.i\.epublit of tlJe ~biHppine.

s
~upreme (!Court
fflanila

THIRD DIVTST0:'.'1

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice tlwt the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated March 3, 2021, which reads asfoL/011,.1·:

"G.R. No. 224608 (Richard Gutierrezy Garcia (tj}, "Richard" v. People

of the Philippines). - The Court resolves to NOTE:

(1) petitioner's Manifesttltion/Transmittal dated October 26, 2020

stating that he filed through electronic mail his motion for early
resolution on October 26, 2020, a copy of which ls thereto attached; and

(2) said Motion for Early Resolution dated October 23, 2020.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45

assailing the Decision2 daled October 28, 2015 of the Court of Appcah
(CA) in CA - G.R. CR-HC .\Jo. 06867 which affinned the Joint De!.:ision3
dated Febniary 26, 2014 of Branch 2JO, Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Mandaluyong City finding Richard Gutierrez y Garcia @ "Richard"
(petitioner) guilty beyond reasomtblc doubt of violation of Section 5,
Article 11 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 4

Petitioner was initially charged in two separate lnfonnatlons5

which read as follows:

Criminal Case )lo. MCU:13709-D

"lbat on or about the 2"" day nr JI.fay 2011. in the City 01·
,\1.andaluyong. Philippines, a place wiLhin the jurisdiction of Lhis
Honorable Court., the above named acclL~ed, \\•ilhout authority of law,

JWl/o, pp. 10-44

, Id. at 46-59: penned hy Associate Justice Jane Aurora C Lmtiou 1'ilh Associate Ju.slices Fernanda
Lampas Perolta and Nina G. Arrtomo-Valenzuda, concurriog.
Id. at 102-117; penned hy Judge Maria A. Cancino-Etum
' An Act Instiruting Lhc Om,v,ehensive Dangemus Drogs .\cl nf2002, othernise known as Lk
Comprehensive Dangcnll'-' Drugs Act of 2002.
, Id. at47-<l8; as culled ti-um lhe CAD<acmon.

- over -
"'
(186-II)
 Resolution -2 G.R. No. 224608
.Macch 3, 2021

did then and there v.•illfully, lllllawfi.11ly and feloniously sell, deliver
and distribute to another 0.02 gram of Metlmmphetamine
hydrochloride ("shahu"), a dangcrmcs dn1g.

CONTRARY ro LA\V. 6
Criminallw;e:t\o.M(:1113710-D

That on or about tbe 2 nd day of May 2011, in the City or

M:mdaluyong, l'bilippines, a pla~e ·within the jurisdiction or this
Honorable Court, the above named accu-.~d, without aLilhority of Jaw,
did then and thei·e \,iUfully. Lmbv.fully and f"eloniously and
knowingly have in his possession, custody and control 0.02 gram of
Meth,1mphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu'"), a dangerous dmg.

CO.l\'!R.A.RYTO TA\V. 7

On May 18, 2016, pehlloncr entered a plea of not guilty lo the

offenses charged. After the termination or tbc pre-trial, trial on the merits
<.,"'Itsued. 8

Version of the Prosecution

In the evening of May 2, 2011, Police Officer II Jayson Rivera

(P02 Rivera) of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Spel:ial Operation Task .Force
(SAID-SOTF) and his companions received an information from a
confidential informant Lhat tilcre was an ongoing sale of shahu at
Welfareville Compolllld, Brgy. Addition llills, Mandaluyong City. Tue
team leader, Senior Police Officer TT Drcxcll Molina (SP02 Molina)
condul:tcd a briefing for a buy-bust operation. 9

After the briefing and coordination, P02 Rivera and

SP02 Molina, along with other polil:e officers and the confidential informant,
proceeded to Block 41, Zone 4, Brgy. Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City.
The confidential infonnant led tl1em to petitioner, who was pla)ing
pusoy Wltb lbrce other players while several persons were watching. One
of the men called the confidential informant, gesturing them 10 l:ome.
P02 Rivera and Lhe confidential infonnant approached petitioner.
Petitioner asked them how much they were gelling to which P02 Rivera
answered, "Dos Lang, Sir." Thereafter, petitioner pulled something from
his pocket. P02 Rivera then handed Lhc buy-bust money to petitioner.
1be latter discreetly handed to P02 Rivera a small plastic sachet

' As cullcJ frnm the CA Decision, rd. al 47.

As cullcJ from the CA Decision, 1d. m 48.
' Id.
' Id. at 49.

