l\epuhlic of tbe llbilipptne~

~upretne <!ourt
;illllnn ila
SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 232357

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

PERLAS-BERNABE,*
- versus - CAGUIOA,
A. REYES, JR., and
J. REYES, JR.,** JJ.

Promulgated:
EDWIN CABEZUDO y RIEZA,

x- _______ ~~~~s~~~~~~e~l~~ ________ ~ __ -~ ~- _ -x

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

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

Edwin Cabezudo y Rieza (Cabezudo) assailing the Decision2 dated November
16, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07071, which
affirmed the Decision3 dated June 10, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court ofDaet,
Camarines Norte, Branch 39 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 14882, finding
Cabezudo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as "The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended.

The Facts

An Information5 was filed against Cabezudo in this case, the accusatory

portion of which reads as follows:

On wellness leave.
•• Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.
See Notice of Appeal dated November 28, 2016, rol/o, pp. 20-23.
Rollo, pp. 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices
Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
CA rol/o, pp. 42-50. Penned by Judge Winston S. Racoma.
4
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, As AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (2002).
Records, p. 1.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 232357

"That on or about 12:20 in the afternoon of August 16, 2011 in

Brgy. Palanas, [M]unicipality of Paracale, [P]rovince of Camarines Norte,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell to a poseur-buyer one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance weighing more or less 0.10 grams, which when subjected to
laboratory examination turned positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, as stated in Chemistry Report
No. D-85-11, without authority oflaw."

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Upon arraignment, Cabezudo pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Thereafter, pre-trial and joint trial on the cases ensued. 7 The prosecution's
version, as summarized by the CA, is as follows:

At about 9:30 in the morning of August 16, 2011, a confidential

informant (CI) went to the Office of the [Philippine] Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) Camarines Norte Unit and informed the officers therein
that accused-appellant is engaged in illegal drug trade in Paracale,
Camarines Norte. A verification from PDEA office files revealed that
accused-appellant is included in the watchlist. S02 Christopher Viana
asked the CI if he can contact accused-appellant so that they can buy
shabu from him. When the CI agreed, the buy-bust team decided to
conduct an entrapment operation against accused-appellant. S02 Viafia
was designated as the arresting officer while SI2 Erwin Magpantay as the
poseur-buyer. The plan is to buy a Php 500.00 worth of shabu.

Before leaving, S02 Viafia prepared the Pre-Operation Report and

forwarded the same to the Regional Office for coordination. At around
11 :00 o'clock in the morning, they proceeded to Brgy. Palanas, Paracale,
Camarines Norte to entrap accused-appellant. The CI and SI2 Magpantay
waited in a store near a cockpit while others strategically positioned
themselves waiting for the pre-arranged signal. At around 12:20 in the
afternoon, accused-appellant arrived and alighted from a tricycle. The CI
approached the latter and they talked. Then, the CI introduced accused-
appellant to SI2 Magpantay. Accused-appellant asked the latter to walk
further in an attempt to conceal the sale. While walking, he handed to SI2
Magpantay a sachet containing white crystalline substance. In exchange,
SI2 Magpantay gave the Php 500.00 to him. After the sale was
consummated, he raised his bull cap as a pre-arranged signal to the other
officers for them to arrest accused-appellant. Immediately, S02 Viafia and
the rest of the team rushed to the area and arrested him. The latter tried to
resist but was subdued by the team. The arrest resulted to the recovery of
eleven(l 1) pieces of Php 1,000.00 bills and fourteen (14) pieces of Php
500.00 bills, and one (1) plastic shachet (sic) containing white crystalline
substance believed to be shabu. SI2 Magpantay confiscated other bills as
he believed that the same were proceeds of accused-appellant's illegal
drug activities.

