Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF G.R. No. 176350

THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee, Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

BRION,
*
BERSAMIN,
PEREZ, and
- versus - SERENO, JJ.

Promulgated:

August 10, 2011

JHON-JHON ALEJANDRO y
DELA CRUZ @ NOGNOG,
Appellant.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION

BRION, J.:

We resolve in this appeal the challenge to the May 31, 2006 decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01251. The CA affirmed the May
14, 2004 decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 231, Pasay City,
finding appellant Jhon-Jhon Alejandro y dela Cruz (appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165
(the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and imposing on him the penalty
of life imprisonment.
 BACKGROUND FACTS

The prosecution charged the appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 before the RTC, under an Information that states:

That on or about the 1st day of September 2002, in Pasay City,

Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver 0.06 gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous
[3]
drug. (emphases in the original)

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.[4] During the pre-trial, the prosecution
and the defense stipulated on the following:

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

xxxx

III. Evidence of the Prosecution:

A. Testimonial (witnesses) -

xxxx

B. Documentary

Exhibit A - Affidavit of Arrest

Exhibit B - Buy-bust Money
Exhibit C - Booking and Information Sheet
Exhibit D - Request for Laboratory Examination
Exhibit E - Physical Science Report
No. D-1331-02

C. Real Evidence x x x

Exhibit F - subject specimen

 xxxx

VI. Stipulation of Facts (Including those admitted or undisputed): The

accused with counsel and the Trial Prosecutor have agreed on the
following:

Exhibits C, D, & E admitted their existence only but not as to the

source

xxxx
This pre-trial order shall control the course of the trial in this case,
unless modified by the Court to prevent manifest injustice. The trial
prosecutor as well as the accused and counsel have signed this pre-trial
order to attest to the correctness thereof and their conformity thereto which
may accordingly be used in evidence in this case.[5] [emphases ours]

Thus, the defense admitted the existence of Exhibits C (Booking and

Information Sheet), D (Request for Laboratory Examination) and E (Physical
Science Report No. D-1331-02). The parties also agreed, during the pre-trial, to
dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist, Police Inspector (P/Insp.)
Lourdeliza M. Gural.

The prosecution presented, as its witnesses, Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1)

Jesus Tan and Police Officer 1 (PO1) Timothy Mengote. The appellant and Reggie
Morilla took the witness stand for the defense.

The evidence for the prosecution established that in the afternoon of September 1,
2002, SPO1 Tan was in the office of the District Drug Enforcement Group, Southern
Police District, Taguig, Metro Manila, when a confidential informant called and told
him about the illegal drug activities of the appellant, alias Nog-nog. Police
Superintendent (P/Supt.) Mariano Fegarido conducted a briefing, and then
dispatched Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Nilo Banzuela, Senior Police Officer 1
(SPO1)Alberto Sangalang, Police Officer 3 (PO3) Carlos Cachapero, SPO1 Tan,
and PO1 Mengote, to meet with the informant.[6]

At around 5:00 p.m., the police met with the informant at the Pio Del Pilar
Elementary School. Thereafter, SPO1 Tan, PO1 Mengote and the informant went
to M. Dela Cruz Street in Pasay City to conduct a surveillance.[7] There, the
informant pointed to a person standing at the corner of Mary Luz Street and M. Dela
Cruz Street, and identified him as the appellant.[8] They observed the appellant for
about half an hour, and saw that there were people approaching him. They also
observed that there was an exchange of goods between the appellant and the people
who approached him.[9] The police thereafter returned to the station where they
underwent another briefing and planned an entrapment operation. Under the plan,
PO1 Mengote was designated as the poseur-buyer.[10]

SPO2 Banzuela, SPO1 Tan, SPO1 Sangalang, PO1 Mengote, PO3 Cachapero
and the informant returned to M. Dela Cruz Street to conduct the buy-bust operation.
When they arrived at the place at around 6:00 p.m., they saw the appellant sitting in
front of a sari-sari store. The informant introduced PO1 Mengote to the appellant as
a buyer (i.e., a shabu scorer). The appellant asked, Magkano ba? PO1 Mengote
answered, Halagang piso. PO1 Mengote then gave the one hundred peso marked
money to the appellant. The appellant, in turn, pulled out a plastic sachet from his
right pocket and handed it to PO1 Mengote. Upon receiving the plastic sachet, PO1
Mengote made the pre-arranged signal (i.e., wiped his face with a towel) to his
companions. Immediately, the other members of the buy-bust team approached the
appellant. They introduced themselves as police officers, recovered the buy-bust
money from the appellant, and arrested him. They then brought him and the
confiscated items to the police station.[11] At the police station, they forwarded the
seized items to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory where they
were examined by P/Insp. Gural.[12]

The laboratory examination, conducted by P/Insp. Gural on the confiscated

specimen, yielded the following result:

PHYSICAL SCIENCE REPORT NO. D-1331-02

xxxx

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:

A One (1) small brown staple wire-sealed evidence envelope with

signature markings containing one (1) small heat sealed transparent plastic
 sachet with markings TM-1-010902 containing 0.06 gram of white
crystalline substance and marked as A-1.

xxxx

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen

gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONCLUSION:

Specimen A-1 contains Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a

dangerous drug.[13]

In his defense, the appellant submitted a different version of events. He testified that
at around 6:00 p.m. of September 1, 2002, he was in front of his grandmothers store
on Mary Luz Street, Pasay City, when eight (8) policemen arrived. PO1 Mengote
and SPO1 Tan approached and asked him about the whereabouts of a certain Terio.
When he replied that he did not know where Terio was, the police brought him to
the Pio Del Pilar Elementary School in Makati City[14] from where the police
apparently received a text message informing them that Terio was in Pasay City. The
police and the appellant returned to Mary Luz Street, and entered a house owned by
Terio. Inside, they saw its occupant, Enrico Yatco. The police searched the house
for about half an hour. Afterwards, they brought the appellant and Enrico to the
Sothern Police District.[15] At the police station, PO1 Mengote and SPO1 Tan
showed six (6) pieces of plastic sachets to the appellant and forced him to admit
ownership.[16]

Reggies testimony was summarized by the RTC as follows:

REGGIE MORILLA, the caretaker of the store owned by the

accuseds grandmother, testified that he has been living with the family of
the accused for three (3) years already. The family of the accused is
located at 51 Mary Luz St., M. dela Cruz, Pasay City. On September 1,
2002, he was inside the store while the accused was standing outside when
suddenly he heard a commotion. So he peeped through a hole in the store
and saw two policemen in civilian attire handcuffing the accused. He
 asked assistance from his neighbors. Then he saw the accused being taken
out of Mary Luz St. Later, they returned the accused and they led the
accused inside a house and then after thirty minutes, he was brought out
and was boarded inside an owner type jeep.[17]

The RTC, in its decision of May 14, 2004, found the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment. The RTC also ordered the appellant to pay a P500,000.00 fine.[18]

The records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on appeal. Pursuant
to our ruling in People v. Efren Mateo y Garcia,[19] we endorsed the case and its
records to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.

The CA affirmed the RTC decision.[20] The CA held that the appellant and his
counsel entered into a stipulation of facts whereby they agreed on the admissibility
of the request for laboratory examination of the submitted specimen and on the
findings of P/Insp. Gural. Hence, they cannot be allowed to question, on appeal, the
identity and integrity of the plastic sachet of shabu seized from the appellant by
members of the entrapment team. The CA added that the prosecution witnesses
positively identified the appellant as the person who handed the plastic sachet
of shabu to the poseur-buyer.[21]

The CA further held that the police officers are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner, in the absence of any evidence of improper motive on
their part. It, likewise, disregarded the appellants defense of denial, as it was
unsupported by reliable corroborative evidence.[22]

In his brief, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in convicting him of
the crime charged despite the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He claims that the integrity of the seized item had been
compromised due to the failure of the apprehending police to mark it.[23]

The Office of the Solicitor General counters with the argument that the appellant
cannot now question the identity and integrity of the specimen confiscated from him
as he already entered into a stipulation regarding the admissibility of the request for
laboratory examination and on the result of this examination. In addition, the
appellant failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely
testify against him.[24]

THE COURTS RULING

We resolve to ACQUIT the appellant, for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until

the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution
to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence
required. In doing so, the prosecution must rest its case on its own merits and cannot
merely rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the
required quantum of evidence, the defense does not even need to present any
evidence in its behalf; the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should
be acquitted.[25]

Reasonable Doubt on the Corpus Delicti

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs under
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
What is material in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that
the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
evidence of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes
that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the
illegal transaction.[26] In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and proof of its existence is vital
to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[27] To remove any
doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, the evidence
must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same illicit
drug actually recovered from the appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for drug
pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails.[28]

a. The Chain of Custody Rule and the Marking Requirement

 Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements
R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody as the duly recorded authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.

In Junie Malillin y Lopez v. People,[29] we explained the importance of

establishing the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs, in this wise:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule

requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and
what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition
of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.