- over- "'
(186-In
 Resolution -J - G.R. ~o. 224608
March 3, 2021

contmmng white crystalline substance. After P02 Rivera received the

pla51:ic sachet, he immediately made the pre-arranged signal which is the
throwing of a lighted cigarette. He held the plastic sach!.'1: he got from
petitioner and pocketed it. Police Officer 11 Jeffrey Agbunag (P02
Agbunag) anive<l, arrested petitioner, and recovered from him another
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 1n

Se\'ernl persons tried to pull petitioner from the police officers

which caused P02 Rivera, P02 Agbunag and petitioner to fall on the
ground. As a result, petitioner sustained a wound on his forehead while
P02 Rivera and P02 Agbunag suffered abrasions. 11

The police omccrs brought petitioner to the Mam1aluyong City

Medical Center for medical examination. From the hospital, they
brought petitioner to the office or the SAID-SOTF for investigation. P02
Rivera and P02 Agbunag marked the items they each seized from
pclitioner. Thereatler, they submitted the seized items for laboratory
examination. 12

Version ofthe Defense

Petitioner ass!.rted that he had not sold shahu to P02 Rivera. He

also argued that there was no legiLimak buy-bust operation conductcd. 13

The defense presented Annabelle L. Casyao, who tesl.ificd that on

the night of the arreHt, petitioner was playing pusoy with three other
players al a store in front of her house. A pregnant woman anived and
said to petitioner, "Richard, may pera ku na hayaran mo na alw," to
which he replied, "Teka fang wala pa naman kaming pera dito" \Vhen
petitioner answered in this manner, two male persons appeared; one of
them suddenly grabbed petitioner by the neck. \Vhen petitioner resisted,
one of them hit him wilh a gun on his forehead. They then dragged him
out orthc zone. 14

Ruling ofthe RTC

On February 26, 2014, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision 15 as

follows:

'' ld at49-50.
" ld. at I 06.
' M
" ld. at 51.
" M
" ld.>rl:102-117.

- over -
Resolution -4 - G.R. Ko. 224608
March 3, 2021

\v1lliREFORF., finding accused Richard Gutierrez y Garcia

GUIL1 Y beyond reasonable douhl of the offense of violation of Sec.
5, Art. II of RA 9765 (unauthorized sale of shabu, a dangerous <lrng),
he is herehy sentenced in Crim. CQSC No. :'vfCT l -13709-D lu sLiffer
life imprisonment and a line of five HundreJ Thousand Pesos
(P500.000.00), and to pay the cost.

However, in Crim. Cas,:, No. ::,,.fCH-13710-D, (for illegal

possession of shahu, a dangcrmc, drng), accused Richard Gutierre~. y
Gm-ci~ ls hereby ACQUITTED, as his guilt has nol been established
beyond reasonable doubt.

1he t,vo (2) pbstic sachd~ contm.illng methamphetarninc

hydrochloride commonly known as shabu (Exhs. ·'D'' and "E") arc
ordered forfcitcU in fosor of the gmernrnent. Lpon the linality of this
decision in Crim. Case .Ko. .l'vICII-13709-ll the Branch Clerk of Court
is directed to tum over the aforc~aid t,vo (2) plastic sache[\; containing
shahu 10 the PDEA. to he disposed of according to law, and the
receipt by the PDEA to he au.ached to the records of these cases.

SO ORDERFD. 16 (Emphasis omill<hl.)

The RTC ruled tlwl the prosecution had proven all the elements of
the Illegal Sale of shabu and gave credence to the testimony of P02
River<1 over testimonies of the defense witnesses. 17

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.

Ruflngo_/1he CA

On October 28, 2015, the CA denied petitioner's appeal. The CA

found no solid ground to reverse the ruling or the KfC. 18 The CA
disposed of the case as follows:

\VllliRl.:FORE. the in~tatu appeal is DJSMTSSF.D. The Joint

Decision dated 26 Febn1ury 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of
::,,..1.andaluyong City, Branch 210, Criminal CL'<e 'Jo. V(Cll-13709-D,
is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 19

llcnce, this appeal.

issue

Whether the CA is correct in affinning the conviction of petitioner

for violation of Section 5, Article TT or RA 9165.

" Id.al ll6-l\7.

" Id at 173.
" Id at 58.
" M.

