ll\epublit of tbe

QCourt
manila
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 201156
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus-
Present:
SERENO, CJ,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
REYES, JJ.
JOSELITO MORATE y
TARNATE,
Accused-Appellant.
x--------------------------------------------
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
The accused-appellant Joselito Morate appeals from the Decision
1
dated October 18, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
04197 denying his appeal from the Joint Decision
2
dated September 7, 2009
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Branch 17 in Criminal
Case Nos. T-4466 and T-4467, which found him guilty of violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
read:
The Informations filed against the accused-appellant in the trial court
I. Criminal Case No. T-4466 (For violation of Section 11, Article II,
Republic Act No. 9165)
That on or about 12:05 o'clock in the afternoon of April 25, 2006
at P-5, Cormidal[,] Tabaco City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate Justices Rosmari
D. Carandang and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring.
CA rollo, pp. 30-49.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


2
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to
violate the law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and
criminally possess and have in [his] control dried MARIJUANA
LEAVES with fruiting tops, contained in One (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing 0.3035 gram, without the necessary government
authority, to the detriment of the public welfare.
3


II. Criminal Case No. T-4467 (For violation of Section 5, Article II,
Republic Act No. 9165)

That on or about 12:05 oclock in the afternoon of April 25, 2006
at P-5, Cormidal, Tabaco City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to
violate the law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and
criminally sell, deliver and give away to a poseur-buyer three (3) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets of MARIJUANA LEAVES with fruiting
tops, with a total weight of 1.0291 grams, without the necessary
government authority, to the detriment of public welfare.
4


The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges when
arraigned.
5
After pre-trial was conducted, trial ensued.

The prosecution established that, sometime in April 2006, the
Philippine National Police (PNP) in Tabaco City received confidential
information that a certain Palito of Purok 5, Cormidal, Tabaco City is
engaged in the illegal sale of marijuana. Accordingly, Police Senior
Inspector (PSInsp.) Fernando Bolanga, Chief of the Tabaco City Central
Police Stations Investigation and Detective Management Division,
instructed Police Officer (PO) 1 Macneil Manamtam to build up a case about
the matter. Going undercover, PO1 Manamtam met with his asset, Edwin,
on April 17, 2006 and made inquiries. The latter informed PO1 Manamtam
that Palito is accused-appellant Joselito Morate. Edwin confirmed that
the accused-appellant is indeed involved in the sale of illegal drugs. PO1
Manamtam signified his intention to buy drugs from accused-appellant and
asked Edwin to make the necessary arrangements. Edwin made an
assurance that he can facilitate the transaction. He subsequently told PO1
Manamtam that they could buy drugs from the accused-appellant on April
25, 2006 at the canteen near the TMG outpost at the pier in Cormidal,
Tabaco City.
6


PO1 Manamtam reported to PSInsp. Bolanga and informed the latter
that he would be having a transaction with the accused-appellant. In the
morning of April 25, 2006, PSInsp. Bolanga called his men for a pre-
operation briefing to plan how the buy-bust would be conducted.
7
PO1
Manamtam was designated as poseur-buyer. He was given two pieces of

3
Records, Criminal Case No. T-4466, p. 14.
4
Records, Criminal Case No. T-4467, p. 14.
5
Orders dated May 18, 2006; Records, Criminal Case Nos. T-4466 and T-4467, pp. 25 and 24,
respectively.
6
CA rollo, p. 43.
7
Id.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


3
P50.00 bills as marked money. Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Remus
Navarro, SPO3 Benigno Dilla, SPO4 Benito Bognalos, PO3 Pedro Antonio
Eva III and PO1 Anacito Colarina were to serve as back-up.
8
With them
was PO1 Alden Bayaban, an agent of the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) detailed at the Tabaco City Police Station.
9
The team then
proceeded to the venue of the transaction in Cormidal, Tabaco City.
10


