.

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus -

ROMEO
LAUREOLA,

LINTAG

Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 219855

Present:
SERENO, C.J., Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,*
PERLAS-BERNABE, and
CAGUIOA, JJ.
Promulgated:

SEP 0 6 2016
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1'----------------------x

DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant

Romeo Lintag y Laureola (Lintag) assailing the Decision2 dated November
12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 05933,
which affirmed the Decision 3 dated June 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 53 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 05-240108, finding
Lintag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as "The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

On official leave.
See Notice of Appeal dated December2, 2014; rollo, pp. 13-15.
Id. at 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Vicente
S.E. Veloso and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan concurring.
CA rollo, pp. 50-53. Penned by Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra.
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN As THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, As
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.

Decision

"'....

:-: f.i

..

r .'

.L

'
'J'.

',..,

G.R. No. 219855

The Facts

. rhe instant case stemmed from an Information 5 dated October 28,

2005 filed before the RTC, charging Lintag of illegal sale of dangerous
. dnigs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the
accusatorxportion of which reads:
....
...
'

,,

_,

That on or about October 25, 2005, in the City of Manila,

Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by law to sell,
trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell two (2) transparent plastic
sachets of white crystalline substance known as shabu, with the
corresponding weight as follows:
ZERO POINT ZERO TWO ZERO (0.020) GRAM
ZERO POINT ZERO SEVEN ZERO (0.070) GRAM
containing methylamphetamine [sic] hydrochloride, which is a dangerous
drug.
Contrary to law. 6

The prosecution alleged that on October 25, 2005, Police Senior

Inspector (PSI) Jay B. Baybayan (PSI Baybayan) and Senior Police Officer
(SPO) 3 Pedro Valdez (SP03 Valdez) organized a buy-bust team composed
of Police Officer (PO) 3 Gloybell Dimacali (P03 Dimacali) as the poseurbuyer, and P03 Gerardo Garcia, 7 POI Napoleon Osias, Jr., and P02
Leonardo Cipriano as back-ups, pursuant to a report received from a
confidential informant that a certain "Oni" 8 (later identified as Lintag's
brother) was selling illegal drugs in the vicinity of Bilibid Viejo, Quiapo,
Manila. 9 Upon reaching the target area, P03 Dimacali and the confidential
informant proceeded to Oni' s house, but he was nowhere to be found. The
confidential informant then approached a man named "Meong" (later
identified as Lintag) and asked the latter of Oni' s whereabouts, to which
Lintag replied that he was the one in charge at that time. P03 Dimacali then
decided to proceed with the buy-bust operation with Lintag by handing the
marked P500.00 bill to him. Lintag left for awhile, then returned with two
(2) plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance which he gave
to P03 Dimacali. Thereafter, P03 Dimacali grabbed Lintag - the agreed
sign that the buy-bust operation had been consummated - introduced himself
as a policeman, frisked Lintag, then informed him of his constitutional
rights. As the back-ups arrived to effect the arrest of Lintag, Oni rushed to
the scene to help his brother escape, but was also arrested. 10

6
7
8
9
10

CA rollo, p. 9.
Id.
Erroneously mentioned by the CA as "POI Garcia." See rollo, p. 3.
"Onie" in some parts of the records.
See rollo, p. 3.
Id. at 4.

