PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY MADRIA Y HIGAYON, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:

Before the Court is an appeal1 from the Court of Appeals' (CA's) Decision2 dated March 8, 2017 in CA-
G.R. No. CR-HC No. 01357-MIN, affirming the Decision3 dated October 27, 2014 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, convicting accused-appellant Anthony Madria y Higayon
(Madria) for violation of: (1) Section 11 (possession), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 in Criminal
Case No. 2010-001 for illegal possession of shabu; and (2) Section 5 (selling), Article II of R.A. No. 91654
in Criminal Case No. 2010-002 for illegal sale of shabu.

The Facts of the Case

The judgment of convictions stemmed from two criminal Informations, the accusatory portions of each,
read:

Criminal Case No. 2010-001

That on or about December 28, 2009, at more or less 6:25 o'clock in the evening, at Ramonal St.,
Barangay 29, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drugs, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally, and knowingly have in his possession, custody, and control, six
(6) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally
known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.42 gram, accused well-knowing that the
substance recovered from his possession is a dangerous drug.5

Criminal Case No. 2010-002

That on or about December 28, 2009, at more or less 6:25 o'clock in the evening, at Ramonal St.,
Barangay 29, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another, without being
authorized by law to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch
in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally, and
knowingly sell and/or offer for sale, and give away to a poseur-buyer One (1) small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a
dangerous drug, weighing 0.02 gram, accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug in
consideration of Five Hundred pesos (Php500.00) with Serial No. EL 240363, which was previously
marked for the purpose of the buy-bust operation.6

Upon arraignment, both appellant Madria and Lorenzo De Ala (De Ala) entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to
the crimes charged. Joint trial of the cases ensued.

The Prosecution's Version

The prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely: Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) Officer-in-Charge IA5 Joseph Theodore Atila (IA5 Atila); IO1 Naomie Siglos (IO1 Siglos); IO2 Neil
Vincent Pimentel (IO2 Pimentel); and, Forensic Chemist PS1 Charity P. Caceres (Caceres).7

On December 28, 2009, IA5 Atila entertained a "walk-in" civilian informant (CI), disclosing that accused
Madria and De Ala were engaged in illegal drug activities. Acting on this information, IA5 Atila formed a
team consisting of IO1 Siglos, as poseur-buyer and IO2 Pimentel as the back-up and arresting officer.8

At around 6:00 p.m., IO2 Pimentel and IA5 Atila rode on separate vehicles and proceeded to the area of
operation in Justo Ramonal Street, Brgy. 29, Cagayan de Oro City. Thereafter, the CI and IO1 Siglos rode
on a taxi and followed them. Upon arrival at the area, the CI alighted from the taxi and approached
Madria and De Ala who were standing outside a store. They followed the CI toward the place where the
taxi was parked. Madria stood at the right side of the taxi's door, while De Ala stood at the left side.
When the right side door of the taxi opened, De Ala asked IO1 Siglos, who was still inside the taxi, as to
how much she was going to buy, but IO1 Siglos insisted to see the shabu first. De Ala turned to Madria,
who then handed to him a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet. De Ala in turn gave it to IO1
Siglos. After examining the sachet, IO1 Siglos gave the buy-bust money to De Ala, who then passed it to
Madria. Immediately, IO1 Siglos "missed-called" IO2 Pimentel, as the pre-arranged signal that the sale
had already been consummated. IO2 Pimentel and the rest of the buy-bust team rushed in and arrested
appellant Madria and De Ala. IO2 Pimentel bodily searched Madria and De Ala and recovered six (6)
heat-sealed plastic sachets from Madria, including the marked money, but nothing was recovered from
De Ala.9

Upon noticing that it was already dark and the crowd was getting bigger, IA5 Atila ordered his team to
withdraw from the area with the two accused, so as not to compromise the safety of the buy-bust team.
Thereafter, they proceeded to the PDEA office, where IO2 Pimentel marked with his initial the
confiscated items, i.e., one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet and six (6) heat-sealed plastic sachets;
prepared the inventory receipts; and took pictures thereof.10

At around 9:30 p.m., IO2 Pimentel and the other PDEA agents, together with the two accused, went to
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory and requested the examination of both accused
and the seized items. Caceres received the specimen, i.e., one (1) transparent plastic sachet of white
crystalline substance weighing 0.02 gram; and another six (6) sachets of white crystalline substance
weighing a total of 0.42 grams. The examination yielded positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
known as shabu. Also, the urine sample taken from both accused tested positive for shabu.11

The Defense' Version

The defense presented as its witnesses, the accused Madria and De Ala.

