FIRST DIVISION

February 20, 2017

G.R. No. 208093

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
SALIM ISMAEL y RADANG, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This is an appeal from the June 14, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR H.C. No. 00902, which affirmed the August 31, 2010 Judgment2 of Branch 12,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City in Criminal Case Nos. 5021 (19952) and
5022 (19953), finding appellant Salim Ismael y Radang (Salim) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA
9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In
Criminal Case No. 5021 (19952), Salim was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00 for illegal sale of shabu under Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165; and in Criminal Case No. 5022 (19953), he was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15)
years and pay a fine of ₱300,000.00 for illegal possession of shabu under Section 11 of
the said law.

Factual Antecedents

Salim was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling
and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The twin
3
Informations  instituted therefor alleged:

In Criminal Case No. 5021 (19952)

That on or about August 25, 2003, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by
law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drug, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to SPO1 Roberto
Alberto Santiago, PNP, Culianan Police Station, who acted as poseur buyer, one (1)
small size transparent plastic pack containing white crystalline substance as certified to
by PO1 Rodolfo Dagalea Tan as METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU),
said accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

In Criminal Case No. 5022 (19953)

That on or about August 25, 2003, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and
under his custody and control, two (2) small size heat-sealed transparent plastic packs
each containing white crystalline substance as certified to by PO1 Rodolfo Dagalea Tan
asMETHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU), said accused knowing the
same to be a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Arraigned on July 6, 2004, Salim, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to both
charges. Upon termination of the joint pre-trial conference, trial on the merits followed.

Version of the Prosecution

Culled from the records4 were the following operative facts:

On August 25, 2003, at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant
reported to SPO4 Menardo Araneta [SPO4 Araneta], Chief of the Intelligence Division of
the Culianan Police Station4 [at Zamboanga City], that a certain "Ismael Salim" was
engaged in selling shabu at Barangay Talabaan near the Muslim [c]emetery [in that
city.

To verify the report, SPO4 Araneta instructed the said informant to [monitor] the area.
After the informant confim1ed that the said Ismael Salim was indeed selling illegal drugs
in the reported area, SPO4 Araneta formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO1
Enriquez, SPO1 Eduardo N. Rodriguez (SPO1 Rodriguez), SPO1 Roberto A. Santiago
(SPO1 Santiago) and PO2 Rodolfo Dagalea Tan (PO2 Tan). It was then agreed that
SPO1 Santiago would act as poseur buyer with SPO1 Rodriguez as back-up. For the
purpose, SPO4 Araneta gave SPO1 Santiago a [₱100] bill bearing Serial No. M419145
as marked money [to be used] in the buy-bust operation.

Upon arrival at Barangay Talabaan, the team parked their service vehicle along the
road. SPO1 Santiago, the confidential informant and SPO1 Rodriguez alighted from the
vehicle and walked towards the [area fronting] the Muslim cemetery. As they
approached the area, the informant pointed to a man wearing a brown T-shirt and black
short pants with white towel around his neck [whom he identified] as appellant Ismael
Salim, the target of the operation.

SPO1 Santiago then [walked] towards appellant and [told] the latter that he [wanted] to
buy shabu; to this appellant replied "how much?" SPO1 Santiago answered that he
[wanted to buy ₱100.00 worth of the shabu, and gave appellant] the ₱100.00 marked
money; [whereupon appellant] took from his left pocket one plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance [which he] handed over to SPO1 Santiago.

Upon seeing the exchange, SPO1 Rodriguez, who was positioned [some 10] meters
away, rushed in and arrested appellant[.] SPO1 Rodriguez made a precautionary
search of appellant's body for any concealed weapon[, and found none]. Instead, SPO1
Rodriguez found, tucked inside [appellant's left front pocket the ₱100.00] marked money
and two (2) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance wrapped in a
golden cigarette paper.

The police officers then brought appellant to the Culianan Police Station [in Zamboanga
City] with SPO1 Santiago keeping personal custody of the items confiscated from [him].
At the [police] station, the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance subject
of the buy-bust operation, the two (2) plastic sachets also containing white crystalline
substance[, and the ₱100.00] marked money bearing Serial No. M419145 recovered
from appellant's left pocket, were respectively turned over by SPO1 Santiago and SPO1
Rodriguez to the Desk Officer, PO3 Floro Napalcruz [PO3 Napalcruz], who likewise
turned [these over] to the Duty Investigator, [PO2 Tan]. PO2 Tan then placed his initial
"RDT" on the items recovered from appellant.

PO2 Tan also prepared a request to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory 9, [at]
Zamboanga City for laboratory examination of the plastic sachet containing the white
crystalline substance subject of the sale between appellant and SPO1 Santiago, and
the other two (2) plastic sachet[s] found inside appellant's pocket by SPO1 Rodriguez.