- over -
 Resolution •5 • G.R No. 224608
.'\-:larch 3, 2021

Our Ruling

At the outset, the Court notes that pet1t1oner filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari 20 under Rule 45 or the Rules of Court. i\s the
Court explained in Arambulo v. Peoplc,21 as a general rule, appeals or
criminal cases shall be brought lo the Court by filing a petition for
review on certiorari under Ru.le 45 of the Rules of Court. 22 However,
thls rule is subject to an exception. Thus, when the penalty imposed by
the CA is reclusion perpctua or lite imprisonment, the appeal shall be
made by a mere notice of appeal filed before the CA. 23 Here, petitioner
availed himself of the \\Tong mode of appeal by filing a Petition for
Review on Certiorari despite the fact that the CA affinned the RTC's
imposition o[ the penalty of life imprisonment against him.
Nevertheless, in the intc'Tcst of justice, the Coun will treat his petition for
review on certionui as an ordinary appeal and resolve lhc substantive
issues of this case with finality. 24

The appeal is meritorious.

In actions involving the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the

following elements must firsl be established: (1) proof that the
transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidencc. 25

In drugs cases, it is imperative lo prove the cwpu1· delicti or the

illicit drugs itself. There must be an unbroken chain to establish the
corpus delicti.

Jurisprudence identified four critical links in the chain of cu~lody

of the dangerous drugs, to wit: first. the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second. the lun1over of the lllegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal <lrug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and }Ourth, the turnover and submission of the

10 Id. al I 0-44
11 GR No. 241834. July 24, 2019.
" Id., ciliug Sectiou} (e), Rule !22 oflhc Rcv1<cd Rule., ofCrimma! Procedure "hich prnvides;
Scclion 3. Hew appeal rnJ.en.-
x xx x
(c) Exccpl a.,provided in file last paragraph ofSc-cLion 13, Rule 124, all other appeals 10
the Suprcrnc Coun shall be by petit10n for review on certiorari under Rule 4 5.
" Aramhu/o v_ People, .mpmnote 21. citing Secdon 13 {c), Rule 124 oflhe Re,ised Rules on Criminal
Procedure which provides;
Section 13. (. ·erlificatirm or ,ppeal of case w rhc Supreme Court -
xxxx
( c) ln cases wlll.-n: !he Court of Appeals imposes reclusion pc-rpctua, life lillprisonment 01'
a lesser penalty, i! shall render and enter judgruenl impusmg ouch penalty. The judgrncn!
may be appealed lu the Supreme Coun by notice of appeal filed w1tti the Court of
AJJ]Jeals.
" Arambulo,: People. supra note 21, ciiing Ramosv. People, 803 Phil. 775, 782-783 (2017).
" People v. Morale,, 630 Phil. 215 (201 0).

- over -
t'
(186-II)
 Resolutioo -6 - G.R. J\o. 224608
March 3, 2021

marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 26 To avoid
any doubt, the prosecution must show 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. 27

The law requires that the marking, physical inventory and

photography of the confiscated drugs be conducted immediately allcr
seizure. 28 Moreover, the law direcls ti-lat the inventory and photography
be done in the presence of the accused from whom the items wt:re seized
or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses,
namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
any elected public official; 29 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165
hy R.A 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the
National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 30

After a review or the records of Lhe case, the Court finds that the
prosecution undoubtedly failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense
charged. The prosecuLion failed to demon~tratc that the police ofliccrs
observed the requirements mandated by Scr.,i:ion 21, Article TT of RA 9165.

It cannol he denied that no inventory of the seized items were ever

conducted. The only thing P02 Rivera did was the marking of the item
allegedly sold to him v.'lth his initials, "JLR." Thus, Lhcrc can be no
other conclusion than that the chain of custody was broken.

Tt bears to stress Lhat the rnle requires that there must be an

inventory sheet signed by the c1ccuscd or his repre~entative along with
the required three witnesse~. 31 Here, no inventory was conducted al all.
\Vorse, nothing in the records shows that Lhc prosecution or the police
officers provided justification for the non-compliance wilh the inventory
reqL1ircmcnt.

