Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L&epublit of Tbe Llbilippines Upreme Ourt: Flllanila
L&epublit of Tbe Llbilippines Upreme Ourt: Flllanila
~upreme ~ourt
;flllanila
THIRD DIVISION
CAGUIOA, Acting CJ ,*
Chairperson ,
INTING,
- versus - GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO,** and
SINGH,*** JJ.
ANTHONY DAVID y
MATAWARAN@ "ANTO", Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
June 21, 2023
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ \ ~~_?--}\_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
DECIS I ON
INTING, J.:
f)I
Decision 2 G.R. No. 260990
11, 5 Article II of Republic Act No. (Fj\) 9165 6 in Criminal Case Nos.
15095 and 15096, respectively.
The Antecedents
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
CONTRARY TO LA Vv'.8
million pesos ('Pl0,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person , who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense deliver, g ive away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a. broker in any of such transactions.
Section 11 . Possession of Dangerous Drugs. -- The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos ('P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
('Pl0,000,000.00) shall be imposed uron any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess
any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereofl .]
6
The Comprehensive Dangerous Dru gs Act of 2002, approved on June 7, 2002.
Records, Criminal Case No. 15095, pp. i -:!
Records, Criminal Case No. 15096, pp. 1-2.
Decision G.R. No . 260990
Trial ensued.
On August 16, 2015, Poiice Officer I Joey Santos (POl Santos) and
Senior Police Officer I Rommel Buduan (SPOI Buduan) were at their
office in Samal Municipal Police Station, Samal, Bataan, when a
confidential informant (CI) reported that accused-appellant was engaged
in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 10 PO 1 Santos and SPO 1 Buduan
brought the CI to their Chief of Police, Police Senior Inspector Alfredo
Escalada Solomon, Jr. (PSI Solomon), to relay the infonnation. PSI
Solomon then instructed Police Officer 3 Rodrigo Imperial (PO3 Imperial)
to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
Regional Office III for the conduct of a buy-bust operation against
accused-appellant. Thereafter, a buy-bust team was created wherein POI
Santos and SPOl Buduan were designated as the poseur-buyer and back-
up officer, respectively. PSI Solomon briefed POl Santos and SPOl
Buduan on how the buy-bust operation would be conducted. The CI was
also present during the briefing. PSI Solomon provided PO I Santos with
a P500.00 bill which would be used to buy "shabu" from accused-
appellant. POl Santos marked the P500.00 bill with "JCS," the initials of
his name. 11
After the briefing, the team proceeded to the target area. PO I Santos
and the CI met with the accused-appellant while SPO I Buduan positioned
himself around 20 meters away from the scene. 12 The CI introduced PO 1
Santos to accused-appellant, who immediately asked for payment. POI
Santos handed to accused-appellant the pre-marked P500.00 bill. In tum,
accused-appellant handed to PO 1 Santos a heat-sealed transparent sachet
of suspected shabu , PO I Santos placed the sachet in his right pocket. After
which, PO 1 Santos held the hand of accused-appellant and introduced
himself as a police officer. SPO 1 Buduan then rushed to the scene. PO l
Santos and SPOI Buduan introduced themselves to accused-appellant and
arrested him. 13
9
Rollo, p. I 0.
10
Id. at 12.
11
Id. at 30.
12
Id. at 12.
13 Id.
Decision G.R. No. 260990
After the arrest and body search, the police officers marked the
seized items. The sachet subject of the sale was marked as "JCS- I" and
the sachet recovered from the body search was marked as "JCS-2." 15
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the police station for the physical
inventory and photograph of the seized items. 16 The representatives from
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media, and an elected barangay
official witnessed the conduct of procedure as evidenced by their
signatures affixed to the Physical Inventory Receipt. 17 After the inventory,
POI Santos and SPOl Buciuan brought the two seized items to the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for analysis and examination.
Per Chemistry Report, the specimens submitted for examination tested
positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.18
They recorded the turnover and receipt of the items in the Chain of
Custody Receipt. 19
14
Id. at 13 .
is Id.
16 Id.
17
Records, Criminal Case No. 15095 , p. 17.
18
Rollo, p. 3 I.
19
Records, Criminal Case No . 15095, p. 21.
20
Rollo, p. 14.
Decision 5 G.R. No . 260990
why he was being arrested, the police officers said that it was because he
was selling dangerous drugs which accused-appellant strongly denied.