Decision

G.R. No. 219855

Afterwards, the buy-bust team brought Lintag to the police station,

where he was turned over to SP02 David Gonzales (SP02 Gonzales). There,
P03 Dimacali marked the two (2) plastic sachets and gave them to SP02
Gonzales as well. After SP02 Gonzales prepared the request for laboratory
examination 11 which was signed by PSI Baybayan, the marked items were
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory and given to Forensic Chemical
Officer Police Inspector Maritess F. Mariano (Forensic Chemical Officer PI
Mariano), 12 who performed the laboratory test. The laboratory examination
result 13 revealed that the two (2) plastic sachets contained 0.020 grams and
0.070 grams of shabu, respectively. 14
In his defense, Lintag maintained that he was just inside his house
watching television, when suddenly, three (3) policemen in plain clothes
knocked on the door and asked for Oni. After replying that Oni went out to
buy some food, the policemen asked if they could wait for Oni inside the
house, to which Lintag acceded. Once inside, the policemen started
conducting a search on the house despite his protestations. As their search
yielded negative results, the policemen then told Lintag, "[k]ung
magmamatigas ka at di mo ilalabas si [Oni], idadamay ka namin," and then
proceeded to handcuff him. As they were about to bring him to the police
station, Oni arrived and was also arrested. Finally, Lintag narrated that the
policemen detained them for three (3) days notwithstanding that no
contraband was recovered from them. 15 Upon arraignment, Lintag pleaded
not guilty to the charges levelled against him. 16
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision 17 dated June 27, 2015, the RTC found Lintag guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine in
the amount of P500,000.00. 18
The R TC found that the prosecution had established the existence of
the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, namely: (a) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and ( b) the
delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. It further found that the
policemen conducted a valid buy-bust operation to catch Lintag committing
the crime inflagrante delicto. In this regard, the RTC opined that absent any

11
12

13
14

15
16
17

18

Dated October 25, 2005. See records, p. 23.

Referred to as "PSI Mariano" by the CA. See rollo, p. 4.
See records, p. 24.
Rollo, pp. 4-5. See also CA rollo, pp. 50-51.
Rollo, p, 5. See also CA rollo, 51-52.
Rollo, p. 3.
CA rollo, pp. 50-53.
Id. at 53.

Decision

G.R. No. 219855

clear and convincing evidence that the buy-bust team improperly performed
their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. 19
Dissatisfied, Lintag elevated his conviction before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision20 dated November 12, 2014, the CA affirmed Lintag's
conviction. It agreed with the RTC's finding that the prosecution was able to
establish the presence of all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The CA likewise held that Lintag failed to substantiate his claim that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were compromised
as the policemen had substantially complied with the chain of custody rule. 21
Undaunted, Lintag filed the instant appeal. 22
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Lintag's
conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Sections, Article II of RA 9165 reads in part:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (Pl 0,000,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as
a broker in any of such transactions. x x x.
xx xx

19
20

21
22

See id. at 52.

Rollo, pp. 2-12.
Id. at 7-11.
See Notice of Appeal dated December 2, 2014; id. at 13-15.

Decision

G.R. No. 219855

To secure a conviction under the aforesaid provision, the prosecution

must establish the concurrence of 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. Material for such conviction is
proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation
before the court of the corpus delicti. 23 "As the dangerous drug itself forms
an integral and key part of the corpus delicti of the crime, it is therefore
essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each
link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it
was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof
of the corpus delicti." 24
In view of the importance of ensuring that the dangerous drug seized
from an accused is the same as that presented in court as evidence against
him, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 25 provides for a "chain of custody
rule," or a standard protocol which the police officers must adhere to in
order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
contraband. In People of the Philippines v. Sumili, 26 the Court explained
that, while strict adherence to the said rule is desired, any deviation from the
same is acceptable so long as there is ample justification for the same and
that the evidentiary value of the seized contraband is preserved, viz.:
To expand, Section 21 of RA 9165 provides the "chain of custody
rule" outlining the procedure that the apprehending officers should follow
in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve its integrity and
evidentiary value. It requires, inter alia, that: (a) the apprehending team
that has initial custody over the seized drugs immediately conduct an
23

24
25

People ofthe Philippines (People) v. Sumili, G.R. No. 212160, February 4, 2015, 750 SCRA 143, 149.
Id. at 149-150, citing People v. Viterbo, G.R. No. 203434, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA 672, 680.
The pertinent portions of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 read:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be
submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative
examination;
26

xx xx
Supra note 23.