" People v. Be/tnonle, (j_R_ No. 224588, .Tirly 04, 2018. 871 SCRA 17. 34.35
" !d. at 42-43.
2
~ See f'~uple v. Tumulak. 791 T'11il. 148. 160-161 (20 16)
0
People v. Cohayco, G.R. No. 241314. S~pt<>robe1 11, 1019.
'

" Id.
31 SECJ"IO" 21. Custody and Disposition ofConfi.m:rted, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Dm!§>·. 1'/ani Sources of Dangerous Vrugs. Contmlled Pw'"'rso,·; wul .fu;;enfial
Chemicals, Jns/Jume11ts!Parapliernalia and or Luhora/ory, F.q11iprnenr. - The PDl.A shall lake charge
and have cu.,!ody of all dange,ons drngs, pbnl source, or dangerous drngs, comrollcd p-rccursors and
essential chemlca]s._ as "ell as mstrumellls/parnphemalia and/or laboratory eqnipmcnt so confiscarted,
seW:d and'or surrendered, for proper disposition in U,e followlng manner.
(1) Tk app1c0hending team having initial cu.,tody and control of the drug, shall,
immcdialcly after seizure and confiscation. physically invemory and phoLO!,.'T""~ph the
same m Lhe presence of the accu;cd or Lhc persou.ls from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized. or l1i.slhcr rc-presen!ati, e or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of J L4<lice (DOJ), and any elcelcd pub he official who shall be
rc4uiTcd to sigrr the copies of!hc inventory and be given a copy Lherwf,

(Comprehensrve Dangerous Drugs AcroflOOl. Republic Act ,\Co 9165. [June 7, 2002]).

- over -
 Resolution •7 • G.R. No. 224608
March 3, 2021

The above-mentioned lapses are not minor but fatal as they show
that the chain of custody had been broken which, thus, casts doubt on
the integrity of the dangerous drngs supposedly seized from petitioner.

The Court cannot merely gloss over the glaring lapses committed
by the police officers, especially when the shabu allegedly bought from
petitioner was only 0.02 gram. In People v. Del Mundo,32 it was held that
courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement
of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving
minuscule amounts of drugs as they can be readily planted and
tampered.

The Court holds that the evidence on record and the

circumstances obtaining here do not support: a finding of gui lt beyond
reasonable doubt. The failure to conduct an inventory creates a serious
doubt on whethe.r the supposedly seized drugs from petitioner were the
same drugs presented in cou1t as evidence. Hence, the corpus delicti has
not been adequately proven.

In fine, reasonable doubt does exist in the present case because the
quantum of proof required for the conviction of petitioner for the
violation charged was not met, his acquittal is therefore in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated

October 28, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA - G.R. CR-HC No.
06867 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Richard Gutierrez y
Garcia @ "Richard" is hereby ACQUITTE D.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa

City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Richard
Gutierrez y Garcia @ "Richard," unless he is being held in custody for
any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Cou1t of the action taken
within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED." (LEONEN, J. , and LOPEZ, J. , on leave.

H ERNANDO, J ., Acting Chairperson).

By authority of the Court:

M~ ~ 'l)C..,~o..,\ 1(
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG Ill
Division Clerk ofCourt..._
"""
32
8 I 8 Phil. 575 (20 17) .

- over - (186-n)
 Resolution -8 - G.R. ~o. 224608
March 3, 2021

Atty, Rojane C. Elopre PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE

Counsel for Petitioner Supreme Court, Manila
Unit 2G CSV Properties 3 [For uploading pursuant to A.M. 12-7-1-SC]
329 Maysilo Circle
I550 Mandaluyong City LIBRARY SERVICES
Supreme Court, Manila
COURT OF APP EA l,S
CA G.R. CR No. 06867
I 000 Manila
Judgmem Division
JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE
Supreme Court, Manila
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village. 1229 Makati City

The Presiding Judge

REG IONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 210. Mandaluyong City
Crim. Case No. MCI 1- 13709-D

Mr. Richard Gutierrez y Garcia@ "Richard"

i;.! o The Director General
BUREAU 01' CORR.ECTIONS
1770 Muntinlupa City

The Director General

BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
1770 Muntiolupa City

The Superimendcnt
New Bilibid Prison
BUREAU OD CORRECTIONS
1770 Muminlupa City

PGEN. Guillermo Lorenzo T. Eleazar

Cl-lJEf, PH ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
National Headquarters
Camp Crame. Quezon City

The Director Generdl

PHILlPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
PDEA Bldg., NlA Northside Road
National Government Center
Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City

The Chairman
DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD
3rd Floor DDB-PDEA Bldg.,
NIA Northside Road
National Government Center
Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City

PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

Re-search Publications and Linkages Office
Supreme Court, Manila
[[email protected] J

G.R. No. 22460~ (lct.li)

$ URES