Illegal Drugs Cases
Illegal Drugs Cases
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:
FIRST DIVISION
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,
rendered as follows:
1)
premises
considered,
judgment
is
hereby
2)
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
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.
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 issues, as raised in the Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated September 29, 2008, are:
1.
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 testimonies particularly 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]
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:
ACQUITTAL
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]
SO ORDERED.[8]
produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainly is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 staplesealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly bought by the Police PoseurBuyer)
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.
Perez initialled two (2) PhP 50 bills bearing Serial Nos. CN467805 and BZ323461, which were
going to be used as marked money. After recording the details of the preparation in the police
blotter, PO3 Perez and the informant proceeded to the address while Inspector Lorilla and some
of
his
personnel
tailed
in
a
car.
Upon arrival at the target area, PO3 Perez and the asset knocked on the door and were greeted
by accused-appellant, who asked the purpose of the visit. PO3 Perez answered that he wanted
to buy PhP 100 worth of shabu. The two were ushered in by accused-appellant and once inside,
PO3 Perez saw three persons sitting around a table, passing to one another a tooter and
allegedly engaged in a pot session. The three were identified as Ricky Bayotas, Reynaldo Relos
and Archie Berturan. PO3 Perez then drew two PhP 50 bills marked WCP and handed them
over to accused-appellant who in turn gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance
from
his
right
pocket.
After receiving the plastic sachet, PO3 Perez introduced himself as a police officer and signalled
his back-up to effect the arrest of the four individuals. The suspects attempted to flee but their
plans were foiled by the timely arrival of the other policemen. They were then brought to the
police station where their arrest and the list of the items confiscated from them were entered in
the police blotter. From their arrest until the items seized were transmitted to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, the pieces of evidence were allegedly under PO3
Perezs custody. In his testimony, PO3 Perez stated that he kept the items inside the evidence
locker in the Drug Enforcement Unit Office, to which only Inspector Lorilla has a key.
On August 25, 2013, PO3 Perez brought the sachet containing crystalline substance and the
tooter to the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. The items were received by Inspector Augustina
Ompoy (Inspector Ompoy), the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Regional PNP Crime
Laboratory 6, Camp Delgado, Iloilo City, who then performed the necessary examinations on the
items
recovered.
Inspector Ompoy testified for the prosecution on the receipt in the PNP Crime Laboratory of the
letter-request for laboratory examination of the specimens. According to her, she conducted
quantitative and qualitative tests and found that the white crystalline substance in the plastic
sachet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.04
gram
while
the
tooter
tested
negative
for
any
prohibited
drug.
Accused-appellant, for his part, raised that he was illegally arrested, a defense corroborated by
Crispin Mejorada, Jr., a friend and neighbor of the former. As succinctly put by the trial court:3
Testifying in his defense, accused Marlon Abetong declared being at home in Purok Sigay, Brgy.
2, Bacolod City at 11:50 AM of August 22, 2003, sweeping the floor, alone. Suddenly, a male
person entered the open door and held him by his pants. When Marlon asked what his fault was,
the man answered to just go with him. The person was in civvies, fair-skinned and tall; he did not
introduce himself. Marlon was handcuffed while they were at the foot-walk heading to 26th
Aguinaldo Street, and searched, but nothing was recovered from him except his money P9.00.
Accused was made to board a vehicle at Aguinaldo; three handcuffed persons were inside. All
four were brought to BAC-Up 2 and placed in a cell. Abetong was not informed of the cause of
his arrest; no drugs were presented to him. He knew of the charge Violation of Section 5, R.A.
9165 only during arraignment in court.
The Ruling of the RTC
On May 25, 2011, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47 in Bacolod City did not give
credence to accused-appellants defense and rendered a Decision 4 convicting him of the crime
charged. To wit:
WHEREFORE, finding accused Marlon Abetong y Endrardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Sale, Delivery, etc. of Dangerous Drugs), as
charged, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P500,000.00. He is also to bear the accessory penalty prescribed by law. Costs against
accused.
The subject one (1) sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride/shabu (Exh. B-3-A)
recovered/bought from him being a dangerous drug, the same is hereby ordered confiscated
and/or forfeited in favor of the government, and to be forthwith delivered/turned over to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) provincial office for immediate destruction or
disposition
in
accordance
with
law.
The immediate commitment of accused to the national penitentiary for service of sentence is
likewise
further
ordered.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA, raising the sole issue that his guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. He maintained that, assuming without conceding the validity
of the buy-bust operation, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove that the integrity of the
evidence was preserved. Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date and time of the
confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days have passed since the items were
confiscated before they were brought to the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an
inventory nor a photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. Accused-appellant likewise hinged
his appeal on the fact that Inspector Lorilla, who had the only key to the evidence locker, did not
testify during trial.cra1awredjgc
The Ruling of the CA
On June 28, 2013, the court a quo promulgated the assailed Decision denying the appeal.