As agreed upon, PO1 Manamtam met Edwin in a canteen. The
accused-appellant arrived later and Edwin introduced PO1 Manamtam as a
prospective buyer of marijuana. When the accused-appellant asked how
much PO1 Manamtam intended to buy, the latter answered that he would
buy P100.00 worth of marijuana. When the accused-appellant demanded
immediate payment, PO1 Manamtam initially hesitated but eventually
obliged and handed the marked money to the accused-appellant. The
accused-appellant left but returned shortly thereafter. He then asked PO1
Manamtam and Edwin to go with him to a nearby basketball area where
the accused-appellant produced four transparent plastic sachets containing
dried leaves and handed three sachets to PO1 Manamtam. The police officer
asked the accused-appellant to place the sachets inside the formers
backpack. The accused-appellant then showed PO1 Manamtam and
Edwin another sachet for use by the three of them. The accused-appellant
instructed Edwin to look for some aluminium coated paper. Edwin
obliged and left. Meanwhile, PO1 Manamtam sent a text message to the
other members of the buy-bust team informing them that the sale had been
consummated.
11


Upon receiving PO1 Manamtams message, PO1 Bayaban and PO3
Eva rushed in to arrest the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant noticed
the approaching police officers and dropped the sachet that he was holding.
PO3 Eva saw what the accused-appellant did and picked up the sachet from
the ground. Thereafter, he proceeded to bodily search the accused-appellant
to look for the marked money but did not find it.
12


The accused-appellant was arrested. The team also made it appear
that PO1 Manamtam was arrested with the accused-appellant to protect PO1
Manamtams identity. The accused-appellant and PO1 Manamtam were
then brought to the police station.
13


Upon arrival at the police station, the items confiscated during the
buy-bust were counted, marked and inventoried. In particular, PO1
Manamtam marked the three sachets that the accused-appellant handed him
as MCM A, MCM B, and MCM C, respectively, while PO3 Eva
marked the sachet that the accused-appellant dropped on the ground as PAE

8
Records, Criminal Case No. T-4466, p. 4; Joint Affidavit of Arrest, Exhibit B.
9
Id. at 6; id. Detail, Exhibit C.
10
Rollo, p. 5.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
CA rollo, p. 45.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


4
III. The marking and inventory of the seized items were witnessed by
Barangay Kagawad Julio Marbella of Cormidal, Tabaco City and
Emmanuel Cea III, a local newsman, both of whom signed the Certification
of Inventory. The seized items were all transferred to PO3 Eva as the
evidence custodian.

PO3 Eva thereafter prepared a Receipt of Seized Evidence/Property
before handing the seized items to PO1 Reynaldo Borromeo who signed the
receipt upon taking hold of the items. PO1 Borromeo proceeded to the PNP
Crime Laboratory in Legazpi City bringing with him the seized items and a
Request for Laboratory Examination.

The seized items were received by the PNP Crime Laboratory in
Legazpi City where PSInsp. Josephine Macura Clemen, a forensic chemist,
examined them. The results of her examination showed that the sachet
which the accused-appellant dropped on the ground and picked up by PO3
Eva contained 0.3035 gram of marijuana fruiting tops,
14
while the three
sachets which the accused-appellant sold to PO1 Manamtam contained
marijuana with an aggregate weight of 1.0291 grams.
15


PSInsp. Clemen subsequently presented the seized drugs to the trial
court as the prosecutions evidence in the course of her testimony.
16


For his part, accused-appellants defense was denial. According to
him, after finishing his work at around noon of April 25, 2006, he went out
of the premises of the Tabaco Pier to go home. He was suddenly accosted
by SPO3 Eva and Edwin Morate. He was familiar with SPO3 Eva as he
frequently sees the latter around. SPO3 Eva asked him if he is Joselito
Morate alias Palito and he answered affirmatively. At that moment, SPO3
Eva

handcuffed the accused-appellant and brought the latter to the police
station where he was detained for no apparent reason.
17


In its Joint Decision dated September 7, 2009, the trial court found the
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against
him. The dispositive portion of the Joint Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused JOSELITO MORATE y
TARNATE @ PALITO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Section 5 of Art. II of R.A. 9165, in Criminal Case No. T-4467[,]
judgment is hereby rendered sentencing JOSELITO MORATE y
TARNATE to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.00.

