FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 218803. July 10, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JACK

MUHAMMAD y GUSTAHAM, A.K.A. "DANNY ANJAM y
GUSTAHAM," A.K.A. "KUYA DANNY", accused-appellant.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, C.J : p

Accused-appellant Jack Muhammad y Gustaham (Danny), a.k.a. Danny

Anjam y Gustaham and a.k.a. Kuya Danny, hereby seeks the review and
reversal of the decision promulgated on March 16, 2015, 1 whereby the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the judgment rendered in
Criminal Case No. 6016(22733), Criminal Case No. 6017(22734), and
Criminal Case No. 6018(22735) by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13,
in Zamboanga City on October 28, 2011 finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating, respectively, Section 5, Section 11 and
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002). 2 HTcADC

The CA modified the judgment of the RTC only as to the penalty for the
violation of Section 5 in Criminal Case No. 6016(22733) by adding that the
accused-appellant would not be eligible for parole.
Antecedents
The accused-appellant was charged under separate informations the
accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 6016(22733)
That on or about August 2, 2006, 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, delivered to PO3
APOLINARIO PANAMOGAN NARAGA, PNP, presently assigned with the
Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force of the Intelligence
Section, at Police Station 06, Tetuan, this city, who acted as poseur-
buyer, one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance weighing 0.0077 gram which when
subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the test
for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), said
accused knowing well that the same is a dangerous drug. 3
Criminal Case No. 6017(22734)
That on or about August 2, 2006, in the City of Zamboanga,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and
there [willfully,] unlawfully and feloniously, had in his possession and
under his control, a cigarette foil wrapper with one (1) piece heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance weighing 0.0115 gram which when subjected to qualitative
examination gave positive result to the test for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), knowing well that the
same to be a dangerous drug. 4
Criminal Case No. 6018(22735)
That on or about August 2, 2006, 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 unlawfully and feloniously, possessed or had under his control,
two (2) unused plastic sachets, two (2) pink and blue disposable
lighters and three (3) unused folded aluminum foils, which are
instrument or paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming or
introducing dangerous drugs to the body in flagrant violation of the
abovementioned law. 5
The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the informations.
Version of the Prosecution
At around 1:45 p.m. on August 2, 2006, PO3 Apolinario Naraga of
Police Station 6 situated in Tetuan, Zamboanga City received information
from a confidential informant about a certain Kuya Danny of Alvarez St.,
Talon-Talon, Zamboanga City being engaged in distributing illegal drugs.
PO3 Naraga relayed the information to SPO3 Nelson Enad, his team leader,
who forthwith decided to mount a buy-bust operation against the suspect. In
the briefing, PO3 Naraga was assigned as the poseur-buyer, and he was
given a marked P200.00 bill.
Upon arrival at the target area, the members of the police team
spotted a male person seated at the stairway of the house. PO3 Naraga and
the informant approached the person, and the informant said to him: Kuya
Danny, bili kami. The latter asked: Magkano?, to which PO3 Naraga replied:
P200. The suspect then demanded for the money, and PO3 Naraga handed
over the marked P200 bill. The suspect entered the house, and returned
after a few minutes and gave one heat-sealed plastic sachet to PO3 Naraga.
After PO3 Naraga examined the contents of the sachet, he introduced
himself as a policeman. Kuya Danny ran towards the area for drying fish,
hotly pursued by PO3 Naraga and another member of the police team, PO3
Raz, until they caught up with him. They placed him under arrest. PO3 Raz
apprised him of his constitutional rights, frisked him and confiscated from his
side pockets another heat-sealed plastic sachet, two pieces of empty plastic
sheets, three pieces of folded aluminum foil, and two lighters. 6 The suspect
turned out to be the accused-appellant.
The members of the buy-bust team later on brought the accused-
appellant from the fish drying area to Alvarez Street, where PO3 Naraga put
his markings on the items confiscated from the accused-appellant. PO3
Naraga turned over the seized items to investigator PO2 Tuballa. The officers
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 brought the accused-appellant to Police Station 6 where they recorded the
arrest in the complaint assignment sheet. PO2 Tuballa filed the charges
against the accused-appellant. 7
The plastic sachets seized from the accused-appellant were referred to
the laboratory for qualitative examination. The sachets and their contents
were found to be positive for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, or shabu , a dangerous drug. 8 aScITE

