]

Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not
automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was
convicted.[38] This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were recognized
and explained in terms of [] justifiable grounds.[39] There must also be a showing
that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by
some justifiable consideration/reason.[40] However, when there is gross disregard
of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious
uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution
presented in evidence.[41] This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for
a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively
produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. [42] As a result, the
prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes
charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.[43]

For the arresting officers failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to
conclude from the totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the
arresting officers deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165.
These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of
the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the
foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, as
every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.[44]
 As a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities to
exert greater efforts in combating the drug menace using the safeguards that our
lawmakers have deemed necessary for the greater benefit of our society.[45] The
need to employ a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the evidence of the
prosecution especially when the pieces of evidence were derived from a buy-bust
operation redounds to the benefit of the criminal justice system by protecting civil
liberties and at the same time instilling rigorous discipline on prosecutors.[46]

WHEREFORE, the appealed 21 May 2009 CA Decision affirming the 24

July 2007 RTC Joint Decision is SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Sammy
Umipang y Abdul is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges in Criminal Cases No.
14935-D-TG and No. 14936-D-TG on the ground of reasonable doubt. The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to
immediately RELEASE accused-appellant from custody, unless he is detained for
some other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.