SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 229675. July 8, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs. JOHN ORCULLO y SUSA ,

DECISION

CARPIO , J : p

The Case
G.R. No. 229675 is an appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated 9 February 2016 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07174. The CA a rmed the Decision 2
dated 2 October 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82 (RTC), in
Criminal Case No. Q-10-167303, convicting John Orcullo y Susa (appellant) of violating
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165).
The Facts
The RTC summarized the facts as follows:
The accused John Susa Orcullo is charged with violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. 9165. The Information reads in part:
That on or about the 29th day of October 2010 in Quezon
City, accused, without lawful authority did then and there willfully
and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as
broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: ve (5)
plastic sachet [sic] of white crystalline substance weighing 4.5402
grams; 4.4722 grams; 4.4134 grams; 4.4243 grams; and 4.3959
grams respectively containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On 09 November 2010, the accused thru counsel led a Petition for Bail.
In an Order dated 27 February 2012, the Court denied the Petition for Bail.
Upon arraignment on 01 December 2010, the accused John Susa Orcullo
who was duly assisted by counsel entered a plea of not guilty. The case was
then set for pre-trial conference and eventually for trial.
The Evidence for the Prosecution
The Testimony of IO1 Jake Million
IO1 Jake Edwin Million testi ed that on 29 October 2010 at around 7:00
in the morning, he was at the o ce when a regular con dential informant of
Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan arrived at the o ce and reported the
alleged drug trade activities of alias "Jen" in Quezon Avenue near the Lung
Center. After receiving the report, IA1 Sandaan assisted the con dential
informant to IO1 Betorin so that they would call alias "Jen." Alias "Jen" and IO1
Betorin talked over the cellphone and set a deal for 25 grams of shabu worth
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P125,000.00) to take place on
October 29 at 9:00 am.
IA1 Sandaan designated IO1 Betorin as the poseur-buyer. IO1 Betorin
withdrew the buy-bust money which consisted of two (2) genuine P500.00 bills
and the rest of the amount was boodle money. They then prepared a Pre-
Operation Report and authority to operate. Their team leader signed the Pre-
Operation Report and they coordinated with the local police in Camp Karingal.
The buy-bust team then proceeded to the area.
Upon arrival at the area at around 1:00 p.m., IO1 Million and the rest of
the team positioned themselves strategically along Quezon Avenue while
aboard three vehicles. At around 2:00 [p.m.], a man wearing a sando later
identi ed as the accused John Susa Orcullo arrived. Accused Orcullo
approached the poseur-buyer IO1 Betorin. Thereafter, IO1 Betorin made a call to
IO1 Million to signify that the transaction was already consummated. IO1
Million and the other agents rushed to the scene and effected the arrest of
accused Orcullo. IO1 Million recovered the buy-bust money from the accused
and identi ed them in Court. The team noticed that there were people going
around them so the team leader decided to leave the place and proceed to the
office.
Upon arrival at PDEA, photographs were taken by IO1 Betorin and the
inventory was conducted. [S]he executed an a davit in connection with this
case. [S]he also identified the accused in open court.
On cross-examination, IO1 Million testi ed that the female regular
informant who came to their office was known only to IA1 Liwanag Sandaan. At
rst, it was the con dential informant who negotiated with the accused then it
was IO1 Betorin. It was the con dential informant who made the agreement
regarding the purchase of P125,000.00 worth of shabu. He did not have any
participation regarding the agreement. They parked the vehicle along Quezon
Avenue near Wild Life. They did not prepare the inventory at the place of arrest.
There were no representatives from the DOJ and the media during the conduct
of the inventory.
On re-direct, he testi ed that the reason why they did not conduct the
inventory at the crime scene was because there were many people going around
them which prompted their team leader to tell them to proceed to the o ce,
otherwise somebody might get hurt.
The Testimony of IO1 Joanna Marie Betorin
IO1 Joanna Marie Betorin testi ed that on 29 October 2010 at around
9:00 in the morning, she was at the PDEA O ce attending a brie ng conducted
by their team leader IA1 Liwanag Sandaan. The brie ng was about the
information given by the regular con dential informant regarding the illegal
drug activity of alias "Jen" along Quezon Avenue near the Lung Center. IO1
Betorin was designated as the poseur-buyer.
After the brie ng, IO1 Nazarion Bongkinki coordinated with the Quezon
City Police in Camp Karingal using the Pre-Operation Report and the
Coordination Form. After the coordination, IO1 Betorin and the informant went
to the agreed place in front of Lung Center along Quezon Avenue.
Upon arrival at the agreed place at 2:00 [p.m.], they positioned
themselves strategically and waited for alias "Jen." They used two (2) vehicles
for the operation. After fteen (15) to thirty (30) minutes, a man wearing sando
and shorts strapped with a blue towel on his shoulder arrived and the informant
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 told IO1 Betorin that the man was the delivery man of alias "Jen." The man
delivered the shabu to IO1 Betorin. They agreed to buy 25 grams of shabu worth
P125,000.00. When the man later identi ed as the accused John Susa Orcullo
gave the shabu, IO1 Betorin handed the buy-bust money consisting of two (2)
genuine P500.00 bills and the boodle money.