At the scene of the crime, Sl2 Magpantay marked the confiscated

items. Other members of the team photographed the accused and the
6
Id.
Rollo, p. 3.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 232357

seized items. Later on, they transferred to the barangay hall where the
witnesses (Barangay Chairman and the representatives from the media and
DOJ) signed the inventory report. SI2 Magpantay was in possession of the
seized drugs from Brgy. Palanan to the Office of PDEA until the same
were delivered to the laboratory for examination. PCI Grace Tugas
conducted laboratory examination of the seized white crystalline substance
which yielded a positive result for methamp[h]etamine hydrochloride or
shabu. After the examination, she placed the shabu in an envelope with her
integrity seal (masking tape sealed with her signature) and kept the same
together with other documents in a steel cabinet. The shabu and other
confiscated items were presented in court and positively identified by the
witnesses for the prosecution. 8

On the other hand, the version of the defense, as likewise summarized

by the CA, is as follows:

Accused-appellant told a different story. He claimed that at around

9:00 o'clock in the morning of August 16, 2011, he was in Talisay,
Camarines Norte looking for somebody to accompany him to Paracale,
Camarines Norte to redeem his motorcycle that was impounded by the
PNP. He was able to convince his friend Ruel to go with him. At around
12:00 noon, they arrived at PNP Office in Paracale. There, he was
required to pay fine at the Office of the Municipal Treasurer in the
Municipal Hall. He paid the said fine. However, instead of getting first his
motorcycle, they proceeded to Paracale Cockpit on board a tricycle. When
he alighted from the tricycle, a man suddenly wrapped his arm around his
neck and pulled him from behind. He noticed another man running and
trying to put something in his pocket. This allegedly prompted him to
shout, "Ruel tulong, tinaniman aka[.]" The men handcuffed him and
pushed him down to the ground. While he was frisked, someone got his
money amounting to Php 18,000.00.

Thereafter, he was brought to the Barangay Hall of Palanas,

Paracale where he was made to wait for the Punong Barangay. At around
1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the Punong Barangay arrived. Accused-
appellant requested the latter to put on record the confiscation of the
amount of Php 18,000.00 from him by S02 Viafia.

At 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a representative from the DOJ

arrived. That was the time that he saw the arresting group and the
representatives signed a document.

After his arrest, he was brought to Daet, Camarines Norte. While

on their way, S02 Viafia allegedly told him to produce the amount of Php
100,000.00. He replied that he has no means of producing the same as he
was merely engaged in buying and selling birds nests. S02 Viafia replied,
"Magkano ang kaya mo, para wala nang problema, pera pera fang naman
eta[.]" He told him that he is willing to add the amount of Php 60,000.00
to the Php 18,000.00 that has been confiscated from him. Viafia allegedly
replied that they have to talk it over at the office but they have not yet
agreed anything at that moment. At the PDEA office, he texted his wife to
bring the proceeds of the sale of the bird's nest that he has just sold to a

Id. at 3-4.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 232357

businessman. Later on, his wife arrived with Php 21,000.00. While he was
counting the money, S02 Viafia suddenly grabbed the money and shouted,
"Nanunuhol ka?" allegedly because of the presence of a mediaman. In
response to Viafia's statement, accused-appellant told him that they have
not agreed on anything and that he is not bribing him. This prompted
Viafia to threaten his wife that they will file a case against her. He begged
Viafia to spare his wife and so the latter was instructed to sign in a
logbook to make it appear that she just visited him. Before his wife left the
office, Viafia handed the amount of Php 16,000.00 to her while the rest of
the Php21,000.00 amounting to Php 5,000.00 was handed over to accused-
appellant. Viafia told him that, "!tong Php 5, 000. 00 ay sadyang pinaiwan
niya para sa mga kasamahan niya, panggastos[.]" But before he was
jailed, S02 Viafia allegedly took back the Php 5,000.00 from him. 9

Ruling of the RTC

After trial on the merits, in its Decision dated June 10, 2014 the RTC
convicted Cabezudo of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the said
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the accused

EDWIN CABEZUDO y RIEZA is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00).

The 0.10 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is

hereby confiscated in favor of the government to be turned over to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.

The amount of PhP18,000.00 confiscated from the accused is

hereby ordered released to the accused for lack of any legal basis.