The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The decision dated May 25, 2011
of the Regional Trial Court Branch 47 in Bacolod City, convicting the accused-appellant of the
offense charged and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00,
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
In upholding the RTC conviction, the CA ratiocinated that the prosecutions evidence was
sufficient to afford the court a reliable assurance that the evidence presented is one and the
same as those confiscated from accused-appellant. Hence, this appeal.cra1awredjgc
The Courts Ruling
We
find
for
accused-appellant.
Sec. 21 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in part, requires:
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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(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.
The case People v. Musa5 was instrumental for the CA in justifying leniency in the compliance
with Sec. 21 of RA 9165. Relying on the case, the CA dispensed with several procedural
requirements resulting in accused-appellants conviction. As cited:
Since the perfect chain is almost always impossible to obtain, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of
RA 9165, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, does not, without more,
automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void, and evidence is admissible as long
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending
officer/team.
In the present case, accused-appellants insist on the police officers non-compliance with the
chain of custody rule since there was no physical inventory and photograph of the seized items
were taken in their presence or in the presence of their counsel, a representative from the media
and
the
Department
of
Justice
and
an
elective
official.
We, however, find these observations insignificant since a review of the evidence on record
shows that the chain of custody rule has been sufficiently observed by the apprehending
officers.
Jurisprudence indeed instructs that failure to observe strictly the above-quoted provision can be
excused as long as (1) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officers and (2) non-compliance was attended by justifiable
grounds.6 However, the prosecution in this case was unsuccessful in showing that there was no
opportunity for tampering, contamination, substitution, nor alteration of the specimens submitted.
On the contrary, there is a dearth of evidence to show that the evidence presented was wellpreserved. The prosecution likewise failed to offer any justification on why the afore-quoted
provision
was
not
complied
with.
The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the drug evidence
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. And the risk of
tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit of this nature 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. As a reasonable measure, in authenticating
narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which
are readily identifiable must be applieda 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. 7
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up
to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while
in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity
for
someone
not
in
the
chain
to
have
possession
of
it. 8
In the case at bar, the failure of Inspector Lorilla to testify is fatal to the prosecutions case. To
recall, only PO3 Perez and Inspector Ompoy testified against accused-appellant. During his
testimony, PO3 Perez admitted that he put the confiscated item in the evidence locker on August
22, 2003 for safekeeping and subsequently brought them to Inspector Ompoy at the crime
laboratory on August 25, 2003. 9 During this three-day interval, the items were allegedly kept
inside the evidence locker to which only Inspector Lorilla has the key. As per the records: 10
Q:
From the time that the items were confiscated on August 22, 2003 at around 11:50 in the
morning up to the time it was delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory on August 25, 2003 at
10:40 in the morning, where were the items kept?
A:
It was placed in the evidence locker of the Drug Enforcement Unit together with other
exhibits.
Q:
Who placed the confiscated items inside the locker in the office of the Drug Enforcement
Unit?
A:
Myself.
Q:
A:
Q:
Aside from Police Inspector Jonathan Lorilla, is there any other person who has access to
that locker?
A: No more.
It is evident from this sequence of events that during the interim, Inspector Lorilla constructively
acquired custody over the seized items. As the lone key holder and consequentially a link in the
chain, Inspector Lorillas testimony became indispensable in proving the guilt of accusedappellant beyond reasonable doubt. Only he could have testified that from August 22 to 25, 2003
no one else obtained the key from him for purposes of removing the items from their receptacle.
Only he could have enlightened the courts on what safety mechanisms have been installed in
order to preserve the integrity of the evidence acquired while inside the locker. Absent his
testimony, therefore, it cannot be plausibly claimed that the chain of custody has sufficiently
been established. To be sure, PO3 Perez did not even testify that he was assigned to safeguard
the evidence locker for the said duration; only that he was the one who put it in and three days
later took them out of the locker room before bringing them to the crime laboratory.
Requiring the key holders testimony is especially significant in this case in view of the law
enforcers failure to deliver the confiscated items to the crime laboratory within 24 hours, as
required under Sec. 21 of RA 9165. While the delay in itself is not fatal to the prosecutions case
as it may be excused based on a justifiable ground, it exposes the items seized to a higher
probability of being handled by even more personnel and, consequently, to a higher risk of
tampering or alteration. Thus, the testimony of the key holder becomes necessary to attest to the
fact that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated evidence have been preserved.