After handing the buy-bust money to accused John Susa Orcullo, IO1
Betorin executed the pre-arranged signal by making a missed call to IO1 Million
who rushed to their place to arrest accused Orcullo. IO1 Million arrested accused
Orcullo and informed the latter of his Constitutional rights. IO1 Betorin identi ed
in Court the sachets she bought from accused Orcullo through the markings
"JMB 10-29-10" which she placed on the said sachets. IO1 Betorin a xed the
markings in the o ce and not at the crime scene because there were many
people at the crime scene and their team leader ordered them to proceed to the
office for their safety and security.
Upon arrival at the o ce, their photographer Charlie Magno took
photographs while IO1 Betorin prepared the inventory. Kagawad Jose Ruiz Jr. of
Barangay Pinyahan was present to witness the taking of photographs and to
sign the inventory. There were no representatives from the media and the
Department of Justice during the inventory. IO1 Betorin then brought the
specimens to the crime laboratory for examination. The result was positive for
shabu. She executed an a davit in connection with this case. She identi ed the
accused in open court.
On cross-examination, IO1 Betorin testi ed that it was IO1 Bongkinki who
coordinated with the police by submitting an authority to operate at around
10:30 [a.m.]. Accused John Susa Orcullo was not the subject of their operation.
IO1 Betorin did not place the initials of the person from whom she recovered the
plastic sachets because she was familiar with her initials. IO1 Betorin did not
mix the plastic sachets with those recovered from other people because those
were secured in the laboratory. IO1 Betorin could not recall why there were no
representatives from the Department of Justice and the media.
Sheila Esguerra
On 27 April 2011, upon stipulation between the prosecution and the
defense it was admitted that Sheila Esguerra is a Forensic Chemist of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and that her o ce received a Request for
Laboratory Examination. Together with the said request a brown envelope
which contained ve (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with white
crystalline substance inside [them] was submitted to her o ce. She conducted
the requested laboratory examination and submitted a Chemistry Report. She
found the specimen positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride. Sheila
Esguerra turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian and retrieved the
same and brought it to Court.
The Evidence for the Defense
The Testimony of John Susa Orcullo
Accused John Susa Orcullo testi ed that on 29 October 2010 at around
2:00 in the afternoon, he was at home at No. 254 Ilang-Ilang Street making a
dove cage. While in his house, he noticed people running outside the fence. He
looked at them and went back to his work. After three (3) minutes, more or less
three (3) persons entered the house. He asked them what he could do for them.
They asked him if he saw a man wearing white shirt, maong pants and with red
cap. He told them that he saw a man who ran inside the alley. They ran after the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 man while he stayed inside his house.
After a few minutes, the men went back to [his] house. They were inviting
him to their o ce for an investigation. He told them that he could not go with
them because he was alone in the house. They poked a gun at him and told him
to go with them so he would not get hurt. He went with them and they walked
along Quezon Avenue. He was boarded on a red vehicle and brought to the
o ce of PDEA. He was brought inside a room and they showed him three (3)
pictures of men. They asked him if he knew the persons. When he told them that
he did not know the men, they covered his head with a plastic and forced him to
admit that he knew the persons in the pictures. One man placed three bullets in
between his fingers. He pleaded with them to stop. He was then brought inside a
room and told to sit down beside a long table. A person sat in front of him and
got his personal circumstances. A lady later identi ed as Joanna Marie Betorin
then arrived and sat in front of him and placed a plastic sachet on top of the
table. She talked to her companions to take photographs. He was then brought
to the comfort room and told to pee in a plastic sachet. He was brought for
inquest on October 30 at around 9:00 am. He was not brought in front of the
Fiscal and was just left outside the room. He denied the allegations of Betorin
that she was able to buy shabu from him. He did not le any charges against
the PDEA personnel who arrested him.
On cross-examination, accused John Susa Orcullo testi ed that when the
three men entered his house, it did not occur to him to lock the door. When he
was brought to the PDEA that was the rst time he saw Betorin and Million.
Prior to his arrest, he did not have any misunderstanding with any neighbor or
law enforcers. 3
The Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision dated 2 October 2014, the RTC convicted appellant of violating
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able
to establish with moral certainty the elements of the crime in the present case, as well
as the integrity of the corpus delicti and the unbroken chain of custody of the seized
drug. Although the RTC recognized that the prosecution was not able to strictly comply
with Section 21 of RA 9165, it declared that the non-compliance was not fatal to the
case of the prosecution.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered nding
accused John Susa Orcullo Guilty of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165.
Accordingly, this Court sentences accused John Susa Orcullo to suffer
the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a Fine in the amount of Five
[H]undred Thousand (Php500,000.00) Pesos without eligibility for parole in
accordance with R.A. 9346.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency the dangerous drug subject of this case for proper
disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED. 4
The CA's Ruling
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
The CA found that the prosecution duly established the elements of the crime of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 illegal sale of drugs. There was identi cation of the buyer (IO1 Betorin) and seller
(appellant); there was identi cation of the object of the sale (the sachets of shabu) and
the consideration (P125,000); and there was delivery of the thing sold upon payment as
appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto of selling shabu.
The CA also declared that the failure of the police o cers to mark the items
seized from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon their con scation at
the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody
and render the con scated items inadmissible in evidence. The CA justi ed the
prosecution's failure to immediately conduct an inventory in this manner:
Furthermore, the conduct of the inventory of the items seized from
appellant at the scene of the crime would not be practical and was dangerous to
the numbers [sic] of the buy-bust team as commotion already ensued after the
arrest of appellant. Nonetheless, the integrity of the said items was not
compromised as the marking and inventory were done in the presence of
appellant and Barangay Kagawad Jose Y. Ruiz, Jr. The absence of a
representative from the media and [the] Department of Justice is not fatal. Thus,
the foregoing circumstances clearly indicate that there was substantial
compliance with the mandates of RA N[o]. 9165 and its Implementing Rules.
Too the prosecution was able to show that the plastic sachets of shabu
con scated from appellant were the very same items that were examined by the
Crime Laboratory. 5
The CA summarized:
In sum, appellant failed to prove any improper motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses to falsely incriminate him. In the absence of evidence of
such ill motive, none is presumed to exist.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is validly resorted to
for trapping and capturing felons in the execution of their criminal plan. The
operation is sanctioned by law and has consistently been proved to be an
effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. Unless there is a clear and
convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by
any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, the testimonies
of [the] police officers on the operation deserve full faith and credit.
It is well settled that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting
buy-bust operations. It is of judicial notice that drug pushers sell their wares to
any prospective customer, stranger or not, in both public or private place, with
no regard for time. They have become increasingly daring and blatantly de ant
of the law. Thus, the police must be exible in their operations to keep up with
the drug pushers.
In the case at bar, the prosecution had indubitably proven all the
elements of the offenses charged to support a judgment of conviction. The trial
court had the unique opportunity of observing the witnesses rsthand as they
testi ed, and it was, therefore, in the best position to assess whether they were
telling the truth or not. The substance of their testimonies, as well as the other
physical evidence on record[,] su ciently support the trial court's ndings. The
defense evidence, on the other hand, failed to prove facts and circumstances of
weight as would cast doubt on the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses. 6
The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision, promulgated on 9 February 2016,
reads as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, the Decision
dated October 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch
82, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 7
The Public Attorney's O ce (PAO) manifested appellant's intent to appeal in a
Notice of Appeal 8 dated 3 March 2016.
The O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG) led a Manifestation and Motion (In
Lieu of Supplemental Brief) on 6 June 2017 9 which stated that the appellee's brief led
before the CA adequately discussed its arguments on the merits of the case. The
Special and Appealed Cases Service of the PAO also led a Manifestation (In Lieu of
Supplemental Brief) on behalf of appellant on 22 June 2017. 1 0 The PAO stated that it
is adopting the Appellant's Brief that it submitted before the CA as it exhaustively
discussed the assigned errors.
The Issues
The PAO assigned two errors in the brief for appellant it filed with the CA:
I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE BUY-BUST
OPERATION WAS NOT VALID.
II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
PRESERVE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE SUBJECT DANGEROUS
DRUG. 1 1
The Court's Ruling
We focus on the identity and integrity of the alleged seized shabu and acquit
appellant based on reasonable doubt. The Decisions of the RTC and CA should be set
aside.
In its brief for appellant led before the CA, the PAO pointed out the following
irregularities, thus:
34. In the instant case, the links in the chain are the following: (1)
Seizure of the shabu from the accused-appellant by IO1 Betorin; (2) Receipt by
the forensic chemist of the specimen, conduct of the examination, and
preparation of the Chemistry Report; (3) Delivery of the specimen to the
custodian of the crime laboratory after the conduct of examination; and (4)
presentation of the specimen during trial.
35. In the instant case, there are signi cant breaks in the chain of
custody.
36. First, the Request for Laboratory Examination was delivered by
IO1 Betorin to PCI Sheila Esguerra at 7:00 o'clock in the evening despite the fact
that the con scation was made at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. No explanation
was given as to why the said request and the accompanying specimen [were]