Madria testified that in the afternoon of December 28, 2009, while he was walking towards Gaisano
Store at Cogon Street to have the "LCD" of his cellphone repaired, a driver from a parked Toyota Revo
vehicle asked him twice if he knew the place where a PDEA agent committed suicide; that when he
ignored the question and walked away, he felt his nape struck by someone. Afterwards, he was
handcuffed and forced to board a vehicle with his face covered. When he alighted from the vehicle, the
cover of his face was removed. He then realized that he was at the PDEA office together with De Ala. He
was forced to point at the items placed on top of the table. When he refused, he was mauled.12

As for De Ala, he testified that he was working as a taxi driver; that at around 6:25 p.m. of December 28,
2009, while he was waiting for his shift reliever, a vehicle stopped in front of him. Three men
approached with their guns pointed at him and ordered him not to run. He was forced to board the
vehicle while his face was covered, and he sensed the presence of another person, whom he later on
recognized to be Madria. When he disembarked the vehicle, the cover of his eyes was removed. Like
Madria, he too was forced to identify the items on top of the table. He insisted that he neither signed
any inventory receipt, nor was he given a copy of the same. He denied that he sold one (1) sachet of
shabu to a PDEA agent.13

The Trial Court's Ruling

On October 27, 2014, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby finds that:

1. In Criminal Case No. 2010-001, accused ANTHONY MADRIA Y HIGAYON is hereby found GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A.
9165 and each is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of IMPRISONMENT ranging from twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to thirteen (13) years, and to pay a Fine in the amount of P300,000.00
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of Fine;

2. In Criminal Case No. 2010-002, accused ANTHONY MADRIA Y HIGAYON and LORENZO DE ALA are
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of
R.A. 9165, and hereby sentences him to a penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and for each of them to pay a
Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00] without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of non-payment of Fine.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.14

The CA's Ruling

In questioning the RTC's decision, both accused Madria and De Ala appealed their conviction with the
CA.15 The appeal, however, was denied in the CA's decision16 dated March 8, 2017, and succinctly
disposed as follows:

FOR THESE REASONS, the Judgment in Criminal Case Nos. 2010-001 and 2010-002 appealed from is
AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.17

Thereafter, only accused Madria filed this instant petition18 raising this sole assignment of error:

THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

While a buy-bust operation has been proven to be "an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that
are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, it has a significant downside that has not escaped the
attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its
use as a tool for extortion."19 Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases
lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.20
Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been that the
prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed21 in light with the chain
of custody rule in drug cases.

The Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment22 defines "chain of custody" as follows:

Section 1 (b) - "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition[.]

Corollary thereto, in Junie Mallillin y Lopez v. People of the Philippines,23 the Court explained that 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 claims it to be. Thus:

x x x 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.24

We find merit in Madria's protestations that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against him
due to the gaps in the chain of custody and due to the assailable integrity of the evidence in view of the
police officers' non-compliance with Section 21,25 Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR).26

In Howard Lescano y Carreon v. People of the Philippines,27 this Court briefly discussed the rigid
requirements under Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, on the marking, inventory, and photographing of
the contraband seized, including the personalities required to be present during the buy-bust operation,
thus:
As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21(1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act, as amended, requires the performance of two (2) actions: physical inventory and
photographing. Section 21(1) is specific as to when and where these actions must be done. As to when,
it must be "immediately after seizure and confiscation." As to where, it depends on whether the seizure
was supported by a search warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical inventory and
photographing must be done at the exact same place that the search warrant is served. In case of
warrantless seizures, these actions must be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable."

Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present during the physical inventory
and photographing. These persons are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were
seized; second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service.
There are, however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the
person/s from whom items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative;
and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National Prosecution Service, a
representative of the media may be present in his or her place.28

Notably, the procedures mentioned in R.A. No. 9165 are mandatory in nature, as indicated by the use of
the word "shall" in its directives and its implementing rules.29

In the case of People v. Myrna Gayoso,30 the Court explained the use of marking on the seized items,
thus:

"Marking" is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on
the items after they have been seized. It is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the
seized items be marked immediately since the succeeding handlers thereof will use the markings as
reference.

Likewise, in the case of People v. Joselito Beran y Zapanta,31 the Court held that:

To truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized contraband be done (1) in
the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation.32

Indeed, it is important that the seized drugs be immediately marked, if possible, as soon as they are
seized from the accused.33

This crucial process, however, was ignored in this case.