Version of the Accused

At around one o'clock in the afternoon of August 2, 2006, five male
persons approached the accused-appellant while he was heading home from
the baluran, the fish drying area situated on Alvarez Drive, Talon-Talon, in
Zamboanga City. They asked if he knew a certain Jack Muhammad, but he
replied to them in the negative. He soon overheard them commenting that
they had erred about their target. They left, but one of them returned and
pointed to him, saying: This is the very one. They ordered him to go with
them. They brought him to the police station on board a tricycle.
The accused-appellant maintained his innocence before investigator
PO2 Tuballa, but the latter simply advised him to file a waiver, and to just
reveal his boss and to divulge the names of the drug addicts in his area. The
police kept on asking him about Jack Muhammad, but he did not know such
person.
Judgment of the RTC
On October 28, 2011, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant of the
crimes charged, its judgment disposing thus:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, this Court finds:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 6016(22733), accused JACK
MOHAMMAD y GUSTAHAM a.k.a. "DANNY ANJAM Y
GUSTAHAM" and a.k.a. "KUYA DANNY" GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165)
and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000) without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 6017(22734), accused JACK
MOHAMMAD Y GUSTAHAM a.k.a. "DANNY ANJAM Y
GUSTAHAM" and a.k.a. "KUYA DANNY" GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for violating Section 11, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165)
and sentences him to suffer the penalty of 12 YEARS AND 1
DAY TO 14 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT and pay a fine of
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000) without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
(3) In Criminal Case No. 6018(22735), accused JACK
MOHAMMAD Y GUSTAHAM a.k.a. "DANNY ANJAM Y
GUSTAHAM" and a.k.a. "KUYA DANNY" GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for violating Section 12, Article II of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165)
and sentences him to suffer the penalty of 6 MONTHS AND
1 DAY TO 1 YEAR AND 2 MONTHS OF IMPRISONMENT and
pay a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000) without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED. 9

Decision of the CA
On appeal, the accused-appellant claimed that the police officers had
committed serious lapses in the handling of the seized shabu and
paraphernalia; that they had not coordinated with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in violation of Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165; that
they had not taken any physical inventory or photograph of the seized items
in his presence and that of his counsel, or in the presence of a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ); that PO3
Naraga's testimony had lacked details about how the confiscated items had
been handled after his arrest; and that no details had been provided on who
had custody of the seized items, who had brought the seized items to the
crime laboratory, and who had received the seized items at the crime
laboratory. 10
On March 16, 2015, however, the CA promulgated the assailed decision
affirming the convictions with modification, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The
Decision dated 28 October 2011 rendered by the Regional Trial Court
of Zamboanga City, Branch 13, in Crim. Case Nos. 6016(22733);
6017(22734); and 6018(22735) is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, in that with respect to the penalty for violation of
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the accused-appellant shall not be
eligible for parole.
SO ORDERED. 11 HEITAD

Issue
In this appeal, the accused-appellant urges that the CA erred in
affirming his convictions.
Ruling of the Court
We reverse the CA.
In the prosecution under R.A. No. 9165 of the crimes of illegal sale 12
and illegal possession 13 of dangerous drugs like shabu , the contraband
seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti. The Prosecution, in
order to discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, must prove the corpus delicti by presenting the drug
subject of the sale or possession no less. 14 This is possible only by showing
an unbroken chain of custody of the contraband from the moment of the
seizure until its presentation as evidence in the trial court. Gaps in the chain
of custody of the seized dangerous drugs necessarily raise doubts on the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court. Accordingly, the integrity
and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 by the arresting officers through the unbroken chain of custody.
Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of
2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody thusly:
"Chain of Custody" refers to the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at 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 items 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.
As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody,
Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 pertinently states:
xxx xxx xxx
(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;
xxx xxx xxx
Without doubt, the strict compliance with the procedural safeguards
provided by Section 21 is required of the arresting officers. Yet, the law
recognizes that a departure from the safeguards may become necessary,
and has incorporated a saving clause ("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"). To rely on the saving
clause, the Prosecution should prove the concurrence of the twin conditions,
namely: (a) the existence of justifiable grounds for the departure, and (b) the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. 15
Our judicious review and examination of the records compel us to
declare that the chain of custody was not unbroken.
There are ostensibly four links in the chain of custody that should be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 established: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court. 16ATICcS