14
Records, Criminal Case No. T-4466, p. 13; Chemistry Report No. D-83-06, Exhibit K.
15
Records, Criminal Case No. T-4467, p. 13. In particular, the marijuana contents of the sachets
were as follows: MCM-A, 0.3351 gram; MCM-B, 0.3491 gram; and, MCM-C, 0.3449 gram.
Chemistry Report No. D-82-06, Exhibit I.
16
See Testimony of PSInsp. Clemen, TSN, May 31, 2007, p. 7.
17
CA rollo, pp. 67-68.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


5
Further finding the accused JOSELITO MORATE y TARNATE
@ PALITO [guilty beyond reasonable doubt] in Criminal Case No. T-
4466 for Violation of Section 11[,] Art. II of R.A. 9165[,] judgment is
hereby rendered sentencing JOSELITO MORATE y TARNATE to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and 1 day to twenty (20)
years of reclusion temporal and a fine of P300,000.00.

The confiscated dried marijuana leaves are hereby ordered to be
turned over to the Office of the City Prosecutor, Tabaco City, which, in
turn, shall coordinate with the proper government agency for the proper
disposition and destruction of the same.
18


Accused-appellant appealed his case to the Court of Appeals. He
questioned his conviction on the basis of what he claimed as non-compliance
with the rule on chain of custody of seized illegal drugs. He further claimed
that the trial court should not have given full weight and credence to the
prosecutions evidence as there was failure to prove the integrity of the
seized drug. Such failure on the part of the prosecution means failure to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
19


In particular, the accused-appellant points to the following violations
of the chain of custody requirement under Section 21(1) of Republic Act No.
9165 and its implementing rules and regulations: the seized items were
marked and subjected to inventory not at the scene of the buy-bust but at the
police station; the marking and inventory of the seized drugs were conducted
in the presence of the buy-bust team, together with Marbella and Cea, but
without the accused-appellant or his representative; and, no photographs
were taken during the inventory.
20


In its Decision dated October 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals rejected
the contentions of the accused-appellant and denied his appeal. According
to the Court of Appeals, there was substantial compliance with the
requirements of Republic Act No. 9165. In particular, the Court of Appeals
noted the following links in the chain of custody:

(1) PO1 Manamtam who was tasked to act as the poseur-buyer
testified that the three (3) sachets of marijuana which he bought from the
accused-appellant were marked by him as []MCM A[], []MCM B[],
and []MCM C[]. While the subject sachet of marijuana which was
confiscated by PO3 Eva III when the accused-appellant was frisked during
the arrest was marked by the former with []PAE III[].

(2) The Receipt of Seized Evidence/Property clearly states that
the subject sachets of marijuana were turned over by PO3 Eva III and
were received by PO1 Borromeo, Jr. who testified and corroborated the
said turn over. He further said in open court that aside from being the
tasked driver at the buy-bust operation, he was also assigned by the Chief
of Police Bataller to bring the items to the Crime Laboratory.

18
Id. at 49.
19
Id. at 68-85; Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
20
Id. at 75-78.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


6

(3) The plastic sachets were brought to the laboratory for
examination per Requests for Laboratory Examination signed by PO1
Borromeo.

(4) According to Chemistry Report No[s]. D-82-06 and [D-]
83-06, prepared by Sr. Insp. Josephine Macura Clemen, the four (4) plastic
sachets positively contain Marijuana, a dangerous drug.
21
(Citations
omitted.)

For the Court of Appeals, the circumstances above show that the chain
of custody of the seized items was properly established: the items seized
from the accused-appellant at the scene of the crime were also the items
marked by the arresting officers, turned over to the investigator, sent to the
Crime Laboratory, and returned after yielding positive results for
Marijuana.
22
Thus, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the
accused-appellant for both crimes. The decretal portion of the Decision
dated October 18, 2011 reads:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby
DISMISSED. The Joint Decision dated 07 September 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court of Tabaco City, Branch 17 in Criminal Cases Nos. T-
4466 and T-4467 finding accused-appellant JOSELITO MORATE y
TARNATE guilty of the violations charged is AFFIRMED.
23


Accused-appellant is now before this Court insisting on the failure of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt on account of the
prosecutions non-compliance with the chain of custody requirement under
Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and
regulations.

This Court denies the accused-appellants appeal.