The records do not show that the arresting officers marked the seized items with their initials in the
presence of Madria and De Ala, and immediately upon confiscation .
IA5 Atila's allegation that the marking had to be done at the police station, and not at the crime scene,
so as not to compromise the arresting officers' "security" is not sufficient to justify their non-compliance
with the law. Apparently, IA5 Atila's allegation was belied by the testimony of the poseur-buyer, IO1
Siglos, when she testified as follows:

[CROSS-EXAMINATION by Atty. Amarga]

xxxx

Q:

Now what were the things that you brought to the target area?

A:

Only the marked money.

Q:

You do not have any ball pen or sign pen?

A:

No, Sir.

Q:

You do not have a masking tape?

A:

No, Sir.

Q:

You do not have a camera?

A:

No, Sir.

x x x x.34

Based on IO1 Siglos' testimony, it can be deduced, that at the outset, even before the buy-bust team
initiated its operation on Madria and De Ala, no arresting officer was so minded to mark or even take a
photo of the possible contraband that they may recover from both accused. This is manifested by the
fact that none of them had a ball pen, sign pen, masking tape and camera - basic tools that can be used
to mark the seized items. To put it differently, the allegation regarding the arresting officers' supposed
security being compromised was already predetermined. Obviously, right from the start, the arresting
officers had no intention to comply with the law by marking the seized items in the presence of the
accused and immediately upon confiscation.
Due to this break in the chain of custody, it was possible that the seized item subject of the sale
transaction was swapped with the seized items subject of the illegal possession case, while the
contraband was being transported from the crime scene to the PDEA office. This is material considering
that the imposable penalty for illegal possession of shabu depends on the quantity or weight of the
seized drug. 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."35 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.36

Even if the Court glosses over this error, there are other significant gaps in the prosecution's evidence
that - viewed as a whole - cast reasonable doubt on its case against Madria.

For one thing, neither in the direct examination, nor in the cross-examination of IO2 Pimentel was it
mentioned that the markings were made in the presence of the accused or his representative . There
was, likewise, no proof that a copy of the confiscation receipts were given to and signed by the accused
Madria. IO2 Pimentel merely testified that he placed the markings at the PDEA office, without any
allusion to the identities of the persons who were present when he did the markings. By jurisprudence,
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.37

For another thing, the seized items were marked, inventoried and photographed in the PDEA office,
without the presence of any representative from the media, Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected
official, who must sign the inventory, or be given a copy thereof as required by R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.

When asked to explain why there was failure to comply with this requirement, IO2 Pimentel simply said
that doing so could compromise the buy-bust operation.

[REDIRECT EXAMINATION by Prosecutor Vicente]

Q:

Why is it that you did not inform the barangay of your operation?

A:

Because there is a possibility that the information would leak, Sir.

Q:

You also said that there was no media. Why?

A:
To contact a media is very hard, Sir, because most media are willing to hear the news regarding a buy-
bust operation but not willing to appear in Court as witnesses.

x x x x38

[RECROSS EXAMINATION by Atty. Blanco]

Q:

This PDEA office that you mentioned is the one at Corrales just right next to the Bombo Radio?

A:

Yes, Ma'am.

Q:

Yet at few steps to the Bombo Radio, you did not inform the radio personnel as to your operation?

A:

Yes, Ma'am.

x x x x39

This justification, however, is insufficient. Other than the bare allegation that coordination with the
media and the barangay officials could have compromised the buy-bust operation, the prosecution
offered no factual evidence to substantiate this claim. Likewise, there was no allegation that these
people, required by law, could similarly compromise the operation if they had been informed of and
present before, during, and after the operation. In People v. Macud,40 we emphasized the importance
of this requirement, thus:

The presence of the persons who should witness the post-operation procedures is necessary to insulate
the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. The
insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody. We have
noted in several cases that a buy-bust operation is susceptible to abuse, and the only way to prevent this
is to ensure that the procedural safeguards provided by the law are strictly observed.

Here, this procedure has not been followed, and its breach not justifiably explained. To note, it is the
prosecution who had the concomitant part to "establish that earnest efforts were employed in
contacting the representatives enumerated" under the law.41 This, it failed to do.

