l&epublit of tbe llbilippines

~upreme ~ourt
;flllanila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 260990

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintijf-Appellee, Present:

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.:

Before the Court is an appeal I filed by Anthony David y Matawaran

@ "A nto" (accused-appellant) assailing the Decision2 dated June 11, 2021 ,
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11256. The CA
affirmed the Joint Decision 3 dated March 28, 2016, of Branch 1, Regional
Trial Corni (RTC), Balanga City, Bataan that found accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 4 and

Per Special Order No. 2980 dated June I\ 2023 .

•• On offic ial business.
*** On officia l business .
Rollo, pp . 3-5 , Notice of Appeal.
Id. at 9-25. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Ju stices
Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Carlito B. Ca lpatura.
Id. at 28-40. Penned by Assisting Judge Gener M. Gito.
Section 5. Sale. Trading, Administration. Dispensation, Delive1J; Distribution and Ti ·ansparlalion
o_f Dangerous Drugs and/ or Controlled Precursors and £sseniia! Chemicals. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ran g ing from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500 ,000 .00) to Ten

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

The case stemmed from two separate Informations charging

accused-appellant with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs. The accusatory portion of the Information charging accused-
appellant with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs reads:

Criminal Case No. 15095

(for Violation of Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165)

That on or about August 16, 2015 , in Sama!, Bataan, Philippines,

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully sell , distribute
and give away to another one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet
containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as
"shabu", weighing ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE ZERO FOUR (0 .0504)
GRAM, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

While the separate Information charging accused-appellant with

Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs reads:

Criminal Case No . 15096

(for Violation of Section 11, Art. II of RA 9165)

That on or about August 16, 2015, in Sama!, Bataan, Philippines,

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully has in his
possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly
known as "shabu", weighing ZERO POINT ZERO SIX FOUR EIGHT
(0.0648) GRAM, a dangerous drug.

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

Upon arraignment, ac~used-~ppeilant pleaded "not guilty" to the

charges. 9

Trial ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

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

SPOl Buduan handcuffed accused-appellant while POI Santos

frisked him. They recovered frorn him another sachet of suspected shabu
and the buy-bust money. Then, PO l Santos placed the items he recovered
in his left pocket. 14

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

SPO 1 Buduan corroborated PO l Santos' testimony. On cross-

examination, he stated that PO 1 Santos did not show him the insides of
his pockets prior to the buy -bust operation; thus, he had no way of
knowing if there were other contents in PO 1 Santos' pockets when the
seized sachets of suspected shabu were placed therein. 20

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant denied the charges. He testified that on August

16, 2015, at around 12 o'clock in the afternoon, he was driving his tricycle
when three police officers blocked his way. He recognized one of the
police officers as SPOl Buduan, who was once his basketball playmate.
When he stopped and alighted from his tricycle, the police officers
immediately handcuffed and f~·iske d him. When accused-appellant asked

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

On cross-examination, accused-appellant narrated that he was

brought to the police station on board his own tricycle together with the
police officers. At the police station, the police officers took out the plastic
sachets of suspected shabu, and thereafter, took photographs of him with
the plastic sachets. Accused-appellant alleged that there were other
persons present at the police station, but he could only recognize the
barangay official. He consistently denied that the dangerous drugs were
seized from him .22

Fernando David, accused-appellant's father, testified that on

August 16, 2015, he was at home when his son sent him a text message
informing him about the arrest of accused-appellant, his youngest son.
Immediately, he went to the police station where accused-appellant was
being held. According to him, he was at first prevented from talking to
accused-appellant, but eventually, he was allowed to see him. Further, he
testified that he knew the police officers who arrested accused-appellant
as he would usually see them in the mayor's house who happened to be
their neighbor.23

The Ruling of the RTC

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

As to the charge oflllegul Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the RTC

held that another plastic sachet of "shabu" marked as Exhibit "N" was
recovered from accused-appellant as a r.:::sult of a search incidental to a
lawful arrest. It ruled that it was cc;nvinced that the prosecution presented
proof beyond reasonable do~bt that Exhibit "N" which was recovered
from accused-appellant was the same "shabu" confiscated, examined, and
presented in court as evidence. 26

The dispositive portion 0f the Joint Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in vi~w of the foregoing, the accused is found

GUILTY [BEYOND] REASONABLE DOUBT:

a. For violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.

9165 in Criminal Case No. 15095 and is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT without
eligibility for parole and to PAY the fine of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00).

b. For violation of Section 11 , Article II of Republic Act No.

9165 in Criminal Case No. 15096 and is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of FIFTEEN (1 5)
YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY as minimum to TWENTY
YEARS (20) YEARS as maximum without eligibility for
parole and to pay the fine of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000 .00)[.]

SO ORDERED.27 (Emphasis omitted)

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision, 28 the CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the

RTC declaring that the prosecution was able to discharge the burden of
proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As to the
penalty imposed, the CA ruled that the penalty of life imprisonment with
a fine for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the penalty of imprisonment
of fifteen ( 15) years and one ( 1) day as minimum with a fine for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, both without eligibility for parole, were

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.

Hence, the present appee1l .

Jhe issue

The core issue for the Courf s consideration is whether accused-

appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drng::; .

Th2 Courts Ruling

The appeal has merit.