Thereafter, the police officers brought him to the police station and
showed him the illegal drugs allegedly recovered from him .21
In the Joint Decision 24 dated March 28, 2016, the RTC found
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections
5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove, with the
required quantum of proof, all the essential elements of Illegal Sale and
Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It ruled that the integrity of the
corpus delicti was preserved. It stressed that PO 1 Santos' narration of
what actually transpired on August 16, 2015 , from the moment the CI
disclosed the illegal activities of accused-appellant up to the time the latter
was arrested, deserves great respect and credence as coming directly from
a police officer who enjoys the presumption of regularity in the
performance of his duty. 25
21 Id.
22 Id.
23
ld . at l4-15.
24
Id . at 28-40.
25
Id. at 36.
f}1
Decision 6 G.R. No. 260990
26
Id. at 37.
27
Id. at 39-40.
28
Id. at 9-25.
Decision G.R. No. 260990
properly imposed by the RTC, m ?/.. :ccrdance with Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of RA 9165.
Jhe issue
Settled is the rule that the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti
in illegal drug cases. As such, the prosecution must "establish that the
substance illegally [sold and] possessed by the accused is the same
suhstance presented in court. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that
unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti." 29
The chain of custody rule "ensures that unnecessar; doubts concerning
the identity of the evidence are removed." 30
29
People v. Leana, 945 SCRA 444, 45 7 n ccO).
30 Id.
31
Entitled "An Act to Fu:ther Strengthen the Anti -Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for
rhe Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 , Otherwise Known as the 'Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 ,"' a~pimwl 0n July 15, 2014, and took effect on August 7, 2014.
Decision G.R. No. 260990
A reading of the provision provides that the inventory and the taking
of photographs of the seized items shall be performed in the presence of
the accused, or his or her representative or counsel, together with two
other insulating witnesses to wit: an elected public official and a
representative either from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
For warrantless seizures, the law fm1her requires that the inventory and
the taking of photographs be done at the place of seizure, or in the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable.
The Court emphasized that "ft_1o ensure the integrity of the seized
drug item, the prosecution 111 tisi: account for each link in its chain of
custody." 36 The following are the four t~nks in the chain of custody: "first,
the seizure and marking ofth~ i!lcgal c!rug 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 fcurth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court." 37 The
chain of custody arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic "that
renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering,
alteration or substitution, either by accident or otherwise." 38
As a rule, in case of any deviation from the rules and before the
prosecution can invoke the saving clause, two requisites must concur: (i)
35
Id. The Court ruled:
In People v. Tubera [853 Phil. 142 (2(,1 Y)], tl1e prosecution did not even attempt to explain why it
was impracticable to conduct the in"entory and taking of photographs at the place of seizure, which
led the Court to acquit therein accused.
xxxx
xx x [l]n People v. Safenga [919 SCR.6.. 342 (20 l 9)] where the police officers simply gave a flimsy
excuse that the crowd was getting bigger at the place 0t seizure; hence. it was treated by the Cou11
-as an invalid reason for them to conduct the invc;nory at the nearest police station.
36
People v. leano, supra note 29.
37
Id. at 457-458.
38
People v. Alcira, G.R. No. 242831 , fo11e 72. 2022, citing People v. Tripoli, 810 Phil. 788, 797
(2017) .
39
576 Phil. 576 (2008).
40
Id. at 587.
Decision G.R. No . 260990
"the existence of 'justifiable gi"o 11nds' iillowing departure from the rule on
strict compliance;" 41 and (ii) .;th~ integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly pre~ervcd by the apprehending team." 42
41
People v. Casa, G.R. No . 254208, Augu~t i6 , 2022.
4
" Id.
43 TSN dated September 21 , 2015 , p. 1•'.l. Sec ;-il so Sinu111puang Sulaysay, records at 8-11.
44
Supra note .
45 Id.
46
G.R. No. 250927 , November 29, 2022.
47 Id.
Decision il G.R. No. 260990
xxxx
xxxx
Q: After that what happened next, when you received the sachet
of "shabu" and after Euctu8-n handcuffed the accused?
A: I freezed "Anto" and ~hat is the time I was able to recover
another plastic sachet of "shabu" from his possession and a
cellphone ma'am.
Q: So where did yo1_;_ place the other sachet of "shabu" that you
confiscated after you frisked the accused?
A: In my left pocket ma'am.
Q: In what place did you mark the two (2) sachets of "shabu"?
A: In the place of th~ operation ma'am. 48
xxxx
Q: So you mean to say there were only 2 plastic sachets
recovered, one is tlie buy bust plastic sachet and the other one
is as a result of yom rrotectivc search?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where did you put the plastic sachet you were able to buy
from the accused?
A: In my right pocket, sir.
48
TSN dated September 21 , 2015, pp. 8-9.
(!}
Decision 12 G.R. No. 260990
A: No, sir. [T]he plas 1.1,: ::c1:.:it~t which was taken from his
possession I placed it in my right pocket, and the plastic sachet
which was the subj ~c1. of tht: hey bust operation I placed it in
my left pocket, and after n 1~: ~ccused was handcuffed that's the
time I took the plastic Sct•~·l1et and I put initials in it, sir.
xxx x
Q: And why did you not mark those plastic sachets before you
kept them in your pocket?
A: Because we were still arresting Anton during that time, sir.
Q: During the briefing did you show the contents of your pocket
with your fellow offi cer~?
A: Not anymore, sir.
Q: So who can attest that when you put those 2 plastic sachets
in your pocket, your pocket was indeed empty?
A: I myself, sir. 49
xxxx
49
TSN dated October 5. 2015 , pp. 8- 9.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 260990
Q: He did not?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you asked [sic] him to show the contents of his pocket?
A: No, sir.
Q: So, you are not sure whether or not there were other items
inside the pocket of Officer Santos?
A: Yes, sir_:,o
Time and again, the Court has ruled that keeping the seized items in
the pockets is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of
the items; that a police officer's act of bodily-keeping the confi~cated
50
TSN dated November 9, 2015 . pp. 5-7.
Decision 14 G.R. No . 260990
items, which are the subject ,1f th;:;, offenses penalized under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Dri:igs A!_'t of '.2002, is fraught with dangers. 51
The Court previously held faat, 'lailure to mark the drugs immediately
after they were seized from the ,:1,;cu,r,rx;,' casts doubt on the prosecution
evidence warranting an acquirtal on rea';onable doubt. " 52 Because of the
failure in immediately marking the ~.eized items, it creates a scenario
wherein the seized item subjec~ of the sale transaction was switched with
the seized items subject of the iliegal possession case. 53 The immediate
marking of the drugs after they are seized from the accused is material in
the determination of the imposable penalty as the illegal possession of
shabu depends on the quantity or weight of the seized drug. 54
xxxx
Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest
in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the
integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding that
PO 1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless,
if not dubious.
51
See People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 834-835 (20 14).
52
People v. Asaytuno, 867 Phil. I 84, 206(20 19).
53
People v. Maca-Ayong, G.R. No. 247622 (Not ic~), September 14, 2022, citing Section I l. A1iicle
II of RA 9165 , as amended.
54 Id.
55
Supra note.
f)1
Decision G.R. No. 260990
of Appeals both failed to see th.rough th is and fell - hook, line, and
sinker - for PO 1 Bobon's 3.V,YN~l~: is mind-boggling.
Third. The prosecution failed to account for the trans for of the seized
illegal drugs from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. In
the second link, the police officer who seizes the suspected item turns it
over to a supervising officer, who will thereafter send it for testing to the
police crime laboratory.6 1 "This is a necessary step in the chain of custody
because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper
investigation and prepare the necessary documents for developing the
criminal case." 62 It follows therefrom that the investigating officer must
have possession of the illegal drugs for the preparation of the required
documents.63
56
Id . at 636-637.
s; Nisperos v. People, supra note 45.
ss Id .
59 Id .
60 Id .
61 Eugenio v. People, G.R. No . 25352(, 1Notice), NllVember 11 , 202 l, citing People v. Amorin, G.R.
No. 224884 (Notice), December 10 , ](_,Ic,, fu,iher citing People v. Dahii, 750 Phil. ?.12, 235(2015 ).
62 Id.
63 Id.
Decision G.R. No. 260990
was the one who brought the two pbstis sachets of suspected shabu to the
crime laboratory for examirwxirn1,s 4 as ev idenced by the Chain of Custody
Receipt. 65 In other words, the seiz~~d i1ems were personally submitted by
POI Santos himself, as the se1zi1·1g ofiicer, to Police Senior Inspector
Maria Cecilia Gonzales Tang (P/Irrsp . T~.ng), the forensic chemist, for a
laboratory examination. Clculy, there was no turnover made by the
seizing or arresting officer to the investigating officer. Notably, this casts
doubt on the integrity of the seized items.
64
TSN dated September 21 , 20 15, pp. 12- 13.
65
Records, Crim in al Case No. 15096, p. ::'. i
66
Records, Crim inal Case No. 15095, µ. 39.
67 Id .
68
People 1,: Casa, supra note 41.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 260990
and (4) the maru1er of handling and storage of the specimens before,
during, and after the chemic-al ex ,w in,:-:ti:m. 69 The records are bereft of
1
In People v. Dahil, 71 tht Court a.cquitted the accused therein for the
lack of testimony by the forensic chcrnist regarding the handling of the
drug specimen submitted to her for laboratory examination. Similarly, in
People 1~ Miranda, 72 the Court 3.cquitted the accused citing the incomplete
stipulation of the forensic chemist's proposed testimony.
SO ORDERED.
HEN
WE CONCUR:
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion o