APRIL 4, 2018

G.R. No. 214759

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The lack of any justification tendered by the arresting officers for any lapses in the documentation of the
chain of custody of confiscated dangerous drugs warrants the acquittal of the accused in a prosecution
for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs on the ground of reasonable doubt. The accused has no burden to
prove her innocence.

The Case

We review the decision promulgated on May 29, 2014,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affim1ed the
conviction for a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002) of accused Dina Calates y dela Cruz (Dina) handed down by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Bacolod City through its judgment rendered in Criminal Case No. 03-24786 on April 21, 2009.2

Antecedents

On April 24, 2003, the accused was charged in the RTC with violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165
under the following information docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-24786, to wit:

That on or about the 22nd of April, 2003, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, dispense, deliver,
give away to another; distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give away to a police poseur-buyer in a buy-bust
operation, one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu, a dangerous drug weighing 0.03 gram, in exchange for a price of ₱100.00 in marked money of
₱100.00 bill with Serial No. P915278, in violation of the aforementioned law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

The CA summarized the antecedent facts as follows:

The evidence for the prosecution is summarized as follows: In the morning of April 20, 2003 Insp.
Jonathan Lorilla received an information from a reliable informant that alias "Dangdang" Calates is
engaged in sale of illegal drug activities. Insp. Lorilla verified if the information is true through a police
asset. During the briefing, PO1 Sonido acted as the poseur-buyer with the asset, Insp. Lorilla as team
leader and with P02 Malate, PO2 Villeran, P02 Perez and PO2 Belandrez as back-up security. About
10:50 or 10:55 am of April 22, 2003, the group all in civilian clothes, proceeded to 27th Calamba Street,
Purok Sigay, Barangay 2. PO1 Sonido and the asset went ahead of the group. They entered the place, a
woman with "semi-calbo" and sporting blond hair, met the duo and asked if they would buy shabu. PO1
Sonido and the asset, alias "Toto", wiped their nostrils with their right finger, meaning their answer to the
question is "yes". The accused extended her left hand to receive the marked money which PO1 Sonido
gave her (accused), while the latter took a small sachet of suspected shabu from her right pocket and
gave it to PO1 Sonido. Thereafter, PO1 Sonido immediately arrested the accused, identified himself as
police officer, PO1 Sonido informed her of the reason of her apprehension and her rights to remain silent
and counsel. When the other member of the team saw that the accused was arrested, they rushed
towards PO1 Soni do and rendered assistance by putting the accused to a manacle.

The marked money was recovered and the sachet of shabu was marked "ASS" which stands for Alain S.
Sonido. Thereafter, the incident was recorded in the police blotter and the plastic sachet of shabu was
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory.

The evidence for the defense is also summarized as follows:

Accused Dina Calates claimed that at 11:00 o'clock in the morning of April 22, 2003, she was cooking
food for lunch at her residence in 27th Calamba Extension, Bacolod City. During that time a commotion
took place outside her house. Together with her husband Joemar and a certain Luz, the accused went
outside to see what was happening. They saw a person lying face down and handcuffed, 15 meters away
from their location. The man was "Limuel Canlas". He was surrounded by about eight persons and among
them, were Police Officers Dennis Belandrez and Jonathan Lorilla. The accused went back to her house
and when she went outside again to pick up her son's slippers, Insp. Lorilla suddenly handcuffed her from
behind. The latter asked Insp. Lorilla why she was arrested. The latter replied "you are also selling
shabu". The policemen went inside and searched her house without search warrant, but they recovered
nothing. The accused was brought to BAC-Up 2 (police station). 4

Judgment of the RTC

As stated, the RTC convicted the accused through the decision dated

April 21, 2009, disposing thusly:

WHEREFORE, finding accused DINA CALA TIS y De La Cruz alias "Dangdang" guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Sale, Delivery, etc. of [D]angerous
Drugs) as herein charged, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing her to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00. She is also to bear the accessory penalty prescribed by law. Cost
against accused.

The one (1) sachet of shabu (Exh. "B-3"-0.03 gram) brought/recovered from accused, being a dangerous
drug, is hereby ordered confiscated and/or forfeited in favor of the government and to be forthwith
delivered or turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) provincial office for
immediate destruction or disposition in accordance with law.