Initially, it must be emphasized that accused-appellants defense of
alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was
raised belatedly and for the first time on appeal. Failure to raise the issue of
non-observance of the chain of custody requirement during trial is fatal to
the case of the accused-appellant.
24
As explained in People v. Sta. Maria
25
:

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds.
However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers
involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with
Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question
during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the
police officers alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act
No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for

21
Rollo, pp. 9-10.
22
Id. at 10.
23
Id. at 11.
24
People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 707, 725.
25
545 Phil. 520, 534 (2007).
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


7
the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the
trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that
affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the
court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the
first time on appeal. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted.)

In this case, the accused-appellant never questioned the chain of
custody during trial. Specifically, the records show that the accused-
appellant never assailed the propriety and regularity of the process of
marking and inventory of the seized items during the prosecutions
presentation of evidence on that matter during the testimony of PO1
Manamtam.
26
Also, when the prosecution formally offered the Certification
of Inventory as evidence for the purpose of proving the immediate and
accurate inventory, marking and packing of the purchased and the seized
marijuana to maintain and preserve [their] identities and integrity and the
four sachets of marijuana as evidence for the purpose of proving the
identities and integrity of the purchased and the seized marijuana as those
were immediately inventoried, marked and documented/recorded,
27
the
accused-appellants comment was simply Denied as to the purposes for
which they are being offered for being self[-]serving pieces of evidence
28

and said nothing about non-compliance with the chain of custody
requirement.

More importantly, the accused-appellants counsel himself has
dropped the bomb that demolished the accused-appellants defense. He
admitted the identity and integrity of the specimens. As regards the illegal
drugs subject of Criminal Case No. T-4466, the following is instructive:

Q Tell us, Madam, where are the items that are covered by the
laboratory examination and the chemistry report?
A Here are the drug items that are the subject of my chemistry report.

PROS. BROTAMONTE:

So you are handing over to me the drug items encased in a large
transparent plastic sachet which has marking D-82-06 and initial
on a masking tape seal. May we request, Your Honor, without
necessarily opening the packet that it be marked as Exhibit I-1 to
be placed on the masking tape and[,] again without necessarily
opening the transparent plastic packet[,] the three (3) transparent
plastic sachets inside it be assigned markings as Exhibit I-1-A,
Exhibit I-1-B and Exhibit I-1-C be placed on the masking tape
on the outside [of] the large transparent packet.

Now, stipulations. Would the defense admit that those
items marked as Exhibit[s] I-1-A to I-1-C are those referred to

26
See Testimony of PO1 Manamtam, TSN, November 13, 2008.
27
Records, Criminal Case No. T-4466, pp. 156-157.
28
Id. at 160-161.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


8
in the request for laboratory examination x x x.

x x x x

ATTY. NASAYAO:

We admit, Your Honor, that these plastic sachets contain items
MC[M-A], MC[M-B] and MC[M-C].
29
(Emphasis supplied.)

As regards the illegal drugs subject of Criminal Case No. T-4467, the
following is enlightening:

PROS. BROTAMONTE:

Q The items?

WITNESS:

A This is the actual drug item with the letter request.

Q May we ask the witness as preparation to the stipulation from
whom is this large transparent pack where the smaller plastic
sachet where the supposed marijuana is encased came from?

A The original.

PROS. BROTAMONTE:

May we know if the defense admit[s] that the supposed marijuana
inside a small transparent sachet which is in turn encased in a large
transparent pack with serial number D-83-06 and the signature
along with the marking and written in blue pentel pen are the items
examined x x x.

ATTY. BUAG:

Admitted. But along this line[,] we would stipulate that PInsp.
Clemen has no personal knowledge as to where this evidence was
found and she had no personal knowledge and has no participation
in the arrest of the accused.

PROS. BROTAMONTE:

We stipulate as per record these containers and the items came
from the Tabaco City PNP.

ATTY. BUAG:

Admitted.
30
(Emphases supplied.)

Thus, through counsel, the accused-appellant admitted that the seized
sachets subjected to laboratory examination and which were confirmed as

29
Testimony of PSInsp. Clemen, TSN, May 31, 2007, pp. 7-8.
30
Id., TSN, November 15, 2007, pp. 4-5.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


9
containing marijuana were the same items referred to in the request for
laboratory examination -- the very same sachets which the accused-appellant
sold to PO1 Manamtam and marked by the latter as MCM-A, MCM-B
and MCM-C during the inventory. The accused-appellant also admitted
that the other seized sachet subjected to laboratory examination and which
was confirmed as containing marijuana was the same item referred to in the
request for laboratory examination -- the very same sachet dropped by the
accused-appellant when he was about to be arrested but picked up by PO3
Eva and marked by the latter as PAE III during the inventory. While the
latter admission may be qualified by the statement that the forensic chemist
who conducted the laboratory examination had neither personal knowledge
of the source of the evidence nor participation in the arrest of the accused-
appellant, such admission was coupled with the further admission that the
item came from the Tabaco City PNP in connection with the case against the
accused-appellant as reflected in the chemistry report.

