Jlepublit of tbe ~bilippine.

s
~upreme ([ourt
:ffla:nila:

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 258316

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Present:

GESMUNDO, C.J., Chairperson

- versus - HERNANDO,
ZALAMEDA,
ROSARIO, and
MARQUEZ, JJ.

NORBERTO VERDADERO y Promulgated:

r
PIMENTEL, NOV 20 2023 ~
Accused-appellant.

X--------------------------------------------------X

DECISION

ZALAMEDA, J.:

Before the Court is an appeal 1 seeking to reverse and set aside the
Decision2 dated 19 November 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 12008. The CA affirmed the Joint Decision3 dated 06
September 2018 of Branch 38, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose City,
Nueva Ecija finding accused-appellant Norberto Verdadero y Pimentel
(accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5
and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 in Criminal Case Nos.

1
Rollo, pp. 3-4.
1 Id at 8-16. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate
Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Carlita B. Calpatura. ·
3 CA rollo, pp. 47-54. Penned by Presiding Judge Leo Cecilio D. Bautista.
4
Entitled: "AN ACT lNSTJTlJT[NG THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALrNG
Decision 2 G.R. No. 258316

4970-2017-P and 4971-2017-P, respectively.

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was eharged with violation of Sections 5 and 11,

Article II of RA. 9156, as amended, in two separate Informations,5 the
accusatory portions of which state:

Criminal Case No. 4970-2017-P

"That un or about the 27tl' day of September 2017, in Brgy.

Ganduz, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, within the jurisdiction
of this Hoflorabk Court, the above-named accused, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession, custody and
control. one ( 1) heated sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a
dangerous drug, weighing 0. 02 gram and sell the same to a poseur buyer,
without authority to sdl the same.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 6

Criminai Case No. 4971-2017-P

"That on or about the 27th day of September 2017, in Brgy.

Gandµz, fanta~angan, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, within the jurisdiction
of this Ho1iorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there,
,;,,llfully; til1.iav.tully and feloniously, have in his possession, custody and
-c,mtrot six {6) heated sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a
dangerous drug, weighing 0.01 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.06 gram, 0.02 gram,
0.07 gram and 0 03 gram, without authority to possess the same.

CON'.fRARYTO LAW."7

Upo.l)_ -arraignment, accut;;ed-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the

charges.& After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

At around 8:30 a.m. on 27 September 2017, a confidential informant

arrived at the Pantabangari; Nueva·Ecija Police Station and reported about

REPUBLJC ACT Ni)_ 6425, O·f.>-1ER'f,i13E KNO\V;..J AS' c;-HE DANGCROUS DRL'GS ACT Of 1972, AS AJ\r1ENDED,
PROVlDlNO fuN-bS TH~REFCiR; A~TJ fuR On-IE'.?. Pr· 1-RPOSF.S.': Approved: 23 January 2002.
5 Rollo, pp-. 8-9. ·
6
Id. at 8 .
7
Id. at 9..
' 1d.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 258316

the illegal drug activities of accused-appellant in Barangay Ganduz. 9 Acting

on said information, Police Senior Inspector Melchor T. Pereja (PSI Pereja)
formed a buy-bust team, with PO2 Sison designated as the poseur-buyer,
and POI Vir-vic Bautista (POI Bautista) and POI Joselito Ramos (POI
Ramos) as immediate back-up officers. 10

The team proceeded to the meeting place a few hours later. Accused-
appellant arrived at around I2:45 p.m. and shook hands with the
confidential informant, who introduced PO2 Sison as his friend. Accused-
appellant then asked PO2 Sison, "Utol, ilang bato ba ang kukunin mo?"
PO2 Sison replied, "Halagang limang daang piso, panggamit fang. "
Thereafter, accused-appellant took out a blue checkered pouch from his
pocket, opened it, pulled out a plastic sachet of suspected shabu and
handed it to PO2 Sison. In return, PO2 Sison handed to accused-appellant
the marked money.''