Decision

G.R. No. 219855

inventory and take photographs of the same in the presence of the accused
or the person from whom such items were seized, or of the accused's or
the person's representative or counsel, a representative from the media, the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall then sign
the copies of the inventory; and (b) the seized drugs be turned over to the
PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from its confiscation for
examination purposes. While the "chain of custody rule" demands
utmost compliance from the aforesaid officers, Section 21 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 as well as
jurisprudence nevertheless provide that non-compliance with the
requirements of this rule will not automatically render the seizure and
custody of the items void and invalid, so long as: (a) there is a
justifiable ground for such non-compliance; and (b) the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved. Hence, any
divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and
should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
27
items. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds that the
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly
confiscated from Lintag due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, thus,
militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As may be gleaned from the established facts, the buy-bust operation
conducted on October 25, 2005 resulted in Lintag's arrest, as well as in P03
Dimacali's seizure of two (2) plastic sachets each containing white
crystalline substance from Lintag. It is, thus, clear that P03 Dimacali had
custody of the seized items from the time of seizure until their arrival at the
police station. Thereupon, P03 Dimacali marked the seized items and,
subsequently, turned them over to SP02 Gonzales. The items were then
delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory for a confirmatory test on their
contents. The foregoing findings are amply supported by the following
excerpts from P03 Dimacali' s testimony:
Q [Fiscal Exequiel Sison, Jr.]: Now Mr. Witness, what about the items
which you said you brought [sic] from a certain Miong, what did you do
with him?
A [P03 Dimacali]: I put it in my pocket.
Q: What side, right or left pocket?
A: Left.
Q: And what are the contents of your left pocket at that time, other than
the two (2) plastic sachets which contained shabu?
A: Only the two (2) small plastic sachets which I bought from the person.
xx xx
27

Id. at 150-152, citations omitted.

Decision

G.R. No. 219855

Q: And before you proceeded to your office, what did you do with the
accused?

Atty. Gina Bedafia: Leading your Honor.

Q: What did you do?
A: After I arrested him, I introduced myself as a police officer and I
apprised him of his constitutional rights.
Q: After doing so, what did you next?
A: We brought him to the precinct for proper investigation.
Q: And who was the investigator?
A: SP02 David Gonzales, Jr.
Q: And so after turning over the accused to the investigator, what did you
do next?
A: I also turned over the two (2) small plastic sachets to the investigator
and I also marked it with the initials of the accused.
xx xx
Q: So ... ok., after marking said plastic sachets and turning over to the
investigator, what was your next step?
A: Our office made a request for crime laboratory examination to verify
whether the thing I confiscated was really shabu.
Q: What happened to the examination?

A: The SOCO of MPD gave a positive result for Methamphetamine

28
Hydrochloride.

An examination of the records, however, reveals that as indicated in

the PNP Crime Laboratory's receiving stamp on the request for laboratory
29
examination, it was SP03 Valdez - and not SP02 Gonzales -who
delivered such request and presumably, the seized plastic sachets as well, to
Forensic Chemical Officer PI Mariano. This immediately puts into question
how SP03 Valdez came into possession of the seized items, which was
neither explained by the prosecution through the presentation of testimonial
or documentary evidence, nor sufficiently addressed by the courts a quo.
Thus, absent any adequate explanation on the matter, there arises a
substantial gap in the chain of custody of the plastic sachets seized from
Lintag. Undoubtedly, this compromises the integrity and evidentiary value
of the corpus delicti of the crime charged. It is settled that in criminal
prosecutions involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which
28

29

TSN, November 21, 2006, pp. 9-12.

See records, p. 23.

G.R. No. 219855

Decision

constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of proving
with moral certainty that they are the same seized items. Failing in which,
the acquittal of the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt becomes a
matter of right, 30 as in this case.
In sum, since the identity of the prohibited drugs had not been
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt, Lintag's conviction must be
immediately set aside.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated
November 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 05933
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant
Romeo Lintag y Laureola is ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau
of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being
lawfully held for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.

,,a.~
ESTELA ivf.JtERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

~tk ~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

lWAi1i

Associate Justice

On official leave
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

S. CAGUIOA

30

Supra note 23.

Decision

G.R. No. 219855

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