The CA erred in applying the doctrine that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long
as it is credible and positive, can prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11 Such
doctrine is unavailing in drugs cases wherein all who acquired custody over the confiscated
items would necessarily have to testify in order to establish an unbroken chain. Additionally,
worth noting is that PO3 Perezs testimony is not virtually free from any form of inconsistency
and contradictions as to besmirch it with doubt and question contrary to the CAs findings. 12 In
fact, it can be gleaned from the records that one of his key statements has been refuted by
forensic
chemist
Ompoy
herself.
enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law.
But where the official act in question is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse
presumption
arises
as
a
matter
of
course. 16
A perusal of the Information filed against accused-appellant and Inspector Ompoys chemistry
report reveals a glaring inconsistency in this case. As can be recalled, the Information charges
accused-appellant of selling 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Relative to the
crime charged, Inspector Ompoy, on the other hand, testified17 in the following wise:
Q: Tell us what kind of tests did you conduct on the specimen?
A: This consists of the physical, chemical and confirmatory tests. In the physical this includes the
weighing of the specimen out of its container. Specimen A weighs 0.04 gram of white
crystalline substance. Then I proceeded to my chemical test in which Marqui and Simons tests
were employed. In the Marqui test, a drop of Marqui reagent was added to the representative
sample and it [yielded] orange-to-brown color which is indicative of the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride. In the Simons test, Simons reagents 1, 2 and 3 were added to
another representative sample and it produced a deep-blue color reaction, also indicative of the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
xxxx
Q: For the record, please read the description of Specimen A
A: One heat-sealed transparent plastic packet with markings containing 0.04 gram of white
crystalline substance, placed inside a staple-sealed transparent plastic bag with markings.
From the foregoing transcript, the incongruence between the weight of the drug accusedappellant is being charged of selling and the weight of the drug tested by the forensic chemist
becomes patent. For sure, this discrepancy in the weight of the substance is fatal to the case of
the prosecution.18 It automatically casts doubt as to the identity of the item seized and of the one
tested as it erases any assurance that the evidence being offered is indeed the same as the one
recovered
during
the
buy-bust
operation.
Well-settled is that the dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the offense, and in sustaining a conviction under RA 9165, the identity and integrity of
the corpus delictimust definitely be shown to have been preserved. x x x 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 very same illegal drug actually recovered from
the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under RA 9165 fails. 19 Applying this
precept in the case at bar, any guarantee of the drug items preservation was effectively
removed by the failure of the prosecution to describe consistently the very corpus delicti of the
criminal
offense.
The
arresting
officers
unduly
deviated
from
legal
procedure
overturned
It is beyond dispute that the date and time of confiscation do not appear on the markings of the
seized items. It cannot also be denied that no photograph was taken of the recovered items for
documentation purposes. It is admitted that no representative from the media, from the
Department of Justice, or any elective official was present to serve as witness in recording the
arrest. The prosecutions testimonial evidence is likewise bereft of any allegation of efforts
undertaken by the law enforcers to contact these representatives. Nevertheless, an accused can
still be convicted in spite of these circumstances provided that a justifiable ground for excusing
non-compliance with the requirements under Sec. 21 of RA 9165 has satisfactorily been
established by the prosecution as required by jurisprudence and the laws implementing rules.
The prosecution cannot skirt the issue of the broken chain of custody by relying on the
presumption of regularity. This presumption, it must be stressed, is not conclusive. Any taint of
irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. 15 The
presumption, in other words, obtains only when nothing in the records suggests that the law
Such justifiable ground is wanting in this case. No explanation whatsoever was offered by PO3
Perez in his testimony justifying non-compliance. Without this justification, it was improper for
the court a quo to affirm accused-appellants conviction. To sustain the RTC and the CAs
findings would render the legal requirements under Sec. 21 of RA 9165 inutile and would
13
Based on the affidavit executed by PO3 Perez on August 25, 2003, three persons were
engaged in a pot session in the house of accused-appellant. However, when the tooter allegedly
confiscated from the three was tested for dangerous drugs, the test yielded a negative result. 14
While the guilt of the three others is not an issue in this case, this is illustrative of a disparity in
the prosecutions version of facts and militates against PO3 Perezs credibility.
The
presumption
of
regularity
has
been
effectively diminish the safeguards offered by the law in favor of the accused.cra1awlaw1ibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The June 28, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals is
herebyREVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Marlon Abetong y Endrano is
hereby ACQUITTED based
on
reasonable
doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to immediately RELEASE accused-appellant
from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to INFORM this Court,
within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, of the date accused-appellant was actually
released
from
confinement.
SO ORDERED.