After the exchange, PO2 Sison executed the pre-arranged signal by

placing his hand on accused-appellant's shoulder to inform the rest of the
team _that the transaction had been consummated. POI Bautista and POI
Ramos rushed to .the area and. assisted p'O2 Sison in arresting accused-
appellant Upon frisking, PO2 Sison recovered from accused-appellant the
marked money a.11d a blue checkered pouch containing six heat-sealed
plastic sachets of suspected shabu. 12

The poEce· officers then_ brought the seized items and accused-
appellant to the police station for post-arrest procedures. At the police
station PO2 Sison marked the plastic sachet subject of the sale with "JBS""
and the six plastic sachets subject of the search with "JBSI," "JBS2,"
"JBS3," "JBS4," "JBS5," arid "JBS6." The police officers then took
photographs and conducted an inventory in the presence of media
representative Leovigildo Uera and Barangay Kagawads Saturnina Ordofia
(Kagawad Saturnina) and Angelita Sapigao (Kagawad Angelita), per the
receipt/inventory of property seized. 13

Afterwards, PO2 Sison, who had the seized plastic sachets in his
custody from its confiscation, brought the same to the Provincial Crime
Laboratory Office in Cabanatuan City, where it was received by PCI
Emelda B. Roderos (Roderos). Upon examination, PCI Roderos found that
the substance inside the seven (7) plastic sachets tested positive for
methamphetamine. hydrochloride or shabu. At trial, the parties stipulated
that PCI Roderos was in custody of the specimen until the same were

9
Id
" Id.
" Id. at 9-10.
" Id.
" Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 258316

turned over to the court. >4

Version of the Defense

'
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that
in the afternoon of 27 September 2017, he was at the farm of Rommel
Baldonado (Rommel) where he was working as a farmer and caretaker of a
piggery. When he was about to have lunch, a policeman arrived and asked
him to go Lo the precinct because the police chief allegedly wanted to speak
to him. Upon arrival at the police station, however, accused-appellant and
Rommel were detained. When they were asked to go out of the detention
cell, they saw barangay Kagawads Saturnina and Angelita near a table with
small plastic sachets containing suspected shabu on top. They were then
ordered by the police to point at and admit ownership of the drugs.
Accused-appellant argued that he only complied with the orders of the
police because of fear. 1'

After dispensing •with the presentation of Kagawad Angelita's

testimony, the parties stipulated that while Kagawad Angelita witnessed the
inventory of the seized items, she did not see how it was recovered and
marked. 16

Ruling of the RTC

In its 9onsolidated Decision, .the RTC found accused-appellant guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of violating_ Section 5, Article II of RA 9165,
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, plus a fine of
P500,000.00. It likewise found him guilty of violating Section 11, Article II
of the same law an.d accordingly sentenced rim to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of ~elve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years,
with a fine of P300,000.00. The dispositive portions of said decision reads:

"WHEREFORE
. , in Criminal Case No. 4970-2018-P, accused
NORBERTO VBRDADERO y Pimentel is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5 of R. A. 9165 and hereby
sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay ·a fine of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUS&""!D (PS00,000.00) PESOS;

In Criminal Case No. 4971-2018-P, accused NORBERTO

VERDADERO y Pimentel is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Section 11 of R. A. No. 9165 and hereby sentenced to suffer
an imprisonment ranging from twelve years and one day to fifteen years

l4 Id.
is Id. at Ji
\6 IJ.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 258316

and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00)

PESOS.

SO ORDERED. San Jose City, 06 September 2018." 17

The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the
elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The lone testimony of the
prosecution witness established a complete picture detailing the buy-bust
operation from the i..'1itial contact between the poseur-buyer and the seller,
the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the
consummation of sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale. The
RTC also held that the. prosecution satisfactorily proved that accused-
appellant illegally possessed seven sachets of shabu, ratiocinating that mere
possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi, sufficient to convict accused-appellant.
The RTC gave weight to the positive declaration of the police officer who it
deemed credible, _as opposed to the claim of accused-appellant that the buy-
bust operation was merely fabricated.

The trial court noted that the accused-appellant did not challenge the
chain of custody or any irregularity in the police operation but instead
denied that the seven sachets were recovered from him and presented a
different version of the incident that happened. 18 In this regard, it has been
constantly held that in the absence of any intent or ill-motive on the part of
the police offi~ers to falsely impute .commission of a crime against the
accusedaappellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty is· ~ntitled to great respect and deserves to prevail over the bare,
uncorroborated denial and self-serving claim of the accused of frame-up. 1'

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision dated 19 November 2020, the CA affirmed the

accused-appellant's conviction. The dispositive portion of the Decision
reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is

DENIED. The Joint °Decision dated 6 September 2018 of the Regional
· Triai Court of San Jose City, Branch 38 in Criminal Case Nos. 4970-
2017-P a.'1d 4971-2017-P is AFFIRMED.