These two circumstances -- (1) the omission of the accused-appellant
to raise the issue of non-compliance with the chain of custody requirement
on time, and (2) the admission of the accused-appellant as to the identity and
integrity of the seized items that the PNP Tabaco City submitted to the
Crime Laboratory, subjected to examination by the forensic chemist and
presented in court as evidence -- are sufficient to defeat the claims of the
accused-appellant. Nevertheless, even the consideration of the compliance
with the chain of custody requirement calls for the denial of the accused-
appellants appeal.

The chain of custody is basically the duly recorded authorized stages
of transfer of custody of seized dangerous drugs, from their seizure or
confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
31
The function of the
chain of custody requirement is to ensure 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.
32
Thus, the chain of custody
requirement has a two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items, and (2) the removal of unnecessary
doubts as to the identity of the evidence.

The law recognizes that, while the presentation of a perfect unbroken
chain is ideal, the realities and variables of actual police operation usually

31
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (which implements
Republic Act No. 9165) specifically defines chain of custody as follows:
b. 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 used in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
32
People v. Langcua, G.R. No. 190343, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 123, 139.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


10
makes an unbroken chain impossible.
33
With this implied judicial
recognition of the difficulty of complete compliance with the chain of
custody requirement,
34
substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending police officers.
35


In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the chain of
custody requirement has been substantially complied with. The police
officers duly recorded the various authorized stages of transfer of custody of
the dangerous drugs confiscated from the accused-appellant. In particular,
PO1 Manamtam had custody of the three sachets of marijuana which the
accused-appellant sold him, from the scene of the buy-bust to the police
station, while PO3 Eva had custody of the sachet of marijuana which the
accused-appellant dropped, from the scene of the buy-bust to the police
station. Upon arrival at the police station, PO1 Manamtam and PO3 Eva
marked the items of contraband in their respective possession and conducted
an inventory in the presence of the accused-appellant, Barangay Kagawad
Marbella and media representative Cea. The seized items subject of the
inventory were then transferred to the custody of PO1 Borromeo who
brought them to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Legazpi City where they were
examined by PSInsp. Clemen, the forensic chemist. PSInsp. Clemen then
brought the contraband to the court as the prosecutions evidence when she
testified in court. The four sachets of marijuana taken from the accused-
appellant were the same sachets of marijuana which the police officers
marked and subjected to inventory, and they were the very same sachets of
marijuana brought to the crime laboratory, examined by the forensic chemist
and presented to court as evidence. Thus, the identity and evidentiary
integrity of the seized items were properly preserved.

Contrary to the contention of the accused-appellant, the marking and
inventory of the seized items at the police station did not contravene the
procedure laid down in Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165. The said
provision provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs x x x:

(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

33
See People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 191396, April 17, 2013, 696 SCRA 838. There, the Court said:
While a testimony about a perfect and unbroken chain is ideal, such is not always the standard as
it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.
34
See People v. Rusiana, G.R. No. 186139, October 5, 2009, 603 SCRA 57, 65. There, this Court
stated: [A]lthough ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling
of evidence, substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized
item is sufficient. Behind this is an acknowledgment that the chain of custody rule is difficult to
comply with.
35
See People v. Langcua, supra note 32 at 139, where the Court says: As long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending police officers,
substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody is sanctioned.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


11
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[.]

On the other hand, the relevant portion of the implementing rules and
regulations of the law states:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, 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[.]

The seizure and confiscation of the prohibited drugs from the accused-
appellant was a warrantless seizure resulting from a buy-bust. The law, as
carried out by its implementing rules and regulations expressly authorizes
the taking of the inventory of the seized contraband at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizure. Thus, this Court has ruled that
marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
36
In this light, the
marking and inventory of the seized items at the police station immediately
after the arrival thereat of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation was in accordance with the law, its implementing rules and
regulations, and relevant jurisprudence.

As regards the accused-appellants claim that he was not present
during the inventory, this is contradicted by Cea, the media representative
who witnessed the marking and inventory of the articles seized from the
accused-appellant. During cross-examination by the accused-appellants
counsel, Cea categorically declared that the accused-appellant witnessed the
inventory:

36
People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 510, 520.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


12
[ATTY. BUAG:]

Q Was the accused present during the time of the inventory?

[WITNESS:]

A During that time he was there x x x.

Q Were you informed by the police that that person was the accused?

A Yes, I am sure that he was there as a suspect because we usually
interview the suspect to confirm.

Q While the items were on the table was the accused already there?

A Yes, sir.
37


The media representative, who witnessed the inventory and signed the
Certification of Inventory

of the confiscated drugs which have been duly
marked by the police officers, firmly testified that the inventory was
conducted in the presence of the accused-appellant. There is no reason, and
the accused-appellant himself does not give any basis, to doubt Ceas
testimony.

As to the failure to photograph the inventory of the seized items, such
omission on the part of the police officers is not fatal to the case against the
accused-appellant. This Court has ruled in various cases, such as People v.
Almodiel,
38
People v. Rosialda,
39
People v. Llamado,
40
and People v.
Rivera,
41
that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers
conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the
accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
42
As has been
said earlier, the prosecution has sufficiently shown that the identity and
evidentiary integrity of the seized items were properly preserved, and that is
not materially affected by the prosecutions failure to take a photograph of
the seized items.

As the contentions of the accused-appellant have been addressed, we
now proceed to discuss his criminal liability.

A successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires
that the following elements be established:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration of the sale; and

37
Testimony of Emmanuel Cea III, TSN, March 6, 2008, pp. 12-13.
38
G.R. No. 200951, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 306.
39
G.R. No. 188330, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 507.
40
G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 544.
41
G.R. No. 182347, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 879.
42
People v. Almodiel, supra note 38, at 323.
DECISION G.R. No. 201156


13
(2) the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the
seller of the payment therefor.
43


On the other hand, there can be conviction for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs only if the following elements are present:

(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.
44


Illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed when the sale transaction
is consummated,
45
that is, upon delivery of the illicit drug to the buyer and
the receipt of the payment by the seller. In this case, the RTC and the Court
of Appeals both found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant,
as seller, sold 1.0291 grams of marijuana to the poseur-buyer, PO1
Manamtam, for P100.00. The former handed the latter three sachets of
marijuana after the latter paid the P100.00 consideration for the sale. Under
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, such illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
regardless of quantity, is punishable with 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). In light of the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 9346, otherwise known as An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, the imposition of the
supreme penalty of death has been proscribed. Consequently, the penalty
applicable to the accused-appellant shall only be life imprisonment, without
eligibility for parole, and fine.
46
Thus, the accused-appellant was correctly
meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00).

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals likewise found beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant had in his possession a sachet
containing 0.3035 gram of marijuana fruiting tops, which he dropped when
the police operatives closed in on him, and that he had no authority to
possess the dangerous drug. Under Section 11(3) of Republic Act No. 9165,
illegal possession of less than 300 grams of marijuana is punishable with the
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00)
to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). Thus, in accordance with
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellant was correctly meted
the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum term of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to a maximum term of twenty (20) years, and a fine of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).

43
People v. Remigio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336, 347.
44
Id.
45
People v. Encila, G.R. No. 182419, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 341, 356.
46
People v. De la Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 658.
DECISION 14 G.R. No. 201156
In sum, the accused-appellant has been correctly found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 0.3035 gram of marijuana in
Criminal Case No. T-4466 and of illegal sale of 1.0291 grams of marijuana
in Criminal Case No. T-4467. The respective penalties imposed on him are
likewise proper and in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 18, 2011 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04197 affirming the Joint Decision dated
September 7, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco City, Branch 17 in
Criminal Case Nos. T-4466 and T-4467 which found the accused-appellant
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 11 and 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
..
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
DECISION 15 G.R. No. 201156
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article 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.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice