CONVICTION unlawfully and feloniously use Methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug in

violation of the said law.[4]

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila During the arraignment for both cases, Manlangit pleaded not guilty. Afterwards, the
cases were tried jointly.

FIRST DIVISION At the trial of the case, the prosecution adduced evidence as follows:

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
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 189806 along Col. Santos Street at Brgy. South Cembo, Makati City. The MADAC thereafter coordinated
Plaintiff-Appellee, with the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSTOF) and the Philippine Drug
Present: 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
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, Virginio Costa was designated as the team leader, with MADAC operative Wilfredo Serrano as
VELASCO, JR., the poseur-buyer and Roberto Bayona as his back-up. The team prepared buy-bust money for
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, the operation, marking two (2) one hundred peso (PhP 100) bills with the initials AAM.
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ. Upon arrival on Col. Santos Street, Brgy. Cembo, Makati City, the team spotted
FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y Promulgated: Manlangit standing in front of his house. The informant approached Manlangit and convinced the
TRESBALLES, latter that Serrano wanted to purchase shabu from him. Manlangit asked Serrano how much
Accused-Appellant. January 12, 2010 shabu he wanted, to which Serrano replied that he wanted two hundred pesos (PhP 200) worth
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 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,
DECISION 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
VELASCO, JR., J.: 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
The Case 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
This is an appeal from the August 28, 2009 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride in Chemistry Report No. D-1190-03. Manlangit was also
CR-H.C. No. 03273, which affirmed in toto the Decision dated July 12, 2007[2]in Criminal Case brought to the PNP crime laboratory for a drug test, which yielded a positive result for use of
Nos. 03-4735 and 03-4961 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 in Makati City. The Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.[5]
RTC found accused-appellant Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes guilty of drug-sale and drug-use
penalized by Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 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
The Facts 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
On November 25, 2003, an information was filed charging Manlangit with violating Section 5, the shabu and its proceeds, as well as the identity of the drug pushers in the area. He also
Article II of RA 9165, as follows: 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]
That on or about the 24th day of November 2003, in the City of
Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the On July 12, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which
above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and reads:
there willfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver zero
point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
which is a dangerous drug.[3] rendered as follows:

On December 11, 2003, another information was filed against Manlangit for breach of 1) In Criminal Case No. 03-4735, finding accused
Sec. 15, Art. II of RA 9165, to wit: Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 5, Art II,
That sometime on or before or about the 24th day of November RA 9165 (drug-sale) and sentencing him to suffer the
2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to amount of P500,000.00. Said accused shall be given
use dangerous drugs, and having been arrested and found positive for use credit for the period of his preventive detention.
of Methylamphetamine, after a confirmatory test, did then and there willfully,
 2) In Criminal Case No. 03-4735,[7] finding accused 2. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the procedure for the
Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND custody and control of prohibited drugs was complied with.[10]
REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 15, Art
II, RA 9165 (drug-use), and sentencing him to undergo
rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a government The Ruling of the Court
rehabilitation Center under the auspices of the Bureau
of Correction subject to the provisions of Article VIII, RA The appeal is bereft of merit.
9165.

It is further ordered that the plastic sachet containing shabu, First Issue:
subject of Criminal Case No. 03-4735, be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Accused-appellants guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the latters appropriate action.
The first paragraph of Sec. 5 of RA 9165 punishes the act of selling dangerous drugs. It
SO ORDERED.[8] provides:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,

From such Decision, Manlangit interposed an appeal with the CA. Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals.The penalty of life imprisonment to
In his Brief, accused-appellant Manlangit claimed that the prosecution failed to prove death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To support such contention, accused-appellant claimed that (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed
there was no buy-bust operation conducted. He pointed out that he was not in the list of upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
suspected drug pushers of MADAC or of the AIDSTOF. He further emphasized that the buy-bust administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
operation was conducted without first conducting a surveillance or test buy to determine the transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
veracity of the report made by the informant. He assailed the fact that despite knowledge of his opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
identity and location, the buy-bust team failed to secure even a search warrant. act as a broker in any of such transactions. (Emphasis supplied.)

Accused-appellant also raised the issue that the buy-bust team failed to comply with While Sec. 15, RA 9165 states:
the procedure for the custody and control of seized prohibited drugs under Sec. 21 of RA 9165. Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.A person apprehended or
He argued that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official function was arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug,
overturned by the officers failure to follow the required procedure in the conduct of a buy-bust after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of
operation, as well as the procedure in the proper disposition, custody, and control of the subject six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first
specimen. offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall
On August 28, 2009, the CA rendered the decision which affirmed the RTCs Decision suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1)
dated July 12, 2007. It ruled that contrary to accused-appellants contention, prior surveillance is day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos
not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation. The case was a valid example of a (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided,
warrantless arrest, accused-appellant having been caught in flagrante delicto. The CA further That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also
stated that accused-appellants unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to show that the found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug
witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, in this case the members of the provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions
buy-bust team; thus, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. After examining the stated therein shall apply. (Emphasis supplied.)
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.
People v. Macatingag[11] prescribed the requirements for the successful prosecution of the crime
Hence, the instant appeal. of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows.

In a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 22, 2010, accused- The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1)
appellant expressed his desire not to file a supplemental brief and reiterated the same the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2)
arguments already presented before the trial and appellate courts. 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
The Issues 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 Court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant The pieces of evidence found in the records amply demonstrate that all the elements of the
despite the prosecutions failure to prove his built beyond reasonable crimes charged were satisfied. The lower courts gave credence to the prosecution witnesses
doubt.[9] 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. provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
People:[12] to wit:

As to the question of credibility of the police officers who served Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace
as principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled is the rule that officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It is a fundamental (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross an offense;
misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported
conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner to be arrested has committed it; and
of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
the present case. escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending,
Moreover, accused-appellants defense of denial, without substantial evidence to support it, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of the police officers performance of official another.
functions. Thus, the Court ruled in People v. Llamado:[13]
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested
In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence without a warrant if he has committed, is actually committing, or is
should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses attempting to commit an offense. Appellant Doria was caught in the act of
especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized
contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over The Court reiterated such ruling in People v. Agulay:[16]
appellants self-serving and uncorroborated denial. (Emphasis supplied.)
Accused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, making the
Contrary to accused-appellants challenge to the validity of the buy-bust operation, the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from him inadmissible in
Court categorically stated in Quinicot v. People that a prior surveillance or test buy is not evidence. Accused-appellants claim is devoid of merit for it is a well-
required for a valid buy-bust operation, as long as the operatives are accompanied by their established rule that an arrest made after an entrapment operation does not
informant, thus: require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest, in
line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of
Court, to wit:
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy
does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace
textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to
apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police an offense.
work. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may
dispense with the need for prior surveillance. In the instant case, having A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent
been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending
the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates
prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the
operation.[14] (Emphasis supplied.) offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal
safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.

Furthermore, accused-appellants contention that the buy-bust team should have

procured a search warrant for the validity of the buy-bust operation is misplaced. The Court had Second Issue:
the occasion to address this issue in People v. Doria:[15] The chain of custody of the seized drug was unbroken

We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Accused-appellant contends that the arresting officers did not comply with the requirements for
Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as the handling of seized dangerous drugs as provided for under Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165:
 Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia given a copy thereof.
and/or Laboratory Equipment.The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, The same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, viz.:
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the same in the presence of the accused or the
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were person/s from whom such items were confiscated
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice representative from the media and the Department of
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
(Emphasis supplied.) given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these requirements under
In particular, accused-appellant argues that: justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
While the marking of the specimen was done in the place of incident by preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
MADAC operative Soriano, the inventory of the item was done at Cluster 4. not render void and invalid such seizures of and
There was no photograph made of the plastic sachet in the presence of the custody over said items.
accused, media, any elected local official, or the DOJ representatives, in
clear violation of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165.[17] The failure of the prosecution to show that the police
officers conducted the required physical inventory and
Based on such alleged failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedural requirements photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said
of Sec. 21, RA 9165, accused-appellant posits that he should, therefore, be acquitted. Such guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render
reasoning is flawed. accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the
In People v. Rosialda,[18] the Court addressed the issue of chain of custody of dangerous drugs, implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added
citing People v. Rivera, as follows: that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
Anent the second element, Rosialda raises the issue that there is seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
a violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, particularly the requirement that officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
the alleged dangerous drugs seized by the apprehending officers be and custody over said items. The same provision clearly states as
photographed in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom well, that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
counsel. Rosialda argues that such failure to comply with the provision of have been preserved.
the law is fatal to his conviction.
This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons
This contention is untenable. existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue during
trial. Be that as it may, this Court has explained in People v.
The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on this Del Monte that what is of utmost importance is the
matter in People v. Rivera: preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The
seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1, existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which stipulates: conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous
drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the
the same in the presence of the accused or the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a as to the identity of the evidence are removed.
representative from the media and the Department of
 To be admissible, the prosecution must show by Appellant. June 13, 2012
records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the x--------------------------------------------------------------x
exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of
the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to
determine its composition up to the time it was offered in DECISION
evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)

Here, accused-appellant does not question the unbroken chain of evidence. His only contention CARPIO, J.:
is that the buy-bust team did not inventory and photograph the specimen on site and in the The Case
presence of accused-appellant or his counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official. However, as ruled by the Court This is a consolidated criminal case filed against appellant Gomer S. Climaco (Climaco) for
in Rosialda, as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, even though the procedural violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the Act of 2002) for illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL) and illegal sale (Criminal Case
accused will not be affected. No. 4912-SPL) of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in its Decision dated 20
And as aptly ruled by the CA, the chain of custody in the instant case was not broken as January 2009 (RTC Decision), found Climaco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
established by the facts proved during trial, thus: illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and sentenced him to
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months with a fine of 300,000.00 in
Lastly, the contention of appellant, that the police officers failed to comply Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL.[1] In Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL, the RTC found Climaco guilty
with the provisions of paragraph 1, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for the beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale ofmethamphetamine hydrochloride, and
proper procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs, is sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, the Special Fifteenth
untenable. Record shows that Serrano marked the confiscated sachet Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated 29 March 2011 (CA Decision),
of shabu in the presence of appellant at the place of incident and was affirmed the RTC Decision.[2] Climaco appealed to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal in
turned over properly to the investigating officer together with the marked accordance with Section 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.[3]
buy-bust money. Afterwards, the confiscated plastic sachet suspected to be
containing shabu was brought to the forensic chemist for examination. Prosecutions Version
Likewise, the members of the buy-bust team executed their Pinagsanib na
Salaysay sa Pag-aresto immediately after the arrest and at the trial, Serrano The prosecutions version of events is summarized in the RTC Decision: [4]
positively identified the seized drugs. Indeed, the prosecution evidence had
established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs from the buy- The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses in the persons of PO1
bust team, to the investigating officer and to the forensic chemist. Thus, Alaindelon M. Ignacio, who gave his testimony on 5 January 2005, 8
there is no doubt that the prohibited drug presented before the court a quo February 2006 and 2 August 2006; and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa
was the one seized from appellant and that indeed, he committed the Huelgas, whose testimony was dispensed with on 5 January 2005 upon
crimes imputed against him. defenses admission of the existence of the following: 1) Written Request for
Laboratory Examination as Exhibit A; 2) The Chemistry Report No. D-1102-
04 as Exhibit B; 3) 1 white envelope as Exhibit C; 4) the existence of two (2)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CAs August 28, 2009 Decision in CA-G.R. plastic sachets with markings GSC-1 as Exhibit C-1; and 5) another one
CR-H.C. No. 03273 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. with markings GSC-2 as Exhibit C-2.