17
/datll.
"· /d"atl4.
19
Id
Decision 6 G.R. No. 258316

SO ORDERED.'"

The CA ruled that the prosecution established through testimonial

evidence the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The subsequent
confiscation bf another sachet with suspected shabu from accused-
appellant's possession, sans any authority to possess the same, likewise
made him liable for illegal possession.

Further, the prosecution was able to accounl for every link in the chain
of custody starting from the time the seized contraband was confiscated by
the arresting officer from accused-appellant until the same was received by
the forensic chemist for examination. 21 To the CA, the totality of the
testimonial, documentary, and object evidence not only adequately supported
the findings that accused-appellant sold dangerous drugs and was in
possession thereof; it also accounted for the 1mbroken chain of custody of
the seized evidence as wel~.22

· Finally, t.1-ie CA did not give credence to accused-appellant's defense

of denial imd frame-up. :•Jt declared that accused-appellant failed to
overthrow the presumption of regularity accorded to the official acts of the
prosecution witnesses anctmaintained accuscd_-appellant's conviction. 23

Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether the CA correctly found accused-
appellant guilty b~yqnd reas~nable doubt of ilJegal sale . and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165~ .

· Ruling of the ·court

The appeal is meritorious.

In criminal cases, an appeal .throws the entire ·case wide open for
review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in
the appealed judgment, or e~e;1 reverse the trial court's decision based on
grounds ·other t}1an those t.1-iat the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers
the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court
competent to examine records, revise. the judgment appealed from, increase

20
Id at 15.
" Id at 14.
22 Id
23
]d.ail5.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 258316.

the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 24

In this case, accused-appellant was charged with the offenses of illegal

sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. In order to secure the conviction of
an accl!sed charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution
must establish the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment. 2; _Similarly, the prosecution must establish the following
elements to convict an accused with illegal possession of dangerous drugs:
(a) that accused was in possession of an item or object identified as
dangerous drugs; (b} such possession was not authorized by law and (C) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 26 Jurisprudence
teaches that in these cases, it is essential that the identity of the seized drug
be established with moral certainty. In order to obviate any unnecessary
doubts on such identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of
custody over the same. 27

Marking is the first stage in the chain of custody28 and serves to

separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related
evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are
disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing
switching, "plan.ting," or contamination of evidcnce. 29 While the rule on
marking is not found in statute, Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Regulation
No. 1, Series of 2002, 30 requires that the seized item/s be properly marked
for identification. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
Guidelines on th'" IRR of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 likewise require that
the apprehending or seizing officer mark the seized item/s immediately upon
seizure and confiscation. Administrative rules and regulations have the force
and effect of law.' 1 When promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or
authority . conferred upon ··the administrative agency by law, rules and
reg1.1lations partake of the nature of a statute. 32 The Court has stated the
rationale for this in the following manner:
This is so because statutes are usually couched iri general terms, after
expressing the policy, purposes, objectives, remedies and sanctions
intended by the legislature. The details and the marmer of carrying out

" People ofthe Phziippine:S vs. XXX, G.R. No. 240750,'21 June 2021_.
" People of the Philippines vs. Noel Zapantay Lucas, 866 Phil. 58, 65-66 (2019).
26
Id. at 66.
n Id.
28 People ofthe Philippines vs. Steve Siaton y Bate, 789 Phil. 87, 100 (2016).
" People ~fthe Philippines w Jhon-JhvnAlejandro y Dela Cruz, 671 Phil. 33, 46 (201]).
" Dangerous Drugs Board RegulatiM No. 1, Sez:ies of 2002.
b:
· Sec.tion 2(b), reads: The drugs or controlled chemicals or laboratory equipment shall be properly
i:narked for identification, weighed wlien possible or counted, sealed, packed and labeled by the
apprehending .officer/team.
31 Mario Nisperos y Pod.ilia v~ .. People efthe Philippines, G.R. 1'/o. 250927, 29 November 2022.
~z Id. .
Decision G.R. No. 258316

the law are often tin1es left to the administrative agency entrusted with its
enforcement. In this sense, it has been said that rules and regulations are
the product of a delegated power to create new or additional legal
provisions that have the effect oi: law. 33

On the matter of non-compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21(a)

of RA 9165, as to the failure of P02 Sison to mark the sachets immediately
after seizure, this issue is easily disposed of in the light of the Implementing
Rules and Regulitions (IRR.) of RA 9165.