While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard

because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of
custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real
evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its
condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has
failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in
case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination
and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of
susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering - without regard to
whether the same is advertent or otherwise not - dictates the level of
strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.[30]

Thus, crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs
or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking
means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials
and signature on the items seized.[31] Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165,
this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark
the seized drugs casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus
delicti.[32] Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it
is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar
or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are
disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching,
"planting," or contamination of evidence.[33]

In the present case, the records do not show that the apprehending team
marked the seized items with their initials immediately upon confiscation.
In Sanchez,[34] we explained that consistency with the chain of custody rule requires
that the marking of the seized items be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended
violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. We clarified in People v. Manuel
Resurreccion[35] that [m]arking upon immediate confiscation does not exclude the
possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending
team. In the present case, the testimonies of the apprehending officers do not indicate
that they ever marked the seized items, either at the place of seizure or at the police
station. How the police could have omitted such a basic and vital procedure in the
initial handling of the seized drugs truly baffles us. Going back to what we earlier
discussed, succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as reference.
If at the first instance or opportunity, the apprehending team did not mark the seized
item/s, then there is nothing to identify it later on as it passes from one hand to
another.

Curiously, the seized item already bore the markings TM-1-010902 when it
was examined by the forensic chemist. In the absence, however, of specifics on how,
when and where this marking was done, and who witnessed the marking procedure,
we cannot accept this marking as compliance with the chain of custody requirement
required by the law. In People v. Ranilo Dela Cruz y Lizing,[36] the Court reversed
the accuseds conviction for the failure of the police to mark the plastic sachet in the
presence of the accused or his representatives. People v. Zaida Kamad y
Ambing,[37] likewise, resulted in an acquittal for the failure of the prosecution to
provide specific details on how the seized shabu was marked.

The second link in the chain of custody is the turnover of the confiscated drug
from PO1 Mengote to the police station. To recall, after PO1 Mengote allegedly
received the plastic sachet from the appellant, he made the pre-arranged signal to his
companions. The other members of the buy-bust team approached the appellant,
introduced themselves as police officers, and arrested him. Thereafter, they brought
him and the confiscated item to the police station.

Notably, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the

person who took custody of the seized item at the police station. Although the request
for laboratory examination was signed by P/Supt. Fegarido, the Chief of the District
Drug Enforcement Group, we cannot assume that he was the person who received
the seized item from PO1 Mengote, in the absence of any testimony proving such
fact.

For the succeeding links in the chain of custody, the evidence shows that the
confiscated item was forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory by one SPO2 Pepano,
and then received by a certain Relos. P/Insp. Gural examined the submitted
specimen, and found it positive for the presence of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride. As previously discussed, there was a missing link in the custody of
the confiscated item after it left the possession of PO1 Mengote. The police did not
only fail to mark the specimen immediately upon seizure; it likewise failed to
identify the police officer to whose custody the confiscated item was given at the
police station. Thus, we cannot conclude with certainty that the item seized from the
appellant was the same as that presented for laboratory examination and, later on,
presented in court.

That the defense admitted the existence of the Booking and Information Sheet
(Exh. C), the Request for Laboratory Examination (Exh. D) and Physical Science
Report No. D-1331-02 (Exh. E) during the pre-trial did not amount to an admission
of the identity of the seized specimen. What the admissions proved were merely the
existence and authenticity of the request for laboratory examination and the result of
this examination, not the required chain of custody from the time of seizure of
evidence. Simply put, the admission regarding the existence of Exhibits C, D and E
has no bearing on the question of whether the specimen submitted for chemical
analysis was the same as that seized from the appellant.[38] To interpret the
stipulations as an admission that the appellant was the source of the specimen would
be contrary to the pre-trial order (stating that Exhibits C, D and E were admitted as
to their existence only and not as to the source); it would also bind the appellant to
an unceremonious withdrawal of his plea of not guilty.

In like manner, the stipulation during the pre-trial regarding the non-
presentation of the forensic chemist, P/Insp. Gural, merely covers the handling of
the specimen at the forensic laboratory and the result of the examination,
but not the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the
forensic chemist and after it left his possession.[39]

b. Non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1,

Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21(a), Article
II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165 give us the
procedures that the apprehending team should observe in the handling of seized
illegal drugs in order to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence. As
indicated by their mandatory terms, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure
is essential and the prosecution must show compliance in every case.[40]

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 reads:

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

This provision is further elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A.
No. 9165, which reads:
 (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items[.]

The records of the present case are bereft of evidence showing that the
apprehending or buy-bust team followed the outlined procedure of Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. PO1 Mengote narrated the police operation as follows:

PROSECUTOR BERNABE SOLIS:

Q: So [were] you able to locate him afterwards?

PO1 TIMOTHY MENGOTE:

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where was he at that time?