The first link in the chain of custody would have been established by
the testimony of PO3 Naraga to the effect that he had placed his markings
on the items confiscated from the accused-appellant immediately following
the seizure; and that he had then turned over the items to investigator PO3
Tuballa right at the crime scene itself. 17 As observed in People v. Relato , 18
the marking immediately after seizure was the starting point in the custodial
link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items
will use the markings as reference; the marking further serves to segregate
the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar and 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. 19 However, the regularity of the
procedures undertaken in the incrimination of the accused-appellant was
apparently upended. For one, PO3 Raz, himself one of the arresting officers,
stated that no physical inventory and photograph had been taken at the
crime scene in violation of Section 21, supra, and this was because the
officers had immediately brought the arrestee with them to the police
station. 20 Also, SPO3 Enad, the team leader, had supposedly issued a PDEA
certification to the effect that a physical inventory of the confiscated items
had been taken, 21 the same even bearing the signature of one Leila D.
Vicente as a witness representing media, but the veracity of the certification
was highly suspect in light of PO3 Naraga recalling during the trial that there
had been no PDEA operative or representative from the media around in the
entire time from the conduct of the briefing on the buy bust operation until
the bringing of the accused-appellant to the police station.
Another puzzling circumstance to be noted is that notwithstanding he
claim of PO3 Naraga of having turned over the seized items to PO3 Tuballa
at the crime scene itself the latter did not even sign the certification on the
turnover. The omission added to the suspiciousness of the operation
mounted against the accused-appellant, and raised more doubts about the
sincerity of the lawmen in establishing an unbroken chain of custody. As if
compounding the puzzle, the Prosecution did not present PO3 Tuballa as a
witness despite him being the only person who could have probably shed
some light on whatever happened to the seized items following the turnover
to him by PO3 Naraga.
The third link in the chain of custody, that is, the movement of the
dangerous drugs and the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic
chemist who conducted the tests on the subject drugs, was likewise not
sufficiently shown. We note that Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector
Mercedes Delfin Diesto did not testify in court because the Prosecution was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 content in merely proposing for stipulation what she would have attested to
had she actually testified, which was to simply affirm the existence of the
seized items, and the existence of the request and the laboratory results.
Her non-presentation resulted in denying enlightenment to the trial court on
who had actually received the subject drugs when they were brought to the
crime laboratory for the qualitative examination. At any rate, the Prosecution
confirmed during the trial that it was not the Forensic Chemist who had
personally received the drugs when they were brought to the laboratory for
the examination, and also that the Forensic Chemist did not have personal
knowledge "as to where the items, subject of examination, [had come]
from." 22 The gaps in the chain of custody just became much bigger. ETHIDa

Lastly, the fourth link, i.e., the turnover of the seized dangerous drugs
by the Forensic Chemist to the trial court, did not arise considering that the
Forensic Chemist did not personally appear in court to attest thereto. In the
absence of any admission on the part of the accused-appellant, the outcome
is that the safekeeping and handling of the seized items from the moment of
their turnover to the laboratory until their presentation as evidence in court
during the trial were not established.
The various omissions noted herein were immediately fatal to the
success of the criminal prosecution of the accused-appellant. As pointed out
i n Mallillin v. People , 23 the chain of custody rule, as a method of
authenticating evidence, requires that the admission of an exhibit should be
preceded by a sufficient showing to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims it to be. The records should include
testimony about every link in the chain of custody, 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 said witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The witnesses should 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 taken possession or hold of the same. 24 The many glaring omissions
contravened the notion that the chain of custody ought to be "the duly
recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs x x x at each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation, to receipt in the forensic
laboratory, to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction." Indeed,
any gap in the chain of custody renders the case for the State less than
complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. 25
We should not tire in reiterating that in the prosecution of the crimes of
illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride under
R.A. No. 9165, the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the
elements of the offense, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus
delicti, failing in which the State does not discharge its basic duty of proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State
fails in establishing the corpus delicti when the substance subject of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 prosecution is missing, or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of
the substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited
substance presented as evidence in court.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision
promulgated on March 16, 2015 by the Court of Appeals; ACQUITS accused-
appellant JACK MUHAMMAD y GUSTAHAM, a.k.a DANNY ANJAM y
GUSTAHAM, a.k.a. KUYA DANNY ; and ORDERS his IMMEDIATE
RELEASE from confinement unless he is being held for some other lawful
cause.
Let the copy of this decision be served on the Superintendent of the
San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm in Zamboanga City for implementation.
The Superintendent is directed to report the action taken to this Court within
five (5) days from receipt of this decision.
SO ORDERED. cSEDTC

Del Castillo, Jardeleza, Gesmundo and Carandang, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.CA rollo, pp. 115-123; penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with
Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and Associate Justice Maria Filomena D.
Singh concurring.
2.Id. at 54-64; penned by Presiding Judge Eric D. Elumba.
3.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id. at 4-5.

6.Id. at 5.
7.Id. at 5-6.
8.Id. at 6.
9.CA rollo, pp. 63-64.
10.Id. at 119.

11.Rollo, p. 10.
12.The elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor.

13.The elements of the crime of illegal possession of shabu requires the

concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified as shabu ; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug.

14.People v. Montevirgen, G.R. No. 189840, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 459,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 468.
15.People v. Ancheta , G.R. No. 197371, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 604, 618.
16.People v. Zaragoza, G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018; People v. Holgado , G.R.
No. 207992, August 11, 2014, 732 SCRA 554, 571.
17.Rollo, pp. 15-16.

18.G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 260, 270-271.
19.See People v. Denoman , G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257,
276.

20.Rollo, p. 9.
21.Exhibit Folder, p. 8.
22.TSN, July 13, 2011, p. 5.
23.G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.

24.Id. at 632-633.
25.People v. Relato, supra, note 18.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com