not immediately submitted.
37. Second, the evidence custodian, to whom the item was allegedly
endorsed after laboratory examination, was not identi ed nor presented to
complete the chain of custody. There was even no Chain of Custody of
Evidence Form to facilitate the establishment of the links.
38. Third, Forensic Chemist Sheila Esguerra who examined the said
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 sachets for chemical analysis was not presented in court to establish the
circumstances under which she handled the subject items. The prosecution and
the defense merely stipulated that she is the Forensic Chemist of the PDEA; that
her o ce received a request for Laboratory Examination; and that the specimen
submitted were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. There was
no testimony or stipulation as to the manner by which items subject of
examination were preserved and safeguarded. Thus, the chain of custody was
not preserved from this end.
39. Fourth, the person who supposedly turned over the specimen
from the crime laboratory to the trial court was likewise not identi ed so as to
complete the custodial link. Even if the seized item was identi ed by the
prosecution witnesses, the chain of custody from the time the trial court
received the same was not established.
40. Evidently, there is doubt as to whether the substance seized from
the accused-appellant was the same one subjected to laboratory examination
and presented in court.
xxx xxx xxx
44. In the instant case, the physical inventory and the photograph
were not made at the place of the arrest, but at the PDEA o ce. Moreover, there
were no representatives from the DOJ and the media during the conduct of the
inventory. Clearly, the buy-bust team deviated from the standard and normal
procedure in the seizure and custody of drugs.
45. Moreover, the trial court erred when it applied the case of People
v. Bis in the instant case, where it was held that non-compliance with Section 21
of RA 9165 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as long as the integrity of
the con scated items [was] preserved. The said ruling is not applicable to the
instant case since the chain of custody was not established, thus, there is doubt
as to whether the integrity of the confiscated items [was] preserved.
46. In the case of People v. Sanchez , the Honorable Supreme Court
held that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 must be with [sic]
justi able grounds. In addition, the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved.
47. In the instant case, the justi cation given by IO1 Betorin and IO1
Million for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure is not a justi able
ground. The people going around them were unarmed; they were merely
curiosity seekers. Thus, the buy-bust team's fear that somebody might get hurt
is unfounded and without basis. Clearly, there was no imminent threat that
would exempt them from complying with Sec. 21 of RA 9165.
48. Moreover, no justi cation was given why there were no
representatives from the media and DOJ. 1 2
The factual circumstances of the case tell us that the alleged crime was
committed on 29 October 2010. At the time, the effective law enumerating the
requirements of the chain of custody rule was Section 21 of RA 9165 as well as its
Implementing Rules. Contrary to the rulings of the RTC and the CA, the prosecution
clearly failed to comply with the requirements of the chain of custody rule. Before its
amendment by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640) on 15 July 2014, Section 21 of RA
9165 reads:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Con scated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 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 con scated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and con scation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were con scated 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;
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
The implementing rule for Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 states:
xxx xxx xxx
(a) The apprehending o cer/team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and con scation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were con scated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public o cial 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 o ce
of the apprehending o cer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justi able grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
o cer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items;
xxx xxx xxx
On 15 July 2014, RA 10640 amended Section 21 of RA 9165. RA 10640 now
requires only two other witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical
inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items. The amended Section 21 now
states:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Con scated, 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 con scated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 equipment shall, immediately after seizure and con scation,
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph
th e same in the presence of the accused or the persons
from whom such items were con scated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public
o cial and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station
or at the nearest o ce of the apprehending o cer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided,
finally, That noncompliance [with] these requirements under
justi able grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending o cer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear that as of 29 October 2010, when the alleged crime was committed,
the conduct of physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items in drugs
cases must be in the presence of at least three (3) witnesses, particularly: (1) the
accused or the persons from whom such items were con scated and seized
or his/her representative or counsel, (2) any elected public o cial, and (3) a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice. The three
witnesses, thereafter, should sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof . In this case, there were only the accused and the barangay kagawad, who
witnessed the conduct of the inventory.
People v. Lim 1 3 enumerated this Court's mandatory policy to prove chain of
custody under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must
state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21(1) of RA 9165,
as amended, and its IRR.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing
o cers must state the justi cation or explanation therefor as well as the
steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized/confiscated items.
3. If there is no justi cation or explanation expressly declared in the sworn
statements or a davits, the investigating scal must not immediately le
the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further
preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of
probable cause.
4. If the investigating scal led the case despite such absence, the court
may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or
warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in
accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.
People v. Sipin 1 4 ruled what constitutes justi able reasons for the absence of
any of the three witnesses:
(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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any
person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected o cial[s] 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 o cial within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting o cers, 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 con dential assets,
prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required
witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
It is quite alarming how the necessity of the number and identity of the witnesses
enumerated in the law can be glossed over and excused. The present case is a clear-cut
example of the cavalier attitude towards adherence to procedure and protection of the
rights of the accused. This is contrary to what is expected from our public servants and
protectors. Not only was there non-observance of the three-witness rule, there was also
no justifiable reason offered for its non-observance.
Apart from the non-observance of the three-witness rule, there is doubt as to
whether the shabu allegedly seized from the appellant is the same shabu subjected to
laboratory examination and presented in the RTC.
As we review the submissions of both the prosecution and the defense, we nd
that among the three people who came into direct contact with the alleged seized
shabu, only IO1 Betorin actually testi ed to identify it. The testimony of the PDEA's
forensic chemist was merely stipulated upon by the prosecution and defense. The
prosecution did not present the evidence custodian, or the person to whom the alleged
seized shabu was delivered after the laboratory examination. The evidence custodian
could have testi ed on the circumstances under which he or she received the items,
what he or she did with them during the time that the items were in his or her custody,
or what happened during the time that the items were transferred to the trial court. The
absence of the testimony of the evidence custodian likewise presents a break in the
links in the chain of custody of the evidence.
The failure to immediately mark the seized items, taken together with the
absence of a representative from the media to witness the inventory, without
any justi able explanation, casts doubt on whether the chain of custody is truly
unbroken. Serious uncertainty is created on the identity of the corpus delicti in
view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody. The prosecution has the
burden of proving each link in the chain of custody — from the initial contact
between buyer and seller, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-
bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug. The prosecution must prove
with certainty each link in this chain of custody and each link must be the
subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not
unlawfully induced to commit an offense. 1 5
It cannot be stressed enough that the burden of proving the guilt of the appellant
lies on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution. Even if we presume that our law
enforcers performed their assigned duties beyond reproach, we cannot allow the
presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty to overthrow the presumption of
innocence of the accused in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE , we GRANT the appeal. The 9 February 2016 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07174, which a rmed the 2 October 2014 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82 in Criminal Case No. Q-10-167303
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 nding appellant John Orcullo y Susa guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Accordingly, appellant John Orcullo y
Susa is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY
RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the New Bilibid
Prison, Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The
said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within ve (5) days from
receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED .
Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices
Rodil V. Zalameda and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 47-53. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Lily Ann M. Padaen.
3. Id. at 47-51.
4. Id. at 53.

5. Rollo, p. 13.
6. Id. at 15-16.

7. Id. at 16.

8. CA rollo, pp. 143-145.

11. CA rollo, p. 26.

13. G.R. No. 231989, 4 September 2018.

14. G.R. No. 224290, 11 June 2018.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com