In fact, even the trial court recognized the police officers' indifference in complying with the
requirements under Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, thus:

x x x Admittedly, the apprehending police officers merely paid a lip service on the procedural
requirement provided for under Section 21. The pictures were taken, but no pictures depicting the
arrest were offered in evidence. An inventory was made, but no signatures of the personalities
mentioned under Section 21, appeared thereon, x x x.42
To compound the flaws in the chain of custody, this Court observed that the prosecution failed to
proffer evidence on how the items were stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded from the moment
they were confiscated at the crime scene, to the time they were inventoried at the PDEA office, until
they were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, and finally presented to the trial court.
IO2 Pimentel could not even identify the particular item which was the subject of the illegal sale as a
result of the buy-bust operation. He even admitted that the same could have been co-mingled with the
items seized from Madria for illegal possession. Thus:

[CROSS-EXAMINATION by Atty. Blanco]

xxxx

Q: And the sachet of shabu which was the alleged subject of the buy-bust operation was given to
you by Siglos right there at the area?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q:

Therefore, you had in your possession the 6 sachets of shabu including the one sachet of shabu given to
you by Siglos in your left hand?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q:

The one sachet was co-mingled because it was in your palm and there was no marking made yet during
the operation?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q: From the seven (7) sachets, you cannot identify which one was the subject of the buy-bust
operation?

A: The poseur-buyer can identify, Ma'am.

Q: How can he identify when you said you were the one who marked the sachet in your office?

A: He was there during the marking, Ma'am.

Q:

But there was no marking in the crime scene?

A:

Yes, Ma'am.

Q: You are saying that the one sachet of shabu, the alleged subject of the buy-bust operation, was
co-mingled with the other 6 sachets?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q: Therefore, you cannot identify the sachet which was the subject of the
buy-bust operation?

A: Siglos can identify that, Ma'am.

x x x x43 (Emphasis Ours)

Interestingly, IO1 Siglos' testimony, likewise, reveals that she did not disclose to IO2 Pimentel which
item was the subject of the buy-bust operation, thus:

[COURT]

xxxx

Q:

When Pimentel recovered the six (6) sachets of shabu, were you

present?

A:

Yes, Your Honor.

Q:

Did you tell him which of the sachets was taken by you from the accused?

A:

No, Your Honor.

Q:

How did Pimentel know that this is the particular sachet of shabu that you bought?

A:

He just hold [sic] it, Your Honor.

Q:

From Justo Ramonal Street to your office, he was holding only one (1) sachet?

A:

Yes, Your Honor.

Q:

It was not further placed in a container; Not even placed inside his pocket?

A:

Yes, Your Honor.44 (Emphasis Ours)

Based on the testimonies of the police officers, we find that there is no assurance that the confiscated
items presented here as evidence are the same articles that had been the subject of the crime of illegal
sale and illegal possession charges against Madria. The indeterminateness of the identities of the seized
items even before they were marked, and the failure of the police officers to adequately show how
these items were handled and preserved,45 while in their possession, broke the chain of custody. It
entertains the likelihood that these items were switched or replaced. As such, it tainted the integrity of
the alleged shabu ultimately presented as evidence before the trial court.

The totality of the procedural lapses committed by the police officers leads this Court to conclude that
the integrity of the seized items presented in court was compromised; the very identity of the seized
drugs became highly questionable. Consequently, the prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism
of Sec. 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The links required to establish the proper chain of
custody were breached. Otherwise stated, the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as
a fact. Hence, courts cannot assume what these reasons are, if they even exist at all.46

Corollarily, the prosecution cannot evade its non-compliance with the chain of custody by relying on the
presumption of regularity. This presumption, it must be stressed, is not conclusive. Any taint of
irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. The
presumption, in other words, obtains only when nothing in the records suggests that the law enforcers
involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty, as provided for in the law.47 However, as
had been discussed earlier, the police officers' acts during the buy-bust operation were marred by
irregularities. Thus, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.

Given the procedural lapses on the part of the police officers in faithfully observing the requirements
under Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, vis-a-vis the chain of custody rule in drug cases, serious doubt
on Madria's guilt is created. Hence, a verdict for his acquittal is proper.

WHEREFORE, We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals' Decision promulgated on March 8, 2017
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01357-MIN; ACQUIT accused ANTHONY MADRIA y HIGAYON for failure of the
Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; DIRECT the immediate release from detention
of ANTHONY MADRIA y HIGAYON, unless he is also detained for some other lawful cause; and, ORDER
the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to forthwith implement this Decision upon receipt, and to
report his action hereon to this Court within ten (10) days from receipt. No pronouncement as to costs
of suit.