A: At that time, he was in front of a sari-sari store or M. dela Cruz

St., sir.

Q: What was he doing at that time?

A: He was just sitting there at that time, sir.

xxxx

Q: What did you do next?

A: When we saw him, our asset introduced me to him as a shabu
scorer sir.

xxxx

Q: So what was the reply of the accused?

A: He said, Magkano ba? and I answered, Halagang piso sir.

Q: What does Piso mean?

A: P100.00 worth, sir.

Q: After having conveyed your intention to buy P100.00 worth of

shabu, what did the accused do, if any?

A: When I had given him the buy bust money, he pulled x x x the
shabu out of his right pocket pants, sir.

xxxx

Q: What did he do with the shabu which he pulled out of his right
pocket?

A: He handed over the stuff to me, sir.

Q: And after this exchange of goods, what did you do if any?

A: I executed the pre-arranged signal by wiping my face with a face

towel, sir.

xxxx

Q: And did your colleagues respond to the pre-arranged signal?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What happened after that?

A: I properly introduced myself to Jhon Jhon as a police officer, sir.

 xxxx

Q: Upon the arrival of your back-up team, what happened next?

A: They likewise introduced themselves as police officers and we

recovered the buy bust money which was taken from his
right hand sir.

xxxx

Q: What happened next?

A: We apprised him of his rights, arrested him and brought him to

our office sir.[41]

From these exchanges, clearly it appears that the apprehending team did not
photograph or conduct a physical inventory of the item seized, whether at the place
of seizure or at the police station. The non-compliance by the apprehending team
with the photograph and physical inventory requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and
its IRR was also evident in the testimony of another member of the buy-bust teams,
PO1 Tan, who corroborated PO1 Mengotes testimony on material points. Notably,
even the Joint Affidavit of Arrest[42] of the members of the entrapment team made no
mention of any inventory or photograph.

Prior to the passage of R.A. No. 9165, the Court applied the procedure
required by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, amending
Board Regulation No. 7, Series of 1974.[43] Section 1 of this Regulation requires the
apprehending team, having initial custody and control of the seized drugs, to
immediately inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
and/or his representatives, who shall be required to sign and be given copies of the
inventory.

After the passage of R.A. No. 9165, the Court did not waver in ensuring that
the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs were observed.
In People v. Rosemarie R. Salonga,[44] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the
police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed the
accuseds conviction in Gutierrez,[45] for the failure of the buy-bust team to
inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v.
Cantalejo[46] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was
ever made by the police.

We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Erlinda

Capuno y Tison,[47] People v. Jay Lorena y Labag,[48] and People
v. Arnold Martinez y Angeles, et al.[49]

Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we clarify that non-

compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does not necessarily render
the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held
to be valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and
(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been
properly preserved. These conditions, however, were not met in the present case as
the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for the failure of the
police to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items. As we
held in People v. Ronaldo De Guzman y Danzil,[50] the failure to follow the
procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained.
The justifiable ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court
cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

No Presumption of Regularity in
the Performance of Official Duties

In convicting the appellant of the crime charged, both the RTC and the CA relied on
the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed.
However, this presumption is not conclusive and cannot, by itself, overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence. The presumption of regularity, it must be
emphasized, obtains only when there is no deviation from the regular performance
of duty. Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, no presumption of
regularity can arise.[51] Our declaration in People v. Samuel Obmiranis y Oreta[52] is
particularly instructive:

It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule
of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or
prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in
other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the
fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of
official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act
in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a
matter of course. There is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill
motives to make false charges was successfully attributed to the members
of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives
had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where
there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People
v. Dulay and People v. Ganenas in fact both suggest that the presumption
of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular
performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption
of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just thata mere
presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by
the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.[53]

In the present case, the procedural lapses by the apprehending team in the handling
of the seized items from their failure to mark it immediately upon confiscation, to
their failure to inventory and photograph it in the presence of the accused, or his
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any
elected public official, without offering any justifiable ground effectively negated
the presumption of regularity.

Conclusion

In fine, the totality of evidence presented in the present case does not support
the appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements
of the offense. The prosecutions failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of this Act compromised the
identity of the item seized, leading to the failure to adequately prove the corpus
 delicti of the crime charged. In accordance with the constitutional mandate that the
guilt of the appellant must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, we hold for failure
to establish the required quantum of evidence that the presumption of innocence
must prevail and acquittal should follow as a matter of right.[54]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET

ASIDE the May 31, 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 01251. Appellant Jhon-Jhon Alejandro y dela Cruz is hereby ACQUITTED for
the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is
ordered immediately RELEASEDfrom detention, unless he is confined for another
lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of

Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court,
within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice
 MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice