SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 188698. July 22, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SONIA BERNEL

NUARIN, appellant.

DECISION

BRION, J : p

We decide the appeal filed by appellant Sonia Bernel Nuarin (appellant)

from the April 28, 2009 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 02886.
The appealed decision affirmed the May 25, 2007 joint decision 2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80, Quezon City, finding the appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
Background Facts
The prosecution charged the appellant with violation of Sections 5 3 and
11, 4 respectively, of R.A. No. 9165 before the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case
Nos. Q-03-114918 and Q-03-114919.
The appellant was duly arraigned; she pleaded not guilty to the charges
laid. The prosecution presented Police Officer 1 (PO1) Roberto Manalo at the
trial on the merits that followed, while the parties stipulated 5 the testimony
of Forensic Chemist, Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. Insp.) Bernardino Banac. The
appellant took the witness stand for the defense.
PO1 Manalo testified that on February 2, 2003, members of the District
Drug Enforcement Group of the Central Police District, composed of himself,
PO1 Filnar Mutia, PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO3 Eduardo Datul, and PO3
Rommel Bautista went to Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City, to conduct a buy-
bust operation against the appellant. 6 When they arrived there at around
12:30 p.m., the informant introduced PO1 Manalo to the appellant. PO1
Manalo told the appellant that he wanted to buy P100.00 worth of shabu. The
appellant handed a sachet containing white crystalline substances to PO1
Manalo who, in turn, gave him the marked money. Immediately after, PO1
Manalo made the prearranged signal to his companions. 7 The other members
of the entrapment team rushed to the scene and introduced themselves as
policemen; PO1 Mutia searched the appellant and found two other plastic
sachets inside the appellant's coin purse. Thereafter, the police brought the
appellant and the seized items to the police station. 8
The defense presented a different picture of the events. The appellant's
testimony was aptly summarized by the CA as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 On February 2, 2003, at about 12:30 in the afternoon, accused-
appellant was at home with her son John Bernel and friends Jan Ticson
and Rebecca Agana. They had just finished eating lunch and accused
appellant was, then, washing the dishes when she heard a knock on the
door. At the door were PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO1 Filnar Mutia and two
others. They were looking for a certain Bogart. When accused-appellant
said that she did not know where Bogart was, the police officers
entered the house and searched the premises for about an hour. When
the search did not yield anything incriminatory, the police brought
accused-appellant and the other occupants of the house to Camp
Karingal in Quezon City. There, the police extorted P40,000.00 in
exchange of accused-appellant's release. When the money was not
produced, accused-appellant was charged by the police officers. 9
In its joint decision 10 of May 25, 2007, the RTC found the appellant
guilty of the illegal sale of 0.03 gram of shabu penalized under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC held that the prosecution was able to
prove, through testimonial and documentary evidence, that an illegal sale of
drugs took place between the appellant and the poseur-buyer, PO1 Manalo. It
added that the police were presumed to have regularly performed their official
duties in the absence of any evidence to rebut this presumption. The RTC
likewise found no merit in the appellant's defenses of denial and extortion as
she failed to substantiate these. Accordingly, the RTC sentenced the appellant
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and ordered her to pay a
P500,000.00 fine. ETHIDa

The RTC, however, acquitted the appellant of illegal possession of

dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114919 for insufficiency of
evidence.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA held that the
prosecution successfully proved all the elements of illegal sale of shabu under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It further ruled that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu had been preserved. The CA also
disregarded the appellant's denial in the light of the positive identification
made by PO1 Manalo.
In her brief on appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court gravely
erred in convicting her of the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure
to establish that a buy-bust operation took place. She also maintained that the
chain of custody over the seized shabu had been broken.
For the State, the office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the
prosecution was able to establish that the sale of shabu between the appellant
and the poseur-buyer was consummated. It also maintained that the
nonpresentation in court of the original marked money, the forensic chemist,
the informant, and the original marked money was not fatal in the
prosecution for illegal drugs.
Our Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to acquit the appellant for the
prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than
the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the
illegal drug, and the existence of the corpus delicti.
In securing or sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the intrinsic
worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the
corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This
requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic
that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
Thus, to remove any doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized
drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is
the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant. 11 It is in
this respect that the prosecution failed.
The 'Marking' Requirement vis-à-vis the Chain of Custody Rule
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."
A crucial step 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. 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. 12
In the present case, the prosecution's lone witness, PO1 Manalo, gave
conflicting statements as to who marked the seized sachets. In his direct
testimony, he claimed that it was the desk officer who marked the sachets,
thus:
PROSECUTOR JOSEPHUS ASIS:
Q: After you were able to arrest the accused and while going travelling
(sic) to your office[,] who was holding the drug that you were able
to buy from the accused?
PO1 MANALO:
A: I, Sir.
Q: After the recovered money by PO1 Mutia and after you arrived at the
station[,] what did you do?
A: We turned it over to the desk officer and the desk officer put
the initial RM.
Q: After the marking[,] what happened next?
A: The investigator prepared a request to the crime laboratory and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 brought the drug to the crime lab.
Q: Who brought it if you know?
A: I can no longer remember. 13