After conducting qualitative examination on the said specimens, Police Chief Inspector
[PCI] Mercedes D. Diestro, Forensic Chemist [Forensic Chemist Diestro], issued
Chemistry Report No. D-367-2003 dated August 25, 2003, finding [the above-
mentioned] plastic sachets positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) a
dangerous drug.

Version of the Defense

The defense presented appellant as its lone witness. Appellant denied both charges; he
denied selling shabu to SPO1 Santiago, just as he denied having shabu in his
possession when he was arrested on August 25, 2003.

According to appellant, on August 25, 2003, he went to a store to buy cellphone load so
that he could call his wife. After buying the cellphone load, he went back to his house on
board a sikad-sikad, a bicycle-driven vehicle with a sidecar. When he was about 160
meters away from the Muslim cemetery in Barangay Talabaan, he was arrested by five
persons in civilian attire who introduced themselves as police officers. The police
officers conducted a search on his person but did not find any dangerous dn1gs.
Thereafter, he was brought to Culianan Police Station where he was detained for two
days. Appellant insisted that he never sold shabu to the police officers who arrested
him. He said that the first time he saw the alleged shabu was when it was presented
before the trial court. He denied that the police officers had confiscated a cellular phone
from him. He also asserted that all these police officers took away from him was his
money and that he had never met the said police officers prior to his arrest.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On August 31, 2010, the RTC of Zamboanga City, Branch 12 rendered its Judgment
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sections 5 and
11,Article II of RA 9165.

The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of SPO1 Santiago and SPO1 Rodriguez
who conducted the buy-bust operation against appellant; it rejected appellant's defense
of denial and frame-up. The RTC noted that the defense of frame-up is easily concocted
and is commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from
violations of the comprehensive dangerous drugs act.5 Moreover, other than the self-
serving statements of appellant, no clear and convincing exculpatory evidence was
presented in the present case.

The dispositive part of the Judgment of the RTC reads:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING; this Court hereby finds the
accused herein, SALIM ISMAEL y RADANG guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both
cases, for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and hereby sentences the
said accused, in Criminal Case No. 5021 (19952) for Violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine
of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00), and in Criminal Case No. 5022
(19953) for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to suffer the
penalty of Imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FIFTEEN (15)
YEARS and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).

The dangerous drugs seized and recovered from the accused in these cases are
hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed in
accordance with the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 and its in1plementing
rules and guidelines.

Cost against the accused.

SO ORDERED.6

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Dissatisfied with the RTC's verdict, appellant appealed to the CA, but on June 14, 2013,
the CA affirmed in toto the RTC's Judgment. The CA held that the elements of both
illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs had been duly proven in the
instant case. The CA joined the RTC in giving full credence to the testimonies of the
aforementioned police officers, as they are presumed to have performed their duties in
a regular manner, no evidence to the contrary having been adduced in the twin cases.
Moreover, the CA found that in these cases, the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized drugs had not at all been compromised, but were in fact duly preserved.

The CA disposed as fol1ows:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region,
Branch 12, Zamboanga City finding accused-appellant Salim Ismael y Radang guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is AFFIRMED in
toto.

SO ORDERED.7

Taking exception to the CA's Decision, appellant instituted the present appeal before
this Court and in his Appellant's Brief8 argues that:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WHEN [HIS] GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.9

It is appellant's contention that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
because the prosecution: (1) failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs
allegedly seized from him and; (2) likewise failed to comply with the strict requirements
of Section 21 of RA 9165.

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of
RA 9165, 1he prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor.10 What is important is that the sale transaction
of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented
as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.

On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements
must be established: "[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such
possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs."11

In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug
seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of
utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to
have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it
ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed."12

After a careful examination of the records of the case, we find that the prosecution failed
to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in violation of Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165.

The pertinent provisions of Section 21 state:

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;

Similarly, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further elaborate on the proper
procedure to be followed in Section 21(a) of RA 9165. It states:

(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
inm1ediately 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 requirement" 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;

In Mallillin v. People,13 the Court explained the chain of custody rule as follows:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent clain1s it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time
it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and
what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it
was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same. (Emphasis supplied)
The first link in the chain is the marking of the seized drug. We have previously held
that:

x x x Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the
seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the
specimen will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to
separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence
from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of
the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, 'planting,' or contamination of evidence.14

It is important that the seized drugs be immediately marked, if possible, as soon as they
are seized from the accused.

Furthermore, in People v. Gonzales,15 the Court explained that:

The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or
related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related
items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature
or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended
violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be
denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the
marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the
dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are
confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby
forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking
immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related
items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary
value. (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, SPO1 Rodriguez testified on the seizure of the sachets of shabu he found
in appellant's possession alter the latter was arrested. SPO1 Rodriguez shared the
details of how the seized drugs were handled following its confiscation as follows:

RSP II Ivan C. Mendoza, Jr.:

Q: You are telling the Honorable Court that instead of finding concealed weapon, yon x
x x found two small sized heat-sealed transparent plastic bag[s]?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where [were] these two small[-]sized heat-sealed transparent plastic [packs] found?
A: [In] his left-front pocket.

Q: Were they wrapped further in another piece of paper or were they just found in that
pocket?

A: [They were] wrapped in a [golden-colored] cigarette paper.

Q: Would you x x x be able to remember that [golden- colored] cigarette paper? The
wrapper of plastic pack?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why will you be able to remember it?

A: Because I turned it over to the desk officer and the desk officer turned it over
to the investigator, the investigator marked it.

Q: Who is the investigator?

A: PO2 Rodolfo Tan.

Q: So did you see anything that the investigator Rodolfo Tan do in that golden paper?

A: He marked his initial [sic].

Q: Ah, you saw him [mark] an initial?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did you see him [mark] on the paper?

A: RDT.

Q: And do you know the meaning of RDT?

A: Yes, Rodolfo Dagalea Tan. 16

The testimony of SPO l Rodriguez on the chain of custody of the seized drugs leaves
much to be desired. It is evident that there was a break in the very first link of the chain
when he failed to mark the sachet'3 of shabu immediately upon seizing them from the
appellant. According to SPO1 Rodriguez, after finding sachets of shabu in appellant's
possession, he turned the drugs over to the desk officer. SPO1 Rodriguez did not even
explain why he failed to mark or why he could not have marked the seized items
immediately upon confiscation. Allegedly, the desk officer, after receiving the seized
items from SPO1 Rodriguez, in turn handed them over to PO2 Tan. Notably, this desk
officer was not presented in court thereby creating another break in the chain of
custody. Again, no explanation was offered for the non-presentation of the desk officer
or why he himself did not mark the seized items. It was only upon receipt by PO2 Tan,
allegedly from the desk officer, of the seized chugs that the same were marked at the
police station. This means that from the time the drugs were seized from appellant until
the time PO2 Tan marked the same, there was already a significant gap in the chain of
custody. Because of this gap, there is no certainty that the sachets of drugs presented
as evidence in the trial court were the same drugs found in appellant's possession.

SPO1 Santiago, the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, was presented to

corroborate the testimony of SPO1 Rodriguez. However, his testimony likewise showed
that the arresting officers did not mark the seized drugs immediately after the arrest and
in the presence of the appellant. Similarly, no explanation was given for the lapse.
SPO1 Santiago testified as follows:

Q: So what did you do with the small transparent sachet after police officer Rodriguez
came to assist you?

A: After the arrest of a certain Ismael we proceeded to our police station when we
arrived there I turnover [sic] the transparent sachet to our desk officer.

Q: Who was the desk officer?

A: At that time it was PO3 Floro Napalcruz.

Q: Did you notice anything that he did with the specimen that you turnover [sic] to him, if
any?

COURT: You are referring to the desk officer?

RSPII IVAN C. MENDOZA, JR.: Yes, Your Honor.

A: During that time, Your Honor, I gave to him the, [sic] which I buy from him [sic] the
one (1) piece of transparent small sachet of shabu then after that I get [sic] out from the
office.17

During cross-examination, SPO1 Santiago reiterated that he did not mark the seized
drugs. The sachets were marked after they were received by PO2 Tan.
Q: Now, you said that this plastic sachet taken from the suspect, you turned it over to
the desk officer of the police station?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: After turning it over, you left?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You do not know what happened to the sachet?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You did not place your markings there?

A: None, sir.18

It is clear from the above that SPO1 Rodriguez and SPO1 Santiago did not mark the
seized drugs immediately after they were confiscated from appellant. No explanations
were given why markings were not immediately made. At this stage in the chain, there
was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching,
planting, or contamination. The Court has previously held that, "failure to mark the drugs
immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution
evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."19

Both arresting officers testified that they turned over the sachets of shabu to a desk
officer in the person of PO3 Napalcruz at the police station. Notably, PO3 Napalcruz
was not presented in court to testify on the circumstances surrounding the alleged
receipt of the seized drugs. This failure to present PO3 Napalcruz is another fatal defect
in an already broken chain of custody. Every person who takes possession of seized
drugs must show how it was handled and preserved while in his or her custody to
prevent any switching or replacement.

After PO3 Napalcruz, the seized drugs were then turned over to PO2 Tan. It was only at
this point that marking was done on the seized drugs. He revealed in his testimony the
following:

4th ACP RAY Z. BONGABONG:

Q: [After the apprehension] of the accused in this case, what happened?

A: SPO1 Roberto Santiago turned over to the Desk Officer one (1) small size heat-
sealed transparent plastic pack containing shabu, allegedly a buy[-]bust stuff
confiscated from the subject person and marked money while SPO1 Eduardo
Rodriguez turned over two (2) small size heat[-]sealed transparent plastic packs
allegedly confiscated from the possession of the subject person during a body search
conducted and one (1) Nokia cellphone 3310 and cash money of ₱710.00.

x x xx

Q: You as investigator of the case what did you do, if any, upon the turn over of those
items?

A: I prepared a request for laboratory examination addressed to the Chief PNP Crime
Laboratory 9, R. T. Lim Boulevard, this City.

Q: This small heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet if you can see this again, will you
be able to identify the same?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: How?

A: Through my initial, Sir.

Q: What initial?

A: RDT

Q: What does RDT stands [sic] for?

A: It stands for my name Rodolfo Dagalea Tan.20

In fine, PO2 Tan claimed during his direct examination that he received the seized items
from the desk officer.

During cross-examination, however, PO2 Tan contradicted his previous statement on

who turned over the sachets of shabu to him, viz.:

ATTY. EDGARDO D. GONZALES:

Q: Santiago told you that he was the poseur buyer?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: He turned over to you, what?

A: He turned over to me small size heat[-]sealed transparent plastic pack

containing white crystalline substance, containing shabu.

x x xx

Q: You also identified two other pieces of sachet, correct, Sir?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: Who turned over to you?

A: SPO1 Eduardo Rodriguez.21

Due to the apparent breaks in the chain of custody, it was possible that the seized item
subject of the sale transaction was switched with the seized items subject of the illegal
possession case. This is material considering that the imposable penalty for illegal
possession of shabu depends on the quantity or weight of the seized drug.

Aside from the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, the arresting
officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the
presence of the appellant. This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere
technicality. It must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the accused
to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. Failure to
comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The requirements of making an inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs
were likewise omitted without offering an explanation for its non-compliance. This break
in the chain tainted the integrity of the seized drugs presented in court; the very identity
of the seized drugs became highly questionable.

To recap, based on the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that no markings were
made immediately after the arrest of the appellant.1âwphi1 The seized drugs were
allegedly turned over to desk officer PO3 Napalcruz but the prosecution did not bother
to present him to testify on the identity of the items he received from SPO1 Rodriguez
and SPO1 Santiago. PO3 Napalcruz supposedly turned over the drugs to PO2 Tan who
marked the same at the police station. During his direct testimony, PO2 Tan claimed
that he received the drugs from PO3 Napalcruz. However, during his cross-examination,
PO2 Tan contradicted himself when he admitted receipt of the seized drugs from SPO1
Santiago and SPO1 Rodriguez. Aside from these glaring infirmities, there was no
inventory made, or photographs taken, of the seized drugs in the presence of the
accused or his representative, or in the presence of any representative from the media,
Department of Justice or any elected official, who must sign the inventory, or be given a
copy of the inventory as required by RA 9165 and its IRR.

Lastly, we note that the trial court, in its November 12, 2007 Order, already denied the
admission of Exhibits ''B-1" and "B-2" or the dn1gs subject of the illegal possession
case. The relevant portions of the Order are as follows:

Plaintiff's Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" however are DENIED admission on the grounds that
Exhibit "B-1" submitted by the prosecution in evidence is merely a cigarette foil,
whereas Exhibit "B-2" is a heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0135
gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride which are inconsistent with its offer that
Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" are two (2) plastic heat sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing shabu with a total weight of 0.0310 gram.22

Surprisingly, however, the trial court rendered a verdict convicting the appellant of
violating Section 11, RA 9165 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs based on the
same pieces of evidence it previously denied.

In sum, we find that the prosecution failed to: (1) overcome the presumption of
innocence which appellai1t enjoys; (2) prove the corpus delicti of the crime; (3)
establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and (3) offer any
explanation why the provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 were not complied with. This
Court is thus constrained to acquit the appellant based on reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed June 14, 2013 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR HC No. 00902, which affirmed the August 31, 2010
Judgment of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City in Criminal Case Nos.
5021 (19952) and 5022 (19953) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, appellant Salim R. Ismael is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the immediate release of
appellant, unless the latter is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform the
Court of the date of his release or reason for his continued confinement within five days
from notice.

SO ORDERED.