SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 219829. January 18, 2017.]

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

JAAFAR y TAMBUYONG, accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN, J : p

This reviews the Decision 1 dated February 24, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01053-MIN affirming the conviction of
accused-appellant Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong for violation of Article II,
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an Information, accused-appellant Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong (Jaafar)
and Ahmad Gani y Idjirani (Gani) were charged with violation of Republic Act
No. 9165:
That on the 11th day of September 2009 at Barangay Port Area,
Isabela City, Zamboanga Peninsula, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, not
being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another,
transport or distribute any dangerous drug, conspiring and
confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting one another,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver
to PO1 Marlon Takazi M. Look, who acted as poseur-buyer, one (1)
[heat-sealed] transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance weighing 0.0604 grams which when subjected to
qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for the
presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU), knowing
[the] same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. 3 Trial on the
merits ensued. 4
According to the prosecution, at 8:00 a.m. on September 10, 2009, a
male civilian informant reported to Chief of Police, Police Superintendent
Alberto Capacio Larubis (Chief Larubis) that a certain "Mana" was selling
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) at the port area barangay located
just beside the police station. 5 Mana was later identified as Jaafar, who sold
shabu between 12:00 m.n. and 4:00 a.m. to facilitate the sale of the drug
and evade arrest. 6 Jaafar allegedly peddled shabu in his house. 7
Chief Larubis instructed SPO4 Enrico Morales (SPO4 Morales) to form a
team composed of SPO3 Tabunyag, PO3 Perez, PO3 Hasim, PO2 Canete, PO2
Bobby Rey Bucoy (PO2 Bucoy), PO1 Insang, and PO1 Marlon Takazi M. Look
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (PO1 Look) and to schedule a buy-bust operation the next day. He also
instructed the team to coordinate with agents from the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 8 PO1 Look was designated as the poseur-
buyer while PO2 Bucoy and PDEA Agent Mark Dela Cruz were designated as
the arresting officers. 9
On September 11, 2009, the buy-bust team left the police station at
1:45 a.m. and went to Jaafar's house. 10
Jaafar met PO1 Look and the informant at the door of his house and
asked them if they were buying shabu. 11 PO1 Look answered in the
affirmative and gave Jaafar a marked P500.00 bill. 12 Jaafar called for Gani
inside the house. 13 Gani came out and handed Jaafar a sachet containing
shabu. 14 Jaafar gave the sachet to PO1 Look, who immediately lit a cigarette
— the pre-arranged signal agreed upon by the buy-bust team. 15
The police officers rushed to arrest Jaafar, but he managed to escape.
16 Jaafar threw away the marked P500.00 bill as he ran. 17 Eventually, the
arresting officers caught up with him 30 meters away from his house. 18
Immediately after the arrest, PO1 Look marked the confiscated sachet
of shabu with his initials. 19 He then turned over the sachet and the marked
P500.00 bill to their team leader, SPO4 Morales. 20 The buy-bust team
brought Jaafar and Gani to the police station for investigation. 21
Chief Larubis prepared a letter-request addressed to forensic chemist
Melvin Manuel for the examination of the contents of the sachet. 22 Upon
examination, the contents tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride. 23
In his defense, Gani testified that he was at an internet café located
near the police station at 2:00 a.m. on September 11, 2009. 24 After
stepping out of the establishment, Gani was suddenly apprehended by
unknown persons, who later identified themselves as PO1 Look and PO2
Bucoy. 25 He was detained at the police station for two (2) days and was
subsequently transferred to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. 26
Gani claimed that he did not know the reason for his arrest. 27 cTDaEH

Meanwhile, Jaafar testified that he was at the internet café at 12:00

m.n. on September 11, 2009, watching people play video games. 28 He left
after two (2) hours and made his way home. 29 Upon entering an alley, Jaafar
saw six (6) persons headed towards him. 30 One of them pointed a gun at
him and told him not to run. Out of fear, he ran towards the main road. 31
However, the six (6) persons, who turned out to be police officers, caught up
with him. 32 They conducted a body search but found nothing since Jaafar
was only wearing boxer shorts and a t-shirt. Jaafar was detained after his
arrest and brought to the Office of the City Prosecutor at the City Hall of
Isabela the next day. 33
The Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution clearly established
all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs. 34 Although the chain of
custody rule was not strictly complied with, the trial court ruled that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu sachet had been
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 duly preserved. 35 It applied the legal presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties by the police officers. 36
Jaafar primarily relied on denial for his defense and presented a
different story of what had transpired. The Regional Trial Court considered
the version of the defense weak. 37 It could not have foreclosed the
possibility that Jaafar committed the crime. 38 The Regional Trial Court also
found it unusual that Jaafar never exhibited any form of resistance. 39
Instead, he remained cool and calm. 40 This, according to the Regional Trial
Court, was an unusual reaction since a person whose rights were allegedly
transgressed would offer some form of resistance. 41
In its Decision 42 dated May 15, 2012, the Regional Trial Court
convicted Jaafar for violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
However, it acquitted Gani for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Ahmad Gani Y
Idjirani a.k.a. "Botchoy" is hereby ACQUITTED of the above charge for
want of sufficient evidence. The property bond posted for his
provisional liberty is ordered cancelled and returned to its lawful
owner.
WHEREAS, accused Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong a.k.a. "Mana" is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of
0.0604 gram of shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 43

Jaafar filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals and raised the
following errors: (1) the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt; and (2) the arresting team violated the chain of custody
rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. 44
Jaafar argued that the shabu was not formally offered as evidence
during trial; rather, it was only presented during the hearing for the
application for bail. Hence, the Regional Trial Court should not have
considered the shabu as evidence. Jaafar further argued that the prosecution
failed to show an unbroken chain of custody of the shabu allegedly obtained
from him. He pointed out that the police officers neither photographed nor
inventoried the seized shabu sachet and emphasized that there were no
representatives from the media and the Department of Justice as well as an
elected public official to witness the proceedings. 45
On the other hand, the People of the Philippines argued that the
alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule was not fatal to the
prosecution's case considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items were properly preserved. 46
The Court of Appeals ruled that although the sachet of shabu was not
formally offered in evidence during trial, it was nevertheless identified by
PO1 Look and the forensic chemist. Being part of their direct testimonies, the
shabu formed part of the records of the case. Hence, the Court of Appeals
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ruled that the Regional Trial Court did not err in considering the shabu as
evidence. 47
The Court of Appeals also agreed with the Regional Trial Court with
regard to the alleged violation of the chain of custody rule. Although there
was a departure in the procedure mandated under Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165, the Court of Appeals ruled that it did not automatically render
the confiscated drugs inadmissible since the integrity of the seized shabu
had been kept intact. 48
In its Decision 49 dated February 24, 2015, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision in toto.
Aggrieved, Jaafar filed a Notice of Appeal on March 20, 2015, which
was noted and given due course in the Court of Appeals Resolution dated
May 11, 2015. 50
In the Resolution dated October 7, 2015, this Court noted the records
forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they could
submit their supplemental briefs. 51
On November 25, 2015, the People of the Philippines, through the
Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Manifestation stating that it would
dispense with the filing of a supplemental brief since all its arguments had
been sufficiently raised in its Appellee's Brief dated August 22, 2013. 52
On January 26, 2016, accused-appellant filed a similar Manifestation
stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief and instead would
adopt his appellant's brief. 53 cSaATC

The issue for this Court's resolution is whether the guilt of accused-
appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-observance
of the required procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
This Court grants the appeal and acquits accused-appellant Monir
Jaafar y Tambuyong.
In all prosecutions for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus
delicti is the dangerous drug itself. 54 Its existence is essential to a judgment
of conviction. 55 Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly
established. 56
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. 57 To determine their
composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis.
Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or
contamination. 58 It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized
from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and
offered in court as evidence. 59 The chain of custody, as a method of
authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of
seized drugs are removed. 60
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the manner by which law
enforcement officers should handle seized dangerous drugs:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165
further provide:
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: CHTAIc