In the latter part of his direct examination, however, PO1 Manalo

claimed that he was the one who marked the sachets. To directly quote from
the records:
PROSECUTOR JOSEPHUS ASIS:
Q: Now you mentioned that you were able to purchase drug from the
accused. If the drug will be shown to you[,] would you be able to
identify it? cSEDTC

PO1 MANALO:
A: I have my marking there[,] sir.
Q: Will you please go over the same and tell me what is the relation of the
said sachet with the substance with the one you were able to buy
(sic)?
A: This is the same stuff that I bought, this is my marking.
PROS ASIS:
Witness identified the sachet previously marked Exhibit "F-3." May we
request that the marking placed by the witness in the sachet
be marked as Exhibit "F-3-B."
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How sure are you that the sachet that you have just identified is also
the sachet that you recovered during the operation?
A: Nobody held it except me.
Q: How did you identify the sachet?
A: The marking that I made. 14 [emphasis supplied]
In his cross-examination, PO1 Manalo again stated that he was the one
who marked the confiscated plastic sachets with "RM."
We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the
initial markings as reference. If at the first instance or opportunity, there are
already doubts on who really placed the markings on the seized sachets (or if
the markings were made in accordance with the required procedure), serious
uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that the
prosecution introduced into evidence.
In addition, the records do not show that the sachets were
marked in the presence of the appellant. In People v. Sanchez, 15 we
explained that the "marking" of the seized items [ ] to truly ensure that they
are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered
in evidence [ ] should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator
(2) immediately upon confiscation. 16 We explained therein that [t]his step
initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and
concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from
harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on
allegations of robbery or theft.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Significantly, PO1 Manalo and PO1 Mutia did not even mention that they
marked the seized plastic sachet in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest.
In People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna, 17 the Court
acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to clearly establish the
identity of the person who marked the seized drugs; the place where marking
was made; and whether the marking had been made in the accused's
presence.
As to the subsequent links in the chain of custody, PO1 Manalo stated
that he handed the seized plastic sachets to the desk officer at the police
station. Curiously, the identity of this desk officer was never revealed during
trial. This is particularly significant since no reference was ever made as to the
person who submitted the seized specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination. PO1 Manalo, in fact, testified that he could not remember the
person who brought the seized plastic sachets to the crime laboratory. Notably,
the specimen was forwarded to the crime laboratory only at 10:35 p.m. It was
not clear, therefore, who had temporary custody of the seized items when
they left the hands of PO1 Manalo until they were brought to the crime
laboratory for qualitative analysis.
The stipulation on the testimony of the forensic chemist does nothing to
help fill the gap as regards the custody and possession of the sachets from the
police station to the crime laboratory. To recall, the parties merely stipulated
that P/Sr. Insp. Banac received a request for laboratory examination, together
with the specimen to be examined; that he recorded the receipt of the sachets
in the logbook and conducted a physical, chemical, and confirmatory test on
the submitted specimen; that he found them positive for the presence of
shabu; and that he put his markings on the sachet and placed it in an
improvised envelope before forwarding it to the evidence custodian. Notably,
the RTC held that P/Sr. Insp. Banac "has no personal knowledge from whom
the subject specimen presented before this court was taken (sic). " 18 Simply
put, the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemical officer has no bearing
on the question of whether the specimen submitted for chemical analysis and
subsequently presented in court were the same as that seized from the
appellant.
The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21
of Article II of R.A. No. 9165
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied
in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
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. [emphasis ours]
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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 ours]SDAaTC

This procedure, however, was not shown to have been complied with by
the members of the buy-bust team, as PO1 Manalo himself admitted that the
police did not make an inventory and photograph the seized items either
at the place of seizure or at the police station. In addition, the police did not
offer any acceptable reason why they failed to do a basic requirement like a
physical inventory of the seized drugs, considering that there were only three
(3) sachets taken from the appellant.
In the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Rosalinda Casabuena, 19
we acquitted the accused for failure of the police to make an inventory and to
photograph the seized shabu. We explained that strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique
characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
No Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties
The courts a quo erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity
in performance that a police officer enjoys in the absence of any taint of
irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to falsify his testimony.
The regularity of the performance of the police officers' duties leaves much to
be desired in this case given the lapses in their handling of the allegedly
confiscated shabu. The totality of all the procedural lapses we previously
discussed effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of
the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up and
extortion. We have previously held that these lapses negate the presumption
that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. Any
taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the
presumption unavailable. 20
We also entertain serious doubts on PO1 Manalo's claim that they
coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) before the
buy-bust operation, as he admitted that there was no pre-operation report or
coordination sheet prepared by the police. Significantly, PO1 Manalo likewise
admitted that the police did not coordinate with the barangay officials of the
subject area. To our mind, these circumstances vis-à-vis the lapses made in the
handling and safekeeping of the alleged sachets of shabu puts in doubt the
claim of the police that they had conducted a legitimate buy-bust operation.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 In fine, the totality of evidence presented in the instant case does not
support the appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No.
9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the
elements of the offense. We reiterate that the prosecution's 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, which is
the corpus delicti of the crime charged against appellant. Following the
constitutional mandate, when the guilt of the appellant has not been proven
with moral certainty, as in this case, the presumption of innocence prevails
and his exoneration should be granted as a matter of right. 21
A final note.
We are mindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are
lingering maladies that destroy families and relationships, and engender
crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing an
intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma. Regardless of
our desire to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by
the Constitution, most particularly on the presumption of innocence bestowed
on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof
sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the
conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this
constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has not proved, in the first
place, all the elements of the crime charged, which in this case is the corpus
delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal. 22
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the
April 28, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02886.
Sonia Bernel Nuarin is hereby ACQUITTED for the failure of the prosecution
to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention unless she is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional
Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. The
Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is directed to report
the action she has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this
Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., * and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per
raffle dated July 6, 2015.

1. Rollo, pp. 2-7; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Bato, Jr., and concurred in by
Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Jose C.
Mendoza (now a member of this Court).
2. CA rollo, pp. 104-112. In this Joint Decision, the RTC also acquitted the appellant in
Criminal Case No. Q-03-114919 (possession of dangerous drugs) for
insufficiency of evidence.
3. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Essential Chemicals.

4. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

5. That he is a Forensic Chemical Officer of the Philippine National Police, Crime
Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City. That while performing his duties and
functions, he received a request for laboratory examination together with
the specimen for examination. After receiving the same, he recorded it in the
logbook and proceeded to the physical, chemical, and confirmatory test.
After which, he was able to determine the specimen as methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. After his examination, he put his markings
on the sachet and placed it in the improvised envelope where he put his
markings and forwarded it to the evidence custodian and retrieved it for
presenting at the hearing.
6. TSN, April 4, 2006, p. 2; see also Joint Affidavit of Arrest, Records, p. 5.

7. Id. at 4.
8. Id. at 5-6; Records, p. 5.
9. CA Decision, CA rollo, p. 90.
10. Id. at 12-20.

11. People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 267.
12. See People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 279, 289-
290.

13. TSN, April 4, 2006, p. 5.

14. Id. at 6.
15. 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008), citations omitted.
16. The Court held in People v. Resurreccion (G.R. No. 186380, October 12, 2009,
603 SCRA 510) that "marking" upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team.
17. G.R. No. 200915, February 12, 2014.
18. Records, p. 70.
19. G.R. No. 186455, November 19, 2014.
20. See People of the Philippines v. Jerry Caranto y Propeta , G.R. No. 193768, March
5, 2014.
21. Supra note 12, at 298, citing People v. Cantalejo, G.R. No. 182790, April 24,
2009, 586 SCRA 777, 783.
22. People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308, 326-327.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com