SUBSTANTIAL DIGEST

G.R. No. 190321               April 25, 2012

FACTS
Accused Sammy Umipang was arrested through a buy-bust operations conducted by the
Taguig City police. Upon confiscation of the shabu, PO2 Gasid marked the items with the initials
"SAU" [which stood for Sammy A. Umipang, the complete name, including the middle initial, of
accused-appellant].He was charged and subsequently convicted of possession and selling of
illegal drugs. Umipang claimed a police-frame up.
ISSUE: Whether the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses was sufficient to convict
the accused, Sammy Umipang.
RULING: No. Given the nature of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive procedural
safeguards crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before giving full credit to the
testimonies of those who conducted the operations.
1.
Due to the nature of anti-narcotics operations, specifically a buy-bust, it is susceptible to police
abuse. Hence, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid
down in RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 delineates the mandatory procedural safeguards9 that are applicable in
cases of buy-bust operations:
Section 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:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath
by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the
receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow
the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be
provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the
completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an
ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within
twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society
groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of
proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the
offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be
donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative
sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the
subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA,
shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the
representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally
observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of
guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due
notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the
actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a
member of the public attorney's office to represent the former; x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Hence, given the nature of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive procedural
safeguards crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before giving full credit to the
testimonies of those who conducted the operations. Although we have ruled in the past that
mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the
prosecution’s cause, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have
been preserved,10 courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that
constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic, or
deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the law.
In case of procedural lapses, IRR of RA 9165 provides for a saving clause – serves as a guide
in determining those procedural aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable grounds.
Consequently, Section 21(a) of the IRR provides for a saving clause in the procedures outlined
under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which serves as a guide in ascertaining those procedural
aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable grounds, viz:
SECTION 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. — x x x:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; (Emphasis supplied.)
We have reiterated that "this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the
procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds" after which, "the
prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been
preserved."11 To repeat, noncompliance with the required procedure will not necessarily result in
the acquittal of the accused if: (1) the noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2) the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team.12
Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of law
enforcers,13 we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of
substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The
provisions were crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses,
especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. In People v.
Coreche,14 we explained thus:
The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found
legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs
and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and
proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs the duty to "immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof". (Emphasis supplied.)
Consequently, in a line of cases,15 we have lain emphasis on the importance of complying with
the prescribed procedure. Stringent compliance is justified under the rule that penal laws shall
be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused.16 Otherwise,
"the procedure set out in the law will be mere lip service."17
In this case …
There were material irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operations.
In the recent case of People v. Relato, we reiterated the following:
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited
under Republic Act No. 9165, the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the
elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in
which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the
prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain
of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the
prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Any gap renders the case for the State
less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus,
Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became
plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecution’s evidence of guilt.18 (Emphasis
supplied and citations omitted.)
The conduct of the buy-bust operations was peppered with defects, which raises doubts on the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from accused-appellant.
First, there were material inconsistencies in the marking of the seized items. According to his
testimony, PO2 Gasid used the initials of the complete name, including the middle initial, of
accused-appellant in order to mark the confiscated sachets. The marking was done immediately
after Umipang was handcuffed. However, a careful perusal of the testimony of PO2 Gasid would
reveal that his prior knowledge of the complete initials of accused-appellant, standing for the
latter’s full name, was not clearly established. Thus, doubt arises as to when the plastic sachets
were actually marked, as shown by PO2 Gasid’s testimony:
The circumstances surrounding the marking of the seized items are suspect. From their
testimonies during the trial, PO2 Gasid and PO1 Ragos both admitted that they only knew their
target by the name "Sam." They both testified that, after accused-appellant was handcuffed,
frisked, and read his rights, they immediately brought him to the police precinct. They then said
that it was a certain PO1 Saez who investigated him. In fact, in their joint affidavit, PO2 Gasid
and PO1 Ragos stated thus:
Na dinala namin siya [accused] sa aming opisina para sa pagsisiyasat at pagtatanong tungkol
sa detalye ng kaniyang pagkatao at sa layuning masampahan ng kaukulang reklamo sa
paglabag ng Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165.27 (Emphasis supplied.)
Evidence on record does not establish that PO2 Gasid had prior knowledge of the complete
name of accused-appellant, including the middle initial, which enabled the former to mark the
seized items with the latter’s complete initials. This suspicious, material inconsistency in the
marking of the items raises questions as to how PO2 Gasid came to know about the initials of
Umipang prior to the latter’s statements at the police precinct, thereby creating a cloud of doubt
on the issues of where the marking really took place and whether the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items were preserved. All that was established was that it was PO1 Saez
who asked accused-appellant about the latter’s personal circumstances, including his true
identity, and that the questioning happened when accused-appellant was already at the police
station. We thus reiterate:
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in
the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband[s] are immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related
evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of
criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting", or contamination of evidence.
Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the
authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of
the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties, the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa
and People v. Casimiro, we held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were
seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on
reasonable doubt. These rulings are refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa and People
v. Dismuke that doubts on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the
prosecution’s failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same as
the one seized from the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt.28 (Emphasis
supplied and citations omitted.)
It is true that the failure of the arresting officers to mark the seized items at the place of arrest
does not by itself impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items
inadmissible in evidence.29 We have already clarified that the marking upon "immediate"
confiscation of the prohibited items contemplates even that which was done at the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending team.30 We will analyze this possible seed of doubt
that has been planted by the unexplained marking of the shabu with the complete initials of
Umipang, together with the other alleged irregularities.
Second, the SAID-SOTF failed to show genuine and sufficient effort to seek the third-party
representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. Under the law, the inventory and
photographing of seized items must be conducted in the presence of a representative from the
media, from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and from any elected public official. The
testimony of PO2 Gasid, as quoted below, is enlightening:
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 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. 9165,33 or that there was a justifiable
ground for failing to do so.34
Third, the SAID-SOTF failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to take photos
of the seized items pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. As pointed out by the defense during
trial,35 the Certificate of Inventory did not contain any signature, including that of PO2 Gasid –
the arresting officer who prepared the certificate36 – thus making the certificate defective. Also,
the prosecution neither submitted any photograph of the seized items nor offered any reason for
failing to do so. We reiterate that these requirements are specifically outlined in and required to
be implemented by Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165.37
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an
accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted.38 This is especially true when the
lapses in procedure were "recognized and explained in terms of [] justifiable grounds."39 There
must also be a showing "that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were
thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason."40 However, when there is gross disregard of
the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is
generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in
evidence.41 This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of
the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official
duties.42 As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of
the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.43 1âwphi1
For the arresting officers’ failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the
totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately
disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious
doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of
frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-
appellant, "as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt."44
As a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities "to exert greater efforts
in combating the drug menace using the safeguards that our lawmakers have deemed
necessary for the greater benefit of our society."45 The need to employ a more stringent
approach to scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution – especially when the pieces of
evidence were derived from a buy-bust operation – "redounds to the benefit of the criminal
justice system by protecting civil liberties and at the same time instilling rigorous discipline on
prosecutors."46
The Supreme Court CAQUITTED the accused-appellant Sammy Umipang.