(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)
While it may be true that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution's case provided that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers, 61 this exception will only be triggered by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 existence of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule. 62
This Court finds that the prosecution failed to show any justifiable
reason that would warrant non-compliance with the mandatory requirements
in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Although the buy-bust team marked 63 and conducted a physical
inventory 64 of the seized sachet of shabu, the records do not show that the
seized sachet had been photographed.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the physical
inventory was done in the presence of accused-appellant or his
representative, representatives from the media and the Department of
Justice, and an elected public official. 65 The poseur-buyer, PO1 Look,
testified as follows:
Q. Can you go over this Certificate of [Inventory], is there an entry
under the witnesses Media, do you see any name there and
signature?
A. No, sir[.]
Q. How about representative from Department of Justice, can you
see any name there and their corresponding signature?
A. None, sir[.]
Q. In the entry Elected Official, do you see any name there and
their signature?
A. None, sir.
Q. And lastly[,] the representative of the accused, can you see any
printed name there and signature?
A. None, sir. 66
The buy-bust team had an entire day within which to coordinate with
the persons required by law to be present during the physical inventory of
the seized drugs. The Chief of Police received the confidential tip early in the
morning. 67 He immediately instructed SPO4 Morales to form a buy-bust
team and coordinate with agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency. 68 The buy-bust team had ample time to contact an elected public
official and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice.
The prosecution established during trial 69 and on appeal 70 that the
buy-bust operation had been carefully planned by narrating the events with
intricate detail. However, at the same time, the prosecution relied heavily on
the exception to the chain of custody rule. 71 Worse, the prosecution did not
even offer any explanation on why they failed to comply with what was
mandated under the law. Indeed, if the police authorities had carefully
planned the buy-bust operation, then there was no reason for them to
neglect such important requirements. They cannot feign ignorance of the
exacting standards under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Police officers
are presumed and are required to know the laws they are charged with
executing.
This Court cannot merely gloss over the glaring procedural lapses
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 committed by the police officers, especially when what had been allegedly
seized from accused-appellant was only 0.0604 grams of shabu. 72 Recent
cases 73 have highlighted the need to ensure the integrity of seized drugs in
the chain of custody when only a miniscule amount of drugs had been
allegedly seized from the accused.
In People v. Holgado, 74 this Court held that "[c]ourts must employ
heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs.
. . [as] they can be readily planted and tampered." 75
Non-observance of the mandatory requirements under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 casts doubt on the integrity of the shabu supposedly
seized from accused-appellant. This creates reasonable doubt in the
conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Article II, Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 24, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01053-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong is ACQUITTED for failure of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered
immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other
lawful cause. EATCcI

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of

Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of
the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five (5)
days from receipt of this Decision, the action he has taken. Copies shall also
be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the
Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their
information.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., * Peralta and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2416-A dated January 4,
2017.
1. Rollo , pp. 3-11. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B.
Inting and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Pablito
A. Perez of the Twenty-Second Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro
City.
2. Id. at 5.

3. CA rollo, p. 66.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 8. Id.
9. Id.

10. Id.
11. Id. at 67.
12. Id.
13. Rollo , p. 5.
14. CA rollo, p. 67.

15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Rollo , p. 5.
18. CA rollo, p. 67.

19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id.

24. Id. at 68. In the Regional Trial Court Decision, it was indicated that Gani was at
the internet café on September 11, 2012.

25. Id.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Rollo , p. 6.
29. CA rollo, p. 68.

30. Id. at 69.

31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. Id. at 70.

35. Id. at 71.

36. Id. at 72.
37. Id.
38. Id. at 72.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 39. Id. at 73.
40. Id.
41. Id.

42. Id. at 65-75. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Danilo M. Bucoy of
Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Isabela City, Basilan.

43. Id. at 75.

44. Rollo , p. 6.
45. CA rollo, pp. 57-63.
46. Id. at 88-91.
47. Rollo , pp. 7-8.

48. Id. at 8-10.

49. Rollo , pp. 3-10.
50. Id. at 1.
51. Id. at 17.
52. Id. at 19.

53. Id. at 25.

54. People v. Simbahon , 449 Phil. 74, 81 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division].
55. Id.
56. Id. See also People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division]; Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second
Division].

57. Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
58. Id.
59. Id.
60. Id. at 586.

61. People v. Pringas , 558 Phil. 579, 593 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third
Division].

62. Id. at 594.

63. Rollo , p. 9.
64. Id.
65. Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 21 (a).
66. CA rollo, p. 59.

67. Rollo , p. 4.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 68. Id.
69. CA rollo, pp. 15-16.
70. Id. at 84-86.
71. Id. at 89-90.

72. CA rollo, p. 14.

73. People v. Holgado , G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014, 732 SCRA 554, 569
(2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; Tuano v. People , G.R. No. 205871,
September 28, 2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/september2016/205871.pdf> [Per J. Leonen,
Second Division]; People v. Talvo , G.R. No. 215340, July 13, 2016
<sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/215340.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
74. G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014, 732 SCRA 554 [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division].
75. Id. at 576-577.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com