PEOPLE OF THE 

PHILIPPINES,   G.R. No. 186471

                      Plaintiff-Appellee,  
  Present:
   
         - versus - CORONA, J., Chairperson,
  VELASCO, JR.,
  NACHURA,
RODANTE DE LEON y DELAROSA, PERALTA, and
                      Accused-Appellant. MENDOZA,  JJ.
   
  Promulgated:
       
January 25, 2010
 
DECISION
 
VELASCO, JR., J.:
 
The Case
 
 
This is an appeal from the April 4, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01811 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rodante De Leon y Dela
Rosa which affirmed the December 20, 2005 Decision in Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-122555-56 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 in Quezon City. The RTC found accused-appellant
Rodante De Leon guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA)
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
 
The charges against appellant stemmed from the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. Q-03-122555
(Violation of Section 5 [Sale], Article II of RA 9165)
 
That on or about the 9th day of November, 2003, in the Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law, to sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute of any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wilfully
and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the
said transaction zero point sixteen (0.16) gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride a dangerous drug.
 
Contrary to law.

 
 Criminal Case No. Q-03-122556
(Violation of Section 11 [Possession], Article II of RA 9165)
 
That on or about the 9th day of November, 2003, in the Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law, to possess or use any
dangerous drug, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in
his/her possession and control zero point eighteen (0.18) gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
 
Contrary to law.
 
On February 16, 2004, appellant was arraigned and pleaded “not guilty” to the charge
against him. After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued.
 
During the trial, the parties agreed to stipulate on the testimonies of Engr. Leonard
Jabonillo, the Forensic Chemist, and Police Officer 1 (PO1) Oliver Estrelles, the police
investigator of these cases. The prosecution thereafter presented PO2 Noel Magcalayo as its
witness. The defense, on the other hand, presented Rodante De Leon, the accused himself.

The trial court summarized the stipulation of Engr. Jabonillo, as follows:

 
x x x that he is a Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police, that his
Office received the request for laboratory examination marked as Annex “A”; that
together with the said request was a plastic sachet marked as Exh. “B” which
contained two (2) plastic sachets marked as Exhibits “B-1” and “B-2”; that he
conducted the requested laboratory examination and, in connection therewith he
submitted a Chemistry Report marked as Exhibit “C”, the finding thereon
showing the specimen positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride was
marked as Exhibit “C-1” and the signature of said police officer was marked as
Exhibit “C-2”; that he then issued a Certification marked as Exhibits “D” and “D-
1” and thereafter turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian x x x. (Order
dated September 14, 2004).

          Also, as regards PO1 Estrelles, the following was agreed upon:

 
x x x that he was the investigator of these cases and in connection with the
investigation conducted by him, he received the evidence, namely: the Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension executed by PO2 Noel Magcalayo and PO2 Cesar
Collado marked as Exhibit “E” and “E-1”; that likewise prepared the request for
examination marked as Exhibit “A” and submitted the specimen to the Crime
Laboratory and receive the Chemistry Report marked as Exhibit “C”; that he
received the Pre-Operation Report marked as Exhibit “E” as well as the buy bust
money marked as Exhibits “F” and “F-1”, that he prepared the letter request to the
City Prosecutor Office marked as Exhibit “G”; and that Exhibit “A” contains
superimposition of the date thereof.” (Order dated September 14, 2004). 
 
 The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
 
On November 9, 2003, at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant
arrived at the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force at the
Novaliches Police Station in Quezon City and reported the illegal activities of a person named
“Rodante De Leon.”
 
Thereafter, Police Senior Inspector (P/SInsp.) Nilo Wong formed a team for a buy-bust
operation with PO2 Magcalayo as poseur-buyer and Senior Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Mario
Concepcion, PO2 Fernando Salonga, PO2 Cesar Collado, PO2 Edmund Paculdar, and PO1
Emeterio Mendoza as team members. A pre-operation report was prepared. P/SInsp. Wong then
handed to PO2 Magcalayo two (2) pieces of PhP 100 bills as buy-bust money and on which PO2
Magcalayo wrote his initials “NM.”
 
At around 6:30 p.m. in the evening, the team proceeded to Sarmiento St., Barangay Sta.
Monica, Novaliches, Quezon City, where the confidential informant introduced PO2 Magcalayo
to appellant as a buyer of shabu. PO2 Magcalayo then asked appellant if he had shabu and the
latter answered in the affirmative and asked him how much he would buy. PO2 Magcalayo
handed the money and, in return, appellant handed him one (1) plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance. He then scratched his head, which was the pre-arranged signal that the
transaction was consummated, and thereafter arrested appellant. He recovered the buy-bust
money from appellant as PO2 Collado approached them and handcuffed appellant. Upon frisking
appellant, PO2 Collado discovered another plastic sachet on the person of appellant.
 
Afterwards, appellant was brought to the police station for investigation. PO2 Collado
then placed his initials on the sachet he found on appellant. The evidence was subsequently
turned over to the police investigator, PO1 Estrelles, who prepared a request for its laboratory
examination.
 
PO2 Collado, PO1 Mendoza, PO2 Paculdar, and PO2 Magcalayo then brought the
transparent plastic sachets containing the white crystalline substance subject of the buy-bust
operation to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Eastern Police District on
St. Francis Street, Mandaluyong City for examination. Engr. Jabonillo, a Forensic Chemical
Officer, conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens, which yielded positive results for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. He issued Chemistry Report No. D-1240-
2003 dated November 9, 2003, which showed the following results:
 
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
           
             Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white
crystalline substance having the following markings and recorded net weights:
 
            A (NM) = 0.16 gm
            B (CC) = 0.18 gm
 
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
           
            To determine the presence of dangerous drugs.
 
FINDINGS:
 
            Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave
POSITIVE result to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.
 
CONCLUSION:
 
            Specimen A and B contain Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.

 
Version of the Defense
 
On the other hand, appellant testified that, prior to his arrest, he was a police officer of
Station 7, Araneta, Cubao, Quezon City and had been connected with the PNP for 10 years. On
November 9, 2003, at around 3 o’clock in the afternoon, he went to Sarmiento St., Barangay Sta.
Monica, Novaliches, Quezon City to look for a kumpadre from whom he intended to borrow
money when policemen accosted him and poked their guns at him. The people around him ran,
and as he was the only one left on the scene, the policemen asked him to sit down. He told SPO3
Concepcion, whom he knew, that he was a police officer but he was told to shut up and to
explain his side at the police station instead.
 
Upon arrival at the police station in Novaliches, Quezon City, his wallet, with his I.D.
and police badge, were taken from him. PO2 Magcalayo told him that he had a fake police I.D.
When appellant tried to explain himself, PO2 Magcalayo allegedly kicked him saying, “Hindi na
uso ang pulis, sundalo na ang nakaupo ngayon.”
 
The following night, he was presented on inquest during which he was charged with
violation of Secs. 5 and 11 of RA 9165. He denied all the charges against him claiming that the
alleged shabu marked as Exhibits “B-1” and “B-2” came from the arresting police officers. He
did not file a case against them, because he had no money and because he knew that he was not
guilty.
 
 On cross-examination, appellant further testified that he was a follow-up operative at the
Station Investigation Division of Police Station 7.  He admitted that he was separated from the
service because he was absent without official leave due to a business problem he had to attend
to. He likewise said that he did not know his arresting officers, whom he saw then for the first
time, and that he was not familiar with RA 9165.

Ruling of the Trial Court

 
After trial, the RTC convicted appellant. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
 
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
 
Re: Criminal Case NO. Q-03-122555, the Court finds
accused RODANTE DE LEON y DELA ROSA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00;
 
Re: Criminal Case NO. Q-03-122556, the Court finds
accused RODANTE DE LEON y DELA ROSA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years and one (1)
day as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00;
 
            SO ORDERED. 
 
On appeal to the CA, appellant disputed the trial court’s decision finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. He argued that the alleged buy-bust operation
conducted by the police officers was tainted with irregularities and that the prosecution failed to
prove the chain of custody of the evidence.

Ruling of the Appellate Court

 
On April 4, 2008, the CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The dispositive portion
of its Decision reads:
 
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for lack of
merit. The Decision dated 20 December 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 82 finding accused-appellant Rodante De Leon y Dela Rosa
guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. Q-03-122555 for violation
of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the
 penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00, and
in Criminal Case No. Q-03-122556 for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day as maximum and to pay
a fine in the amount of P300,000.00, is AFFIRMED.
 
SO ORDERED.
 
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal of the decision of the CA. 
The Issues
          Appellant assigns the following errors:
 
I.
 
The trial court gravely erred in ignoring the fact that the prosecution failed to
prove the chain of custody of the alleged confiscated items from the accused-
appellant.
 
II.
 
The trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes
charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
 
Our Ruling

We sustain appellant’s conviction.

 
Guilt of Appellant Was Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt
 
Appellant assails his conviction by contending that the trial court failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, the trial court erroneously convicted him on the
basis of the evidence of the prosecution despite a question of the legality of the buy-bust
operation. Further, he asserts that the trial court relied on the disputable presumption of
regularity in the performance of the police function, despite the police officers violated the rule
on chain of custody of the alleged confiscated items.
 
The contentions are unmeritorious.
 
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and
which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, when no glaring errors,
gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be
gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to
decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying during the trial.
 
After a thorough examination of the entire records of this case, this Court has failed to
identify any error committed by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence presented
before it and in the conclusion it reached.
 
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court has
reiterated the essential elements in People v. Pendatun, to wit: (1) the accused sold and delivered
a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a
prohibited drug. Therefore, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.  Corpus delicti is
the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has actually been
committed. It has two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and (2)
some person’s criminal responsibility for the act.
 
In the instant case, the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of the crime.
Appellant sold and delivered the shabu for PhP 200 to PO2 Magcalayo posing as buyer; the said
drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; there
was actual exchange of the marked money and contraband; and finally, appellant was fully aware
that he was selling and delivering a prohibited drug. In fact, PO2 Magcalayo testified, thus:
 
Evidently, all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs were proved in
the instant case. The testimony cited above shows clearly that a sale occurred between appellant,
as the seller, and PO2 Magcalayo, as the buyer, for PhP 200 worth of shabu. In addition, the said
testimony illustrated the seizing of the prohibited drug and the exchange of the marked money.
As a matter of fact, the trial court, in disposing of the case, said:
x x x Set against this legal yardstick, the evidence adduced by the
prosecution have sufficiently established the elements aforesaid. The prosecution
witnesses in the person of PO2 Noel Magcalayo, the one who acted as the poseur
buyer in the buy bust operation conducted by his team, described in detail how the
operation was commenced with the help of an informant, his introduction to the
accused, the ensuing negotiation and consummation of the sale of shabu which
ended up in the exchange of the item as well as the buy bust money. Accused was
positively identified as the seller thereof and the source of the plastic sachet which
contained crystalline substance later on determined after laboratory examination
as positive for methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug. Said evidence was
presented in court and properly identified as the subject of the buy bust and which
was submitted for examination by the Forensic Chemist. All told, all the elements
aforementioned are hereby present.
 
 
 Further, the chain of custody was clearly established by the prosecution. It is elementary
that, in every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug as
evidence in court is material. It is, therefore, essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond doubt. What is more, the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust
operation is the same substance offered in court should be established. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.
 
A close examination of the law reveals that it admits of certain exceptions. Thus, contrary
to the assertions of appellant, Sec. 21 of the foregoing law need not be followed as an exact
science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 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.”
 
In the instant case, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the
drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of
the case was shown not to have been broken. The factual milieu of the case reveals that after
PO2 Magcalayo seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs, as well as the marked money,
appellant was immediately arrested and brought to the police station for investigation, where the
sachet of suspected shabu was marked with “NM.”  Immediately thereafter, the confiscated
substance, with a letter of request for examination, was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory
for examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug. Per Chemistry Report No. D-
1240-2003 dated November 9, 2003, the specimen submitted contained methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The examination was conducted by one Engr. Jabonillo, a
Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, whose stipulated testimony clearly
established the chain of custody of the specimens he received. Thus, it is without a doubt that
there was an unbroken chain of custody of the illicit drug purchased from appellant.
 
Likewise, the prosecution was able to prove that appellant is guilty of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs with moral certainty. In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, the following elements must be proved with moral certainty: (1) that the accused is in
possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) that such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
 
Here, appellant was caught in actual possession of the prohibited drugs without showing
any proof that he was duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante
delicto, there is prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on appellant’s part. As held by this
Court, the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of the
accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in
the absence of a satisfactory explanation. In the case at bar, appellant failed to present any
evidence to rebut his animus possidendi of the shabu found in his pocket during the buy-bust
operation.

Buy-Bust Operation Was Valid

 
Appellant further argues that the buy-bust operation was full of irregularities, rendering it
illegal. He notes that the Pre-Operation Report was full of discrepancies and that the Joint Sworn
Affidavit of Apprehension of PO2 Magcalayo and PO2 Collado failed to mention that they
placed their markings on the plastic sachets.
 
The arguments are specious. Such irregularities cannot overturn the finding of the
presence in this case of the elements of violations of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165.
 
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to
for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal
plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of
apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is
undertaken.
 
In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that the buy-bust operation conducted by
the police officers, who made use of entrapment to capture appellant in the act of selling a
dangerous drug, was valid and legal. Moreover, the defense has failed to show any evidence of
ill motive on the part of the police officers. Even appellant himself declared that it was the first
time he met the police officers during his cross-examination. There was, therefore, no motive for
the police officers to frame up appellant.
 
Likewise, the identity of appellant as the person who sold the dangerous drugs to PO2
Magcalayo and the one in possession of the shabu cannot be doubted anymore. Such positive
identification prevails over appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi. These defenses have been
invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor, for they can easily be concocted but difficult to
prove, and they are common and standard defense ploys in most prosecutions arising from
violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
 
Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse appellant of such a grave offense, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court
with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over appellant’s bare allegation.
 
 We, therefore, uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
and find that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the guilt of appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
 
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA’s Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
01811 finding appellant Rodante De Leon y Dela Rosa guilty of the crimes charged
isAFFIRMED.
 
 SO ORDERED.
                                                                              
 
                                                          PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
                                                                     Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WE CONCUR:
 
 
 
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
 
 
 
 
 ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA            DIOSDADO M. PERALTA     
               Associate Justice                                     Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice