Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff-Appellee Accused-Appellant: People of The Philippines, Monir Jaafar Y Tambuyong
Plaintiff-Appellee Accused-Appellant: People of The Philippines, Monir Jaafar Y Tambuyong
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
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
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.
42. Id. at 65-75. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Danilo M. Bucoy of
Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Isabela City, Basilan.
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].
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.