The immediate commitment of accused to the national penitentiary is likewise hereby ordered.

SO ORDERED.5

The RTC observed that the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses were credible; that the Prosecution
thereby established all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs defined and punished
under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165; and that Dina's denial did not overcome her positive identification as
the drug pusher by the Prosecution's witnesses.

Decision of the CA

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction upon noting that the Prosecution had successfully proved all
the elements of the crime charged; that the Prosecution had showed that the police authorities had
preserved the integrity and evidenciary value of the dangerous drug confiscated from the accused until its
presentation as evidence in court; that the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of the Prosecution's
witnesses became immaterial considering that Dina had personally sold the dangerous drug to PO1
Sonido; that there had been no gap or missing link in the chain of custody of the confiscated drug despite
the fact that no inventory and pictures had been taken; and that the lack of inventory and photographing
was not fatal.6 The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, the April 21, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Bacolod City in
Criminal Case No. 03-24786 convicting the accused appellant Dina Calates y De La Cruz of Violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act is AFFIRMED. With costs
against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.7

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

For purposes of this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General 8 and the Public Attorney's
Office9 manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs, and prayed that the
briefs submitted to the CA be considered in resolving the appeal.

In her appellant's brief, Dina argues that the Prosecution did not prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
that the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses had doubtful credibility; that there had been another
drug operation at the same place, date and time that led to the arrest of one Cromwell Canlas; that it was
improbable for the police operatives to have conducted the operation against Canlas and to still conduct
another operation against her just five minutes later on; that the identity of the corpus delicti had been
compromised by the lack of the inventory and the non-taking of photographs in her presence, and in the
presence of any representative from the media and the "Department of Justice, as required by Section 21
of R.A. No. 9165; that the Prosecution did not even bother explaining why the procedures prescribed by
the law had not been complied with; and that because of the irregularities, substantial gaps attended the
chain of custody of the seized drug and rendered the identity of the drug highly suspicious.

In response, the OSG maintains that the entrapment of Dina was with due regard for her rights under the
law; that the police operatives properly performed their duties in the conduct of the operation against her;
that there was no reason to doubt the credibility of the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses; and
that the non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 did not necessarily
render the seizure of the drug illegal or cast doubt on the identity of the drug because the Prosecution
was able to show that there had been no gaps in the chain of custody starting from the initial marking until
the eventual presentation of the drug in court.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious.

In prosecutions for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the State bears the burden not only of proving
the elements of the offenses of sale of dangerous drug and of the offense of illegal possession of
dangerous drug, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. Corpus delicti has been
defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime was
actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the
particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two things, namely: the
existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal
agency as the cause of this act or result. The dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the
violation of the law prohibiting the illegal sale or possession of dangerous drug. Consequently, the State
does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the corpus delicti when the drug is
missing, or when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts
about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court. 10 As such, the duty to prove the corpus
delicti of the illegal sale or possession of dangerous drug is as important as proving the elements of the
crime itself.

The arrest of Dina following the seizure of the illegal substance resulted from the buy-bust
operation.1âwphi1 Although buy-bust operations have become necessary in dealing with the drug
menace, it has also been acknowledged that buy-bust operations were susceptible to abuse by turning
them into occasions for extortion.11 Addressing the possibility of abuse, Congress prescribed procedural
safeguards to ensure that such abuse would be circumvented. The State and its agents are thereby
mandated to faithfully observe the safeguards in every drug-related operation and prosecution. 12

The procedural safeguards cover the seizure, custody and disposition of the confiscated drug. Section 21
of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, relevantly provides:

Sec. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and
a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable,
in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody
over said items;

xxxx

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 (a) of R.A. No. 9165 have reiterated the statutory
safeguards, thus:

xxxx

(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory

and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at
the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items; (Emphasis supplied)

xxxx

The proper handling of the confiscated drug is paramount in order to ensure the chain of custody, a
process essential to preserving the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. In this connection, chain
of custody refers to the duly recorded authorized movement and custody of seized drugs, controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment, from the time of seizure or
confiscation to the time of receipt in the forensic laboratory, to the safekeeping until presentation in court
as evidence and for the purpose of destruction. The documentation of the movement and custody of the
seized items should include the identity and signature of the person or persons who held temporary
custody thereof, the date and time when such transfer or custody was made in the course of safekeeping
until presented in court as evidence, and the eventual disposition. 13 There is no denying that the
safeguards of marking, inventory and picture-taking are all vital to establish that the substance
confiscated from the accused was the very same one delivered to and presented as evidence in court.