SO ORDERED. 10

The R TC ruled that the evidence on record were sufficient to

pronounce a verdict of conviction against Cabezudo. 11 It held that there was
testimony to the effect that the buy-bust operation was a legitimate one;
hence, there was sufficient proof on record that the sale took place.
Furthermore, it ruled that the defenses of denial and frame-up are commonly
looked by the courts with disfavor as they could easily be concocted and are,
in fact, common defenses in prosecutions for sale of dangerous drugs. The
RTC added that the apprehending officers in this case enjoy the presumption
of regularity in the performance of their official functions. 12

Id. at 4-6.
1
°
11
CA rollo, p. 50.
Id.at47.
12
Id. at 47-48
Decision 5 G.R. No. 232357

Aggrieved, Cabezudo appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In the questioned Decision dated November 16, 2016, the CA

affirmed the RTC's conviction of Cabezudo, holding that the prosecution
was able to prove the elements of the crimes charged. The CA declared that
since the main issue of the case was the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized item, then the findings of the trial court should be given great
weight and respect as it was in a better position to decide the credibility of
evidence. 13 It likewise upheld the finding of the RTC that the elements of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs were sufficiently proven in the present case. 14

The CA added that, contrary to Cabezudo's contention, the integrity

of the corpus delicti was preserved because "the chain of custody [was]
unbroken from the time of markings, inventory and laboratory examination
up to the presentation to the court of the sachet containing shabu." The CA
noted that "non-compliance with Section 21 [of RA 9165] does not render
an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible [and the] requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are not inflexible." 15

The CA was also not persuaded by Cabezudo' s defense. It held that

bare denials and accusations of frame-up could not prevail over the
affirmative testimonies of the witnesses. The CA thus upheld the conviction
of Cabezudo.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Issue

For resolution of the Court is the issue of whether the RTC and the
CA erred in convicting Cabezudo of the crime charged.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. The Court acquits Cabezudo for failure of

the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Cabezudo was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous

drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5 of RA 9165. To convict a
person under a charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution
must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the

13 Rollo, pp. 7-8.

14
Id. at 8-9.
15
Id. at 13.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 232357

seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor. 16

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the
burden of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or
the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very
corpus delicti of the violation of the law. 17 While it is true that a buy-bust
operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for
apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, 18 the law nevertheless requires
strict compliance with the procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights
are safeguarded.

Thus, the Court, in each case, looks into whether the police officers
involved adhered to the step-by-step procedure outlined in Section 21 of RA
9165. This is because, in all drugs cases, compliance with the chain of
custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. Chain
of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. 19 The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug
confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered
in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the
same unwavermg exactitude as that requisite is indispensable to make a
finding of guilt. 20

In this connection, Section 21, RA 9165, the applicable law at the

time of the commission of the alleged crime, lays down the procedure that
police operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of the confiscated
drugs used as evidence. The provision requires: ( 1) that the seized items be
inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2)
that the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence
of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public
official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from
the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This must be so because of the very nature of anti-narcotics

operations, where the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady
characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of
heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial
hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals are prevalent,
the possibility of abuse is great. 21

16
People v. Opiana, 750 Phil. 140, 147 (2015).
17
People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 451 (2013).
18
People v. Manta/aha, 669 Phil. 461, 471 (2011).
19
People v. Guzon, supra note 17, citing People v. Dumaplin, 700 Phil. 737, 747 (2012).
20
Id., citing People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452, 464-465 (2012).
21
People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 471 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).

I
!/
Decision 7 G.R. No. 232357

Section 21, RA 9165 further requires the apprehending team to

conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of
the same immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of
the aforementioned required witness, all of whom shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that

the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the
law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only
when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be
done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. 22 In this connection, the
phrase also means that the three required witnesses should already be
physically present at the time of inventory - a requirement that can
easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-
bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust
team normally has enough time to gather and bring with them the said
witnesses.

In the present case, while all three required witnesses signed the
inventory receipt, a thorough review of the records reveals that (a) none of
them was present at the time of seizure and apprehension, and (b) only one
of them was present during the actual conduct of the inventory. As SI2
Erwin Magpantay (SI2 Magpantay), the poseur-buyer, testified:

Q How many members are there in the operation?

A More or less five (5) persons.

Q Who are these five (5) persons?

A S02 Christopher Viana, me and the remaining are members of

PACTAF Operatives.

xx xx
Q And [a]fter that Mr. Witness, isn't not that Edwin Cabezudo was
trying to shout, if you recall?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q And he was shouting Mr. Witness particularly for help, or

"tulong tulong tinatamnan ako"
A He shouted ma'am.

Q And he shouted that somewhere at the middle of the road?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q And after that you subdue (sic) the accused?

22
IRR of RA 9165, Art. II, Section 2l(a).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 232357

A Yes, sir. (sic)

Q And that is why he was lying facing the ground?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q And isn't it Mr. Witness that immediately you marked the

alleged object?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q But when you marked them, it was only your members who
were present?
A Barangay Officials.

Q Barangay Officials of Brgy. Palanas

A Yes, at that time, ma'am.

Q So at that time when you first marked the documents there

were looking officials?

A There was no DOJ.

Q So when you were marking the object, there was no media

and DOJ representative?
A Marking the evidence; yes, ma'am.

Q And after that that (sic) is the only time you went to the
barangay hall?

A Yes, ma' am.

Q And in the Barangay Hall, you continued with the

documentation?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q When you arrived at the barangay hall, did you immediately

write the Enventory (sic) Receipt?

A Upon the arrival of the other witnesses.

xx xx

Q And you will agree with me Mr. Witness that when the media
and DOJ representatives arrived at the barangay, the object
evidence was already marked?

A Yes, ma'am. 23 (Emphasis supplied)

The testimony of S02 Cristopher Viafia (S02 Viafia), a part of the

apprehending team, further reveals that it was only the barangay official
who was present at the time of the inventory:

23
TSN, September 26, 2012, pp. 4-20.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 232357

Q At that time Mr. Witness, there was no barangay official either

DOJ representative?

A Yes, ma'am. Media.

Q After he was subdued Mr. Witness, what did you do to whim (sic)?

A We waited for the barangay official

Q What do you mean, "he was there"?

A He was lying faced down.

Q What time did the barangay captain arrived (sic)?

A I cannot exactly remember the time but it was only for a short time
after we subdued him.

Q Where did you mark the shabu, Mr. Witness?

A On the road where the incident happened. 24 (Emphasis

supplied)

The above facts were likewise corroborated by the testimonies of

Cabezudo and Reno Pisalbon (Pisalbon), the barangay captain who signed
the inventory receipt. Barangay captain Pisalbon's testimony further
confirms that two of the three required witnesses - the DOJ representative
and the member of the media - were not present at the time of the
inventory:

Q Do you recall of any unusual incident Mr. witness, at that time?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Will you please tell us?

A At that time when I was eating[,] Barangay Tanod arrived and he

told me that there was someone caught by a PDEA who is selling
drugs.

Q Upon hearing that information[,] what did you do Mr. witness?

A We went to the barangay hall and I saw Edwin Cabezudo with

handcuff.

xx xx

Q So, what else happened when they were still inside the barangay
hall?

A None, ma'am. I can not recall.

Q Aside from the PDEA members were you able to see a member
of the media?

A None, ma'am.

24
TSN, January 30, 2013, pp. 21-22.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 232357

Q What about a member from the DOJ?

A None, ma'am. 25 (Emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, it may be inferred from Cabezudo's testimony that

the other witnesses were already "called-in" to sign the inventory receipt,
and that the inventory had already been completed at the place of
apprehension - where only the barangay official was present:

Q When you were already in the barangay hall of Palanas, what

happened next, if any?

A They let me sit in the chair and we waited for the barangay captain.

xx xx

Q What time did the barangay captain of Palanas arrive, Mr.

Witness?

A At about 1:00 o'clock, ma'am.

xx xx

Q After that, Mr. Witness, what happened?

A They put me in the blotter, in the barangay.

Q After the blotter what happened next?

A After that I saw them that they were looking for a Xerox machine
because they will photocopy the Five Hundred peso (Php500.00)
bill.

Q Did you find photocopy machine?

A Yes, ma' am in the barangay hall.

Q Was the money photocopied, Mr. Witness.

A Yes, ma' am.

Q After the money was photocopied, what did they do next, Mr.
Witness?

A They instructed the barangay secretary to put it in the blotter.

Q And then after that what happened?

A We waited for the DOJ representative.

Q For how long did you wait for that DOJ representative?

A At about 3:00 o'clock the DOJ representative arrived.

Q After the DOJ representative arrived, what did they do next?

A I saw them signing a document, ma'am.

Q What was the document that they were signing?

25
TSN, March 7, 2013, pp. 3-5.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 232357

A I don't know.

Q After they signed the document, what did they do next?

A They left. 26 (Emphasis supplied)

It is important to point out that the members of the apprehending team

in this case had more than ample time to comply with the requirements
established by law. By their own version of the facts, as previously narrated,
they received the information from their confidential informant at 9:30 a.m.
on August 16, 2011, and they had ample discretion as to when to conduct the
buy-bust operation because the confidential informant supposedly had direct
contact with Cabezudo. They even had time to prepare a Pre-Operation
Report27 and coordinate with their Regional Office before the operation was
actually conducted. 28 The officers, therefore, could have complied with
the requirements of the law had they intended to. However, the
apprehending officers in this case did not exert even the slightest of effort to
secure the attendance of two of the three required witnesses. Worse, neither
the police officers nor the prosecution - during the trial - offered any
explanation for their deviation from the strict requirements of the law.

It is worth emphasizing that Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR requires
the apprehending team to conduct the physical inventory of the seized items
and the photographing of the same in the presence of the required witness,
all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof:

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:

(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

26 TSN, April 23, 2013, pp. 9-12.

27
Records, pp. 29-30.
28
Rollo, p. 3.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 232357

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 and underscoring supplied)

In this case, clear from the afore-quoted testimonies is the fact that
while the inventory was conducted at the place of the apprehension, it was
conducted only in the presence of the barangav official. To repeat, the
representatives from the media and the DOJ were only "called-in" to sign
the inventory receipt at the barangay hall. Parenthetically, even the place
where the other witnesses were "called-in" was improper, for the rules
require the inventory to be conducted at the place of the arrest or, if
impracticable, at the nearest police station.

The insufficient compliance with Section 21, RA 9165 was likewise

acknowledged by the CA, but it merely justified the same as follows:

The disquisition of the Supreme Court in the case of People vs.

Mapan Le is instructive that non-compliance with Section 21 does not
render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. The requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) are not inflexible. What is essential is "the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, [ "]
as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused. 29

Concededly, Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 provides 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 and custody over said items." For this provision to be effective,
however, the prosecution must ( 1) first recognize any lapse on the part of the
police officers and (2) then be able to justify the same. 30

While there are cases where the Court had ruled that the failure of the
apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section
21 of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the
items void and invalid, the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that:
(a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 31 The Court has

29
Id. at 13.
30 See People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 461 (2015).
31
People v. Cera/de, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017, 834 SCRA 613, 625.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 232357

repeatedly emphasized that the prosecution should explain the reasons

behind the procedural lapses. 32

In this case, the prosecution failed to recognize and justify the

police officers' deviation from the procedure provided in Section 21, RA
9165.

Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the

police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate
against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised. 33 As the Court explained in People v. Reyes: 34

Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of

R.A. No. 9165, a saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not
every case of non-compliance with the procedures for the preservation of
the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's case
against the accused. To warrant the application of this saving
mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or
lapses, and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation
would be the basis for applying the saving mechanism. Yet, the
Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and did not even tender any token
justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain
underscored the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the evidence
of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been compromised,
the accused deserves acquittal.xx x35 (Emphasis supplied)

It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the

time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law
imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential
purpose. The Court elucidated on the purpose of the law in mandating the
presence of the required witnesses in People v. Tomawis 36 as follows:

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public
elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting,
contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court
in People vs. Mendoza, 37 without the insulating presence of the
representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching,
"planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts

32
People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010); People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, January 10, 2018, p. 7;
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018, p. 7; People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102,
January 29, 2018, p. 7; People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, p. 7; People v. Dionisio,
G.R. No. 229512, January 31, 2018, p. 9; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, p. 7;
People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018, p. 9; People v. Sagaunit, G.R. No. 231050, February
28, 2018, p. 7; People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, March 7, 2018, p. 8; People v. Ano, G.R. No. 230070,
March 14, 2018, p. 6; People v. Descalso, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, p. 8; People v. Dela Victoria,
G.R. No. 233325, April 16, 2018, p. 6.
33
See People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342 (2015).
34
797 Phil. 671 (2016).
35
Id. at 690.
36
G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018.
37
736 Phil. 749 (2014).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 232357

conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of

1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility
of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that were evidence of
the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of the accused.