No costs. PO1 Ignacio testified that he is a member of the Philippine National Police
SO ORDERED. since 15 October 1999 and was assigned at Intelligence Division, San Pedro
Municipal Police Station. As member of the Intelligence Division, he was
tasked to conduct surveillance operation and apprehend persons engaged in
illegal drug activity. On 7 September 2004, he was on 24-hour duty at PAC
base located at United Bayanihan, San Pedro, Laguna. At around 6:00 in
ACQUITTAL the evening of the same day, PO1 Ignacio, SPO3 Samson, SPO4 Balverde,
some members of the Laguna Special Operation Team, Members of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 199403 Provincial Intelligence and Investigation Division conducted a briefing
Appellee, regarding a drug operation against a certain Gomer Climaco, No. 5 in the
Present: drug watch list in San Pedro, Laguna. During the briefing, PO1 Ignacio was
CARPIO, J., Chairperson, tasked to act as the poseur-buyer and SPO4 Almeda as the overall team
BRION, leader. The buy-bust money was prepared, which consist of P500.00 bill and
- versus - PEREZ, some boodle money. The team was also armed with a Warrant of Arrest for
SERENO, and illegal drugs issued by Judge Pao. After the briefing, the team proceeded to
REYES, JJ. the target area. When they arrived, PO1 Ignacio saw the suspect standing in
front of his house. The other members of the team strategically positioned
themselves. Since PO1 Ignacio already knew the suspect, PO1 Ignacio just
GOMER S. CLIMACO, Promulgated: told Gomer that he would buy shabu. Gomer entered his house and took
 something. When he came out, Gomer showed to PO1 Ignacio the the police officer why he would be charged with so grave an offense. He did
shabu. PO1 Ignacio scratched his head to signal the team that item was not file any case against the police officer who arrested him.
shown to him and he would execute the buying of the shabu. After Gomer
asked for the money and PO1 Ignacio gave it to him, SPO3 Samson and the Michael M. Basihan testified that Gomer Climaco was his neighbor in
rest of the team immediately moved in to effect the arrest of the Bagong Silang. On 7 September 2004, Michael went to Gomers manukan
suspect. Since he was caught in the act, Gomer did not resist anymore. The to gather guava fruits. When he arrived there, Gomer was tending to his
team likewise showed Gomer his warrant of arrest. PO1 Ignacio saw SPO3 cocks. While he was gathering guava fruits, Michael saw four (4)
Samson frisk and ask Gomer to empty his pockets. SPO3 Samson was able unidentified armed men suddenly barge into the premises and arrest
to recover another plastic sachet, which was inserted between Gomers Gomer. After he was handcuffed, Gomer was made to board a vehicle
fingers. The plastic sachet, which was the product of the buy-bust, and the where he was brought to Jaka Subdivision. Michael could not remember
one recovered from Gomer were turned over to SPO4 Teofilo Royena, who whether it was morning or evening when Gomer was arrested by
turned them over to the Office of the Special Operation Group located at unidentified armed men because the incident happened a long time ago.
Brgy. Tubigan, Bian, Laguna. The plastic sachet product of the buy-bust was
marked TR-B, which means Teofilo Royena and the letter B means Cristina Gamboa Climaco testified that she is the wife of Gomer
Bust. While the plastic sachet recovered from Gomer was marked TR-R, Climaco. She did not know SPO2 Wilfredo Samson and PO1 Alaindelon
which means Teofilo Royena and the letter R means Recovered. PO1 Ignacio. On 7 September 2004, she was inside their house taking care of
Ignacio identified the accused Gomer Climaco in open court. He likewise her child. At around 3:00 in the afternoon of the same day, Gomer arrived in
identified his sworn statement. During the cross-examination, PO1 Ignacio their house, who just came from Barangay Cuyab. After taking a bath,
admitted that he learned of the warrant of arrest on 7 September 2004 Gomer went outside of their house. While in front of their house, Gomer
only. It was SPO4 Valverde who instructed PO Ignacio to conduct called the person taking care of his chickens. Gomer and that person went
surveillance operation against Gomer, who was engaged in rampant selling to the back of the house. Meanwhile, Cristina went inside the
of shabu.[5] house.Although she was inside of the house, Cristina could see Gomer and
Aside from the testimony of PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio (Ignacio), the following documentary the person through the window. At around 4:00 in the afternoon, Cristina
exhibits were offered for the prosecution: (1) Exhibit A Letter dated 7 September 2004; (2) saw four (4) unidentified armed men approach and ask something from
Exhibit B Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04; (3) Exhibit C One-half white envelope; (4) Exhibit C- Gomer. After a few minutes, Gomer left the back of the house, while the
1 Plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings GSC-1; (5) Exhibit C-2 Plastic men were left standing there. Cristina went out the house and saw her
sachet with white crystalline susbtance with markings GSC-2; and (6) Exhibit D Pinanumpaang husband go toward the direction of St. Reymond. At around 6:00 in the
Salaysay of PO1 Ignacio.[6] 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
Defenses Version husband.[7]

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 Decision of the Regional Trial Court
the RTC Decision, is as follows:
The RTC declared Climaco guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of
The defense presented three (3) witnesses in the persons of the accused methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. The dispositive portion of the
himself, Gomer S. Climaco, who testified on 13 May 2008, Michael M. RTC Decision reads:
Basihan, who gave his testimony on 7 October 2008, and Cristina Gamboa
Climaco, who gave her testimony on 25 November 2008. WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL, the Court finds the
accused, Gomer S. Climaco, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
Gomer S. Climaco testified that prior to 7 September 2004, he did not know of violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
SPO2 Wilfredo Samson and PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio. On 7 September Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to suffer the
2004, Gomer, together with his wife and five (5) children, were inside their penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500,000.00.
house. When Gomer was feeding the chicken in front of his yard, four (4)
unidentified armed men suddenly arrived and frisked him. When nothing In Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL, the Court finds the accused, Gomer S.
was found in his possession, the men handcuffed and brought him to the Climaco, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec.
police station. At the police station, the men filed a case against him. Gomer 11 of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
denied having sold and delivered shabu to a police poseur-buyer and that Act of 2002, and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years
he was in possesion of shabu. During the cross-examination, Gomer said and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay a
that while he was being frisked by the men, Gomer asked the men what was fine of three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00).
his violation. The men replied that somebody bought shabu from
him. Gomer told the men that he did nothing wrong, but the men continued The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug
to handcuff him. Gomer was not aware that he was included in the list of top Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the plastic sachets subject matter of these
20 illegal drug pushers. Gomer did not know of any ill motive on the part of cases, for said agencys appropriate disposition.
 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 Chain of Custody Over the Confiscated Items
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 The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of
credit to the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, and declared the police officers who participated in the the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
buy-bust operation were properly performing their duties because they were not inspired by any and the payment.[17] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have
improper motive.[11] actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti which
means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[18] The corpus
The Decision of the Court of Appeals delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself.

The CA affirmed the conviction of Climaco. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
follows: the following elements must be established: (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)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the judgment dated January 20, the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[19]
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 In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the chain of custody over
Sections 5 and 11 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.[12] the dangerous drug must be shown to establish the corpus delicti. In People v. Alcuizar,[20] the
Court held:

The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the
The CA declared that all the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under
dangerous drugs were proven.[13] The CA found that based on the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, it Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of thecorpus delicti must
was established that the chain of custody over the seized drugs was unbroken from the definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily
arresting officers to SPO4 Royena, and then to the forensic chemist for examination.[14] arises from the illegal drugs unique characteristic that renders it indistinct,
not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or
The Issue substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must
The sole issue in this case is whether the guilt of Climaco for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal
possession of shabu, a dangerous drug, was proven beyond reasonable doubt. drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the
prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.
The Ruling of this Court
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,[21] which implements
We resolve to acquit Climaco for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines chain of custody as follows:
doubt. Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the dangerous drugs seized from Climaco were dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
marked by SPO4 Teofilo Royena as TR-B and TR-R.[15] However, the Chemistry Report seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
submitted to the trial court shows that the dangerous drugs examined and confirmed to be presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu by the forensic chemist were marked as GSC1 and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person
GSC2.[16] Since what was seized (TR-B and TR-R) by PO1 Ignacio from Climaco at the time of who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
the buy-bust operation was different from the dangerous drugs submitted (GSC1 and GSC2) to such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in
the forensic chemist for review and evaluation, the chain of custody over the dangerous drugs court as evidence, and the final disposition.
was broken and the integrity of the evidence submitted to the trial court was not preserved,
casting doubt on the guilt of Climaco.
In Malillin v. People,[22] the Court explained the importance of the chain of custody:

Constitutional Presumption of Innocence; Weight of Evidence Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the
elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with
The Constitution guarantees the accuseds presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Section moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by
14(2) of the Bill of Rights (Article III) provides that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise states that, in a criminal case, the accused is prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, which mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just
the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the
first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a another or been contaminated or tampered with.
finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in
that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the In this case, PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the substances seized from Climaco
evidence are removed. during the buy-bust operation were marked as TR-R and TR-B:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires Q: When SPO4 Almeida handed over the items to SPO4 Teofilo Royena,
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to what if any did SPO4 Royena do with the items?
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it A: He placed markings on it, maam.
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 in evidence, in such Q: Where were you when he placed the markings?
a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and A: I was present, maam.
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 Q: Do you know what markings was made?
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for A: He placed his initials TR which means Teofilo Royena and the letter B
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. which means bust, maam.

While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it Q: Im showing to you a plastic sachet with the markings TR-B, please go
is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody over this and tell if this is the same item which you confiscated from the
becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not accused?
distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of A: Yes, maam. This is the same.
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 PROS. CASANO: Your Honor, the brown envelope which contains the
susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution plastic sachet has already been marked as Exhibit C, the plastic sachet as
and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to Exhibit C-1 and the markings TR-B as Exhibit C-2 (Continuing).
fungibility, alteration or tampering without regard to whether the same is
advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in the application of xxxx
the chain of custody rule.
Q: Tell us the markings that was placed?
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an A: Its TR-R, the R means recovered, maam.
exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar Q: How sure are you that the items marked by SPO4 Teofilo Royena TR-R
to people in their daily lives. Graham v. State positively acknowledged this was the same item taken by SPO3 Samson from the accused?
danger. In that case where a substance was later analyzed as heroin was A: Because there was a difference between the two plastic sachets,
handled by two police officers prior to examination who however did not the items recovered by SPO3 Samson was a little bit bigger, maam.
testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it
was in their possession was excluded from the prosecution evidence, the Q: Im showing to you a bigger plastic sachet with the markings TR- R, are
court pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed you referring to this?
heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the A: Yes, maam.[23]
state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the
exhibit at least between the time it came into the posession of the police Based on the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, the substances retrieved from Climaco and submitted to
officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, the court were contained in two (2) plastic sachets with the markings TR-R and TR-B. However,
testimony of the state as to the laboratorys findings is inadmissible. 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
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily GSC-2, different from the plastic sachets marked TR-R and TR-B containing the drugs retrieved
identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their from Climaco:
composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the
likelihood or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of CHEMISTRY REPORT NUMBER: D-1102-04
custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or
substitution of substances from other cases by accident or otherwise in xxxx
which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was
submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which A One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with markings GSC1,
are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that containing 0.35 gram of white crystalline substance and placed in a staple-
entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to sealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly bought by the Police Poseur-
Buyer)
 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
B One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with markings GSC2, of reasonable doubt due to the broken chain of custody over the dangerous drug allegedly
containing 0.14 gram of white crystalline substance and placed in a staple- recovered from him.
sealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly found from the posession of
Glomer Climaco)[24] 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
In addition, in the Index of Exhibits submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the RTC, Exhibit C-1 2009. We ACQUIT appellant Gomer S. Climaco based on reasonable doubt and we ORDER his
was described as a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings GSC-1 while immediate release from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
Exhibit C-2 was described as a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings
GSC-2,[25] contrary to the testimony of PO1 Ignacio and the declaration of Prosecutor Casano We DIRECT the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to implement this Decision and to report to
that the specimens submitted to the court carried the markings TR-B and TR-R. this Court on the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

Likewise, in the handwritten Minutes dated 5 January 2005, Exhibit C-1 was identified as a SO ORDERED.
plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with marking GSC-1, and Exhibit C-2 was
identified as a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with marking GSC-2.[26]

Clearly, what was submitted to the trial court were plastic sachets bearing the markings GSC-1
and GSC-2, instead of the plastic sachets bearing the markings TR-R and TR-B that contained G.R. No. 209785, June 04, 2014
the substances recovered from Climaco. This fact is evident from the RTC Decision, recognizing
Exhibits C-1 and C-2 to bear the markings GSC-1 and GSC-2, while acknowledging the
testimony of PO1 Ignacio that the plastic sachets containing the substances recovered from PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON ABETONG Y
Climaco bore the markings TR-R and TR-B: ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant.

The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses in the persons of x x DECISION

x Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas, whose testimony was
dispensed with on 5 January 2005 upon defenses admission of the
existence of the following: 1) Written Request for Laboratory Examination as VELASCO JR., J.:
Exhibit A; 2) The Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04 as Exhibit B; 3) 1 white
envelope as Exhibit C; 4) the existence of two (2) plastic sachets with The Case
markings GSC-1 as Exhibit C-1; and 5) another one with markings
GSC-2 as Exhibit C-2. This treats of accused-appellant Marlon Abetongs appeal from the June 28, 2013 Decision1 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01357 affirming his conviction beyond
xxxx reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.cra1awredjgc
The plastic sachet product of the buy-bust was marked TR-B, which means
Teofilo Royena and the letter B means Bust. While the plastic sachet
The Facts
recovered from Gomer was marked TR-R, which means Teofilo Royena and
the letter R means Recovered.[27] (Emphasis supplied)
Accused-appellant was charged in an Information2 that reads:
The prosecution did not explain why the markings of the plastic sachets containing the alleged
That on or about the 22nd day of August 2003, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the
drugs, which were submitted to be TR-B and TR-R, became GSC-1 and GSC-2 in the Chemistry
Report, Index of Exhibits and Minutes of the Hearing. In their decisions, the RTC and CA were jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell,
silent on the change of the markings. In fact, since the markings are different, the presumption is trade, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drugs, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give away
that the substance in the plastic sachets marked as TR-B and TR-R is different from the
substance in the plastic sachets marked as GSC-1 and GSC-2. There is no moral certainty that to a police poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet
the substance taken from appellant is the same dangerous drug submitted to the laboratory and containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing 0.02 gram(s) more or less, in
exchange for a price of P100.00 in mark money, consisting of two (2) P50.00 bill with Serial Nos.
the trial court.
BZ323461 and CN467805, in violation of the aforementioned law.
As held in Malillin v. People,[28] to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in
Act contrary to law.
cases involving dangerous drugs, it is important that the substance illegally possessed in the first
place be the same substance offered in court as exhibit. This chain of custody requirement
ensures that unnecessary doubts are removed concerning the identity of the evidence. When During trial, prosecution witness Police Officer 3 Wilfredo Perez (PO3 Perez) of the Police
Station 1, Bacolod City Police Office, testified that, in the morning of August 22, 2003, their office
the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug
presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same dangerous drug received information that a certain alias Cano, later identified as accused-appellant, was selling
presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved due to the broken drugs in his house at Purok Sigay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City. Police Senior Inspector Jonathan
Lorilla (Inspector Lorilla) then called for a briefing for the conduct of a buy-bust operation against
chain of custody. With this, an element in the criminal cases for illegal sale and illegal
Cano and designated PO3 Perez as the poseur-buyer. In preparation for the operation, PO3
Perez initialled two (2) PhP 50 bills bearing Serial Nos. CN467805 and BZ323461, which were accused.
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 The subject one (1) sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride/shabu (Exh. B-3-A)
of his personnel tailed in a car. 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
Upon arrival at the target area, PO3 Perez and the asset knocked on the door and were greeted Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) provincial office for immediate destruction or
by accused-appellant, who asked the purpose of the visit. PO3 Perez answered that he wanted disposition in accordance with law.
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 The immediate commitment of accused to the national penitentiary for service of sentence is
allegedly engaged in a pot session. The three were identified as Ricky Bayotas, Reynaldo Relos likewise further ordered.
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 SO ORDERED.
substance from his right pocket.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA, raising the sole issue that his guilt was not
After receiving the plastic sachet, PO3 Perez introduced himself as a police officer and signalled proved beyond reasonable doubt. He maintained that, assuming without conceding the validity
his back-up to effect the arrest of the four individuals. The suspects attempted to flee but their of the buy-bust operation, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove that the integrity of the
plans were foiled by the timely arrival of the other policemen. They were then brought to the evidence was preserved. Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
police station where their arrest and the list of the items confiscated from them were entered in others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date and time of the
the police blotter. From their arrest until the items seized were transmitted to the Philippine confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days have passed since the items were
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, the pieces of evidence were allegedly under PO3 confiscated before they were brought to the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an
Perezs custody. In his testimony, PO3 Perez stated that he kept the items inside the evidence inventory nor a photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. Accused-appellant likewise hinged
locker in the Drug Enforcement Unit Office, to which only Inspector Lorilla has a key. his appeal on the fact that Inspector Lorilla, who had the only key to the evidence locker, did not
testify during trial.cra1awredjgc
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 The Ruling of the CA
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 On June 28, 2013, the court a quo promulgated the assailed Decision denying the appeal.
items recovered. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The decision dated May 25, 2011
Inspector Ompoy testified for the prosecution on the receipt in the PNP Crime Laboratory of the of the Regional Trial Court Branch 47 in Bacolod City, convicting the accused-appellant of the
letter-request for laboratory examination of the specimens. According to her, she conducted offense charged and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00,
quantitative and qualitative tests and found that the white crystalline substance in the plastic is AFFIRMED.
sachet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.04
gram while the tooter tested negative for any prohibited drug. SO ORDERED.
In upholding the RTC conviction, the CA ratiocinated that the prosecutions evidence was
Accused-appellant, for his part, raised that he was illegally arrested, a defense corroborated by sufficient to afford the court a reliable assurance that the evidence presented is one and the
Crispin Mejorada, Jr., a friend and neighbor of the former. As succinctly put by the trial court: 3 same as those confiscated from accused-appellant. Hence, this appeal.cra1awredjgc
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 Courts Ruling
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 We find for accused-appellant.
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 Sec. 21 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in part, requires:
four were brought to BAC-Up 2 and placed in a cell. Abetong was not informed of the cause of Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
his arrest; no drugs were presented to him. He knew of the charge Violation of Section 5, R.A. Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
9165 only during arraignment in court. 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
The Ruling of the RTC confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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 Decision4 convicting him of the crime (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
charged. To wit: after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
WHEREFORE, finding accused Marlon Abetong y Endrardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Sale, Delivery, etc. of Dangerous Drugs), as representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
charged, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
fine of P500,000.00. He is also to bear the accessory penalty prescribed by law. Costs against given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of Q: From the time that the items were confiscated on August 22, 2003 at around 11:50 in the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as morning up to the time it was delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory on August 25, 2003 at
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the 10:40 in the morning, where were the items kept?
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination. A: It was placed in the evidence locker of the Drug Enforcement Unit together with other
The case People v. Musa5 was instrumental for the CA in justifying leniency in the compliance exhibits.
with Sec. 21 of RA 9165. Relying on the case, the CA dispensed with several procedural Q: Who placed the confiscated items inside the locker in the office of the Drug Enforcement
requirements resulting in accused-appellants conviction. As cited: Unit?
Since the perfect chain is almost always impossible to obtain, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of A: Myself.
RA 9165, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, does not, without more, Q: Who keeps the key to that locker?
automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void, and evidence is admissible as long A: Police Inspector Jonathan Lorilla.
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the Q: Aside from Police Inspector Jonathan Lorilla, is there any other person who has access to
apprehending officer/team. that locker?
A: No more.
In the present case, accused-appellants insist on the police officers non-compliance with the It is evident from this sequence of events that during the interim, Inspector Lorilla constructively
chain of custody rule since there was no physical inventory and photograph of the seized items acquired custody over the seized items. As the lone key holder and consequentially a link in the
were taken in their presence or in the presence of their counsel, a representative from the media chain, Inspector Lorillas testimony became indispensable in proving the guilt of accused-
and the Department of Justice and an elective official. appellant 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
We, however, find these observations insignificant since a review of the evidence on record receptacle. Only he could have enlightened the courts on what safety mechanisms have been
shows that the chain of custody rule has been sufficiently observed by the apprehending installed in order to preserve the integrity of the evidence acquired while inside the locker.
officers. Absent his testimony, therefore, it cannot be plausibly claimed that the chain of custody has
Jurisprudence indeed instructs that failure to observe strictly the above-quoted provision can be sufficiently been established. To be sure, PO3 Perez did not even testify that he was assigned to
excused as long as (1) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly safeguard the evidence locker for the said duration; only that he was the one who put it in and
preserved by the apprehending officers and (2) non-compliance was attended by justifiable three days later took them out of the locker room before bringing them to the crime laboratory.
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. Requiring the key holders testimony is especially significant in this case in view of the law
On the contrary, there is a dearth of evidence to show that the evidence presented was well- enforcers failure to deliver the confiscated items to the crime laboratory within 24 hours, as
preserved. The prosecution likewise failed to offer any justification on why the afore-quoted required under Sec. 21 of RA 9165. While the delay in itself is not fatal to the prosecutions case
provision was not complied with. 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
The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the drug evidence 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.
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 The CA erred in applying the doctrine that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long
tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit of this nature is greatest when the exhibit is as it is credible and positive, can prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to doubt.11 Such doctrine is unavailing in drugs cases wherein all who acquired custody over the
substances familiar to people in their daily lives. As a reasonable measure, in authenticating confiscated items would necessarily have to testify in order to establish an unbroken chain.
narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which Additionally, worth noting is that PO3 Perezs testimony is not virtually free from any form of
are readily identifiable must be applieda more exacting standard that entails a chain of inconsistency and contradictions as to besmirch it with doubt and question contrary to the CAs
custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original findings.12 In fact, it can be gleaned from the records that one of his key statements has been
item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.7 refuted by forensic chemist Ompoy herself.

The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence Based on the affidavit13 executed by PO3 Perez on August 25, 2003, three persons were
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It engaged in a pot session in the house of accused-appellant. However, when the tooter allegedly
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up confiscated from the three was tested for dangerous drugs, the test yielded a negative
to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit result.14 While the guilt of the three others is not an issue in this case, this is illustrative of a
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while disparity in the prosecutions version of facts and militates against PO3 Perezs credibility.
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 The presumption of regularity has been overturned
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 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
In the case at bar, the failure of Inspector Lorilla to testify is fatal to the prosecutions case. To irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. 15 The
recall, only PO3 Perez and Inspector Ompoy testified against accused-appellant. During his presumption, in other words, obtains only when nothing in the records suggests that the law
testimony, PO3 Perez admitted that he put the confiscated item in the evidence locker on August enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law.
22, 2003 for safekeeping and subsequently brought them to Inspector Ompoy at the crime But where the official act in question is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse
laboratory on August 25, 2003.9 During this three-day interval, the items were allegedly kept presumption arises as a matter of course. 16
inside the evidence locker to which only Inspector Lorilla has the key. As per the records: 10
A perusal of the Information filed against accused-appellant and Inspector Ompoys chemistry within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, of the date accused-appellant was actually
report reveals a glaring inconsistency in this case. As can be recalled, the Information charges released from confinement.
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: SO ORDERED.
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 accused-
appellant 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

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.

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 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,