Sec. 2 l(a) of the lRR of RA 9165 reads as follows:

The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the

drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the sa.'TI.e 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 oft.he inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Pro_yided, ~at the phys\cal invent9ry and phot9gra_ph shall be conducted at
the place wl:\ere the search _warrant is ,served; or at the nearest police
station or at the ne!lresf office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever
is prac;ticable,. in, case 0f warrantless. seizures; Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these' req u.irements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and tbe evidentiary value of tbe seized items are properly
preserved' by. the apprehending officer/temn, shall not render void and.
invalid such seizures of and cu5tody over'said items.

We emphasized.·· wherr -and in whose presence marking must be

conducted, to wit:
- -
Consistency with tbe "cbain of custody" rule requires that the "marking"
of the seiz~d items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter
the chain and are eve~tually the ones 'offered in evidence - should be done
(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) innnediately upon
confiscation. Thi~·step'initiates the process of protecting innocent persons
fr0m dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the
apprehendfog officers from harassment sufrs based on planting of evidence
under Sectim1·29 and- on allegations ·of robbery or theft. (Emphasis in the
original'.)34 ·

In Nisperos vi People, 35 We adopted the following guidelines in order

to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our law enforcement
officers:

L .The marking ofr.he seized dangerous drugs must be done:

33 Jd.
:;4 Id
35
Id.'
Decision 9 G.R. No. 258316

a) Immediately upon confiscation;

b) At the place of confiscation; and

c) In_the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest);

2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous

drugs must be done:

a) Immediately ajier seizure and confiscation;

b) 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; and

c) Also in tlte presence of the insulating witnesses, as follows: .

1. if the seizure occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No. 9165, or

from July 4, 200244 until August 6, 2014, the presence of three (3)
witnesses, namely, an elected public official; a Department of Justice
(DOJ) representative; and a media representative;

11. ifthc seizure occurred after the effectivity ofR.A. No. 10640, or from
August 7,. 201 :'I: onward, the presence of two (2) witnesses, namely,
an elected public official; and a National Prosecution Service
representative.or a_ medja representative.

3. ln case· of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively
acknowledge the san1e and prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance
and (2) the proper preservation .of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized item/s.JG

It is undisputed ·in this case that the poseur-buyer failed to mark the
seized items im...-rnediately upon confiscation. In fact, they were only marked
during the inventory ·itself, which was _done n9t at ti;e_piace of seizure but at
the police station. No justifiable ground was proffered to excuse the belated
marking. The reason · that accused-appellant's relatives resided nearby,
without further e{'plaining why such circumstance posed a.danger or threat
in securing the accused and/or the'.evidence, does not justify non-compliance
with the requirerrients of Sec. 2l(a) of RA 9165. .

Moreover, the prosecution simply relied on the presumption of

regularity in handling the. seized items without presenting any· evidence to
prove that there· ~as Rroper preservation of'the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items. Since the .first ·link of th.e chain was not even
established, \Ve find it unnecessary to discuss the other links of the chain.
Verily, theFe was no chain to even speak of ·With the belated marking, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the -corpus delicti are seriously
compromised and the acquittal of petitioner is warranted..

'' Id
Decision 10 G.R. No. 258316

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision

dated 19 November 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
12008 affirming the Joint Decision dated 06 September 2018 of Branch 38,
Regional Trial Court of San Jose City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, accused-appellant NORBERTO VERDADERO y
PIMENTEL is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of
reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from
detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director General of the

Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General
of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five (5)
days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also
be furnished to the Secretary of Justice, the Police Director General of the
Philippine National Police, the Chairperson of the Dangerous Drugs Board,
and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
their information

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

ROD
Decision 11 G.R. No. 258316

WE CONCUR:

G.GESMUNDO

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Section 13, Al.tide VIII of the Constitution, I certify

that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

. GESMUNDO