The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during
the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest.
It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most
needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that
would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized
drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence
of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of
frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust
operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence
in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended

place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so - and
"calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and
photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already
been finished - does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these
witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.

To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure

and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time
of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the
intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the
inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs
"immediately after seizure and confiscation. " 38 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

Notably, Roberto Heraldo, Jr. (Heraldo ), a witness to the whole

incident, testified to the effect that he saw the police officers putting
something in Cabezudo's back-pocket:
Q Mr. Witness, do you know the accused in this case in the person of
Edwin Cabezudo?

A No, ma'am.

Q Can you tell the court where were you on August 16, 2011 at about
12:30 o'clock in the afternoon?

A Yes, ma'am I was at the barangay hall.

Q Barangay hall of what barangay, Mr. Witness?

xx xx

A Brgy. Palanas, Paracale, Camarines Norte, ma'am.

Q While you were there, do you recall of any unusual incident that
happened?

38
People v. Tomawis, supra note 36, at 11-12.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 232357

A I remember the incident about Edwin Cabezudo, ma'am.

Q What is that incident about, Mr. Witness?

A What I only saw is the arrest of Edwin Cabezudo, ma'am.

Q Mr. Witness, can you describe before this Honorable Court how
was Edwin Cabezudo arrested?

A His hands were held and his face was laid down on the ground.

xx xx
Q You said, Mr. Witness, that there was, what is that the Police
Officers do after Edwin Cabezudo was already lying on his
stomach?

A The Policeman is trying to put something on his back pocket,

ma'am.

ATTY. ADMANA:

Q And who is that policeman, Mr. Witness?

A I don't know him personally but I recognized his face, ma'am. 39

This is precisely the purpose of the three-witness rule required by RA

9165. While the Court is not making a pronouncement that the seized item in
this case was indeed merely "planted," the above contention of planting of
evidence - claimed by Cabezudo himself, as supported by the testimony of
an eyewitness - highlights the required witnesses' role in ensuring the
preservation of the integrity of the corpus delicti. Simply stated, if only the
police officers in this case complied with the procedure outlined in
Section 21, then the above claim of Cabezudo would have been easily
rebutted and disproved, as there would be three witnesses that could
have attested to the fact that the dangerous drug did come from him.

The Court emphasizes that while it is laudable that police officers

exert earnest effort in catching drug pushers, they must always be advised to
do so within the bounds of the law. 40 Without the insulating presence of the
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the sachet of shabu, the evils of switching,
"planting" or contamination of the evidence again rear their ugly heads as to
negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the
sachet of shabu that is evidence herein of the corpus delicti. Thus, this
adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an
unbroken chain of custody. 41

39 TSN, September 26, 2013, pp. 3-7.

40
People v. Ramos, 791 Phil. 162, 175 (2016).
41
People v. Mendoza, supra note 37, at 764.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 232357

It bears stressing that the prosecution has the burden of (1) proving
compliance with Section 21, RA 9165, and (2) providing a sufficient
explanation in case of non-compliance. As the Court en bane held in the
recent case of People v. Lim: 42

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three

witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug
seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of

arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the
inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was
threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the
accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;
(3) the elected official themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest
efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media
representative and an elected public official within the
period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting
officers, who face the threat of being charged with
arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency
of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of
confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from
obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even
before the offenders could escape. 43

In People v. Umipang, 44 the Court dealt with the same issue where the
police officers involved did not show any genuine effort to secure the
attendance of the required witness before the buy-bust operation was
executed. In the said case, the Court held:

Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical

inventory and the marking of the seized items does not per se render the
confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. However, we take note that, in
this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even attempt to contact
the barangay chairperson or any member of the barangay council. There is
no indication that they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do
the records show whether the police officers tried to get in touch with any
DOJ representative. Nor does the SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason
for failing to do so - especially considering that it had sufficient time from
the moment it received information about the activities of the accused until
the time of his arrest.

Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the
part of the apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives
pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that
representatives were unavailable - without so much as an explanation
on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other

42
G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
43
Id. at 13, citing People v. Sip in, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, p. 17.
44
686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
Decision 17 G.R. No. 232357

representatives, given the circumstances - is to be regarded as a flimsy

excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to
establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, or that
there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. 45 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

The prosecution did not present any other witness to offer a version
different from the foregoing. In a similar way, there was no explanation
offered as to why none of the three required witnesses was present in the
buy-bust operation conducted against Cabezudo, and why only one was
present in the conduct of the inventory. Thus, the RTC and the CA instead
had to rely only on the presumption that police officers performed their
functions in the regular manner to support Cabezudo's conviction.

In this connection, it was egregious error for both the RTC and the CA
to convict the accused by relying on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties supposedly extended in favor of the police officers.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome
the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 46 Otherwise,
a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be
presumed innocent. 47 As the Court, in People v. Catalan, 48 reminded the
lower courts:

Both lower courts favored the members of the buy-bust team with
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, mainly
because the accused did not show that they had ill motive behind his
entrapment.

We hold that both lower courts committed gross error in relying on

the presumption of regularity.

Presuming that the members of the buy-bust team regularly

performed their duty was patently bereft of any factual and legal basis. We
remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption
of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional
guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held
subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of
evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not
even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the
accused guilty of the crime charged.

Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty

could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the
records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a
presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer

45
Id. at 1052-1053.
46
People v. Mendoza, supra note 37, at 769-770.
47
People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 621 (2012).
48 Id.
Decision 18 G.R. No. 232357

must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out
from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that
triggers the presumed fact of regular performance. Where there is any hint
of irregularity committed by the police officers in arresting the accused
and thereafter, several of which we have earlier noted, there can be no
presumption of regularity of performance in their favor. 49 (Emphasis
supplied and italics in the original)

In this case, the presumption of regularity cannot stand because

of the buy-bust team's blatant disregard of the established procedures
under Section 21 of RA 9165, as previously demonstrated.

It bears emphasis that, in cases involving dangerous drugs, the

prosecution therefore always has the burden of proving compliance with the
procedure outlined in Section 21. As the Court stressed in People v.
Andaya: 50

xx x. We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the

accused committed the crimes they have been charged with. The State must
fully establish that for us. If the imputation of ill motive to the lawmen is
the only means of impeaching them, then that would be the end of our
dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests and wrongful
incriminations. We are aware that there have been in the past many cases of
false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that should heighten our
resolve to strengthen the ramparts of judicial scrutiny.

Nor should we shirk from our responsibility of protecting the

liberties of our citizenry just because the lawmen are shielded by the
presumption of the regularity of their performance of duty. The
presumed regularity is nothing but a purely evidentiary tool intended to
avoid the impossible and time-consuming task of establishing every
detail of the performance by officials and functionaries of the
Government. Conversion by no means defeat the much stronger and
much firmer presumption of innocence in favor of every person whose
life, property and liberty comes under the risk of forfeiture on the
strength of a false accusation of committing some crime. 51 (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

In sum, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the

apprehending team's deviation from the rules laid down in Section 21 of RA
9165. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were thus
compromised. In light of this, Cabezudo must perforce be acquitted as
regards the charge of violation of Section 5, RA 9165.

As a final reminder, the Court exhorts the prosecutors to diligently

discharge their onus to prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21
of RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR, which is fundamental in preserving
the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. To the mind of the
49 Id.
50
745 Phil. 237 (2014).
51
Id. at 250-251.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 232357

Court, the procedure outlined in Section 21 is straightforward and easy

to comply with. In the presentation of evidence to prove compliance
therewith, the prosecutors are enjoined to recognize any deviation from the
prescribed procedure and provide the explanation therefor as dictated by
available evidence. Compliance with Section 21 being integral to every
conviction, the appellate court, this Court included, is at liberty to review the
records of the case to satisfy itself that the required proof has been adduced
by the prosecution whether the accused has raised, before the trial or
appellate court, any issue of non-compliance. If deviations are observed and
no justifiable reasons are provided, the conviction must be overturned, and
the innocence of the accused affirmed. 52

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby

GRANTED. The Decision dated November 16, 2016 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07071 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Edwin Cabezudo y Rieza is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and
is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is
being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be
issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the

New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The
said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5)
days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

52
See People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018, p. 10.
Decision 20 G.R. No. 232357

(On wellness leave)

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

a:~~~.
v~Jssociate 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
Court's division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.