A review of the records reveals that the non-compliance with the procedural safeguards prescribed by law
left serious gaps in the chain of custody of the confiscated dangerous drug.

To start with, PO1 Sonido, who testified having marked the confiscated drug at the place of arrest, did not
claim that he did the marking in the presence of Dina. The unilateral marking engendered doubt about the
integrity of the evidence presented during the trial, for determining if the drug he thereby marked was the
same drug confiscated from Dina became literally impossible.14

Secondly, although P/Insp. Jonathan Lorilla attested on cross-examination that an inventory of the
confiscated drug had been conducted, his testimony had no corroboration in the records. That he was
also unsure if photographs of the confiscated drug had been taken in the presence of Dina accented the
non-observance of the safeguards. At the very least, his declared uncertainty reflected the inexcusability
of the oversight on the part of the apprehending lawmen regarding the safeguards considering that the
arrest of Dina had been effected during the pre-planned buy-bust operation. 15 Worse, the lack of the
inventory and his professed uncertainty about the taking of photographs in the presence of Dina could
only mean that no inventory and photograph had been taken, in violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

The Court has consistently reminded about the necessity for the arresting lawmen to comply with the
safeguards prescribed by the law for the taking of the inventory and photographs. The safeguards, albeit
not absolutely indispensable, could be dispensed with only upon justifiable grounds. Indeed, as
pronounced in People v. Pagaduan, 16 and other rulings of the Court, the deviations from the standard
procedure dismally compromise the integrity of the evidence, and the only reason for the courts to
overlook the deviations is for the Prosecution to recognize the deviations and to explain them in terms of
their justifiable grounds, and to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized were
nonetheless substantially preserved. Any shortcoming on the part of the Prosecution in this regard is fatal
to its cause despite the saving clause stated in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, supra, precisely because:

In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation to justify the failure of the
police to conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs. The apprehending
team failed to show why an inventory and photograph of the seized evidence had not been made either in
the place of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police station (as required by the Implementing Rules in
case of warrantless arrests). We emphasize that for the saving clause to apply, it is important that
the prosecution explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value
of the seized evidence had been preserved. In other words, the justifiable ground for
noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or
that they even exist. 17 [Bold emphasis supplied]
The records have been vainly searched for the credible justification for the entrapment team's non-
compliance with the safeguards set by law. The absence of the justification accented the gaps in the
chain of custody, and should result in the negation of the evidence of the corpus delicti right from the
outset. Clearly, the Prosecution did not discharge its burden to prove the guilt of Dina beyond reasonable
doubt.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainty; moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 18 On the other hand, a reasonable doubt of guilt, according to United
States v. Youthsey: 19

x x x is a doubt growing reasonably out of evidence or the lack of it. It is not a captious doubt; not a doubt
engendered merely by sympathy for the unfortunate position of the defendant, or a dislike to accept the
responsibility of convicting a fellow man. If, having weighed the evidence on both sides, you reach the
conclusion that the defendant is guilty, to that degree of certainty as would lead you to act on the faith of it
in the most important and crucial affairs of your life, you may properly convict him. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not proof to a mathematical demonstration. It is not proof beyond the possibility of
mistake.

With the failure of the Prosecution to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal of Dina
should follow. That she might have actually committed the imputed crime is of no consequence, for she
had no burden to prove her innocence, which was presumed from the outset.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on May 29, 2014 by
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01035; ACQUITS accused DINA CALATES y DELA
CRUZ for failure of the Prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
and DIRECTS her IMMEDIATE RELEASE from the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong
City unless she is confined thereat for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this decision be transmitted to the Superintendent of the Correctional lnstitution for Women
Bureau of Corrections, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation, with the directive to report the
action taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this decision.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P.BERSAMIN
Associate Justice