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

Accused-appellant wr.s charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal

Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA
9165 committed on August 16, 2015. Well-settled is the rule that in drug
cases, the prosecution must sufficiently show that the rule on the chain of
custody embodied in Section 21 of the law, as amended by RA 10640,31
has been properly observed. Section 21 reads:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,

and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Jnstruments/Paraphernalic and/or Lahoratory Equipment. - The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicais, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following 1n8nner:

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

1. The apprehending .:can, hcvi,1g initial custody and control of the

dangerous drugs, ctntrdleti prc,~msors and essential chemicals,
instruments/parapr1ernc1hc1 s.:r:d/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after sei2:.t:F? 2.!lCl confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized itnm and photograph the same in the
presence of the accu::;~rJ -.:,r the rerson/s from whom such items
were confiscated J.□ J/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected puhlic official and a representative of
the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be re-
quired 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, finally , That noncompliance
of 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 ir.valid such seizures and custody over said
items.

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.

To stress, the operative phrase in the provision regarding the place

of conduct of inventory and taking of photographs is "whichever is
practicable" 32 which means that the police officers have the option to
conduct the process in the nearest police station, and not on the actual site
of seizure provided that: ( 1) it is not practicable to conduct the process at
the place of seizure; or (2) the items seized are threatened by immediate
or extreme danger at the place of seizure. 33

In People v Taglucop, 34 the Court mentioned cases where it

acquitted the persons charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs for the failure of the prosecution to provide an

32 People v. Taglucop, G .R. No. 243S"i' , ''v!,E·:h 15, 20:22.

33
Id.
34 Id.
Decision G.R. No. 260990

acceptable explanation for il:s nc,n---:.:ompliance with the required

procedure.35

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

In Mallillin v. People, 39 the Court explained the importance of the

chain of custody in this wise:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody

rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to suppo1i a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would mclude testimony about every link
in the chain, from the mom~nt the item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a \vay that every person ·..vho touched the
exhibit would describe ho·.v and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened t::i 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. 40

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

The instant case clearly sr:ffers from infirmities with regard to

compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165:

First. The inventory and taking of photographs happened in the

police station and not in the place of seizure. 43 The police officers did not
provide any justifiable reason to excuse them from conducting the
inventory and taking of photographs of the seized illegal drugs in the place
of seizure. Verily, this lack of explanation is fatal to the prosecution's
cause.

In the recent case of People v. Casa (Casa), 44 the Court En Banc

stressed that in general, the conduct of inventory and the taking of
photographs of seized items must be accomplished immediately at the
place of arrest or seizure. There, the Court En Banc discussed that the
buy-bust team would be justified to conduct the inventory at the nearest
police station or office only in the following instances: (i) where the law
enforcers would be placed in dangerous situations, like retaliatory action
of drug syndicates; or (ii) where the seized items or any person involved
in the operation are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the
place of seizure. In other words, the general rule is that the law enforcers
must conduct the inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized
items at the place of arrest or seizure. The application of the exception to
the rule must be satisfactorily explained by the law enforcers based on the
instances cited in Casa. 45

In Nisperos v. People, 46 the Court reminded that in case of any

deviation from the rules, it is imperative that the prosecution positively
acknowledge the same and prove the following: (1) justifiable ground/s
for non-compliance; and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item/s. 47

Second. The prosecution fai1ed to establish beyond reasonable doubt

that the illegal drugs presented in court were the same illegal drugs that

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

were actually seized from acr.:'...lsed-c=:pµ,~lLmt. Worth stressing is the fact

that POI Santos immediately placed the seized plastic sachets in his
pockets even before they "vVCr-;:; m.'lrked. POl Santos' testimony on
September 21, 2015 reads:

xxxx

Q: And after he gave you the "shabu" what happened next?

A: I first place the "shabu" in my right pocket ma'am.

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: And what happened after that?

A: There after we marked the items that we have recovered
from his possessicn r.Ja' am.

Q: In what place did you mark the two (2) sachets of "shabu"?
A: In the place of th~ operation ma'am. 48

Further, on October 5, 2015, POI Santos testified as follows:

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.

Q: How about the 2.~: plastic sachet?

A: Left pocket, sir.

Q: And before you tJUt those 2 plastic sachets in your pocket,

did you marked [sh:] it?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And that was before you put them in your pocket?

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: So if those 2 plastic sachets were unmarked when you put

them inside your pocket, how can you convince this Hon. Court
that it was not switch inside your pocket?
A: Because I placed them in my different pocket, the subject of
the buy bust I placed it in my left pocket, and the subject of
possession I placed it in my right pocket, sir.

Q: If those sachets were unmarked how can we be sure that it is

still the same sachets you recovered from the accused?
A: Because my pocket[ s] have no contents during that time,
only those 2 confiscated plastic sachets, 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

It cannot go unnoticed lhat PO 1 Santos himself was confused when

he first testified that he placed the plastic sachet subject of the buy -bust
operation in his right pocket while the other plastic sachet subject of the
protective search he placed ir. his left pocket. However, during the hearing
on October 5, 2015, POI Santos recalled differently and testified that he
placed the plastic sachet recovered from accused-appellant during the
buy-bust operation in his left pocket while the one subject of the search
was placed in his right pocket.

When SPO 1 Buduan testified, he also gave a different version as to

which pocket the seized plastic sachets were placed, viz:

xxxx

Q: And when Offic c·r ~:mtos conducted his protective search

where did he put the item specimen subject of the buy bust?

49
TSN dated October 5. 2015 , pp. 8- 9.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 260990

A: The plastic sachet v: hi!.: 1.·1 he was able to purchased [sic]

placed it in his rigbt ~:ide pocket 2nd the subject in possession
he placed it on his left pocket. sir.

Q: Then after he pock-:ted d10:,;e LWO items what happened next?

A: We already har:dcui'fcd t}1f: accused, sir and then after, the
evidences [sic] were aga;r! brolight out for the markings and the
markings were done, sir.

Q: To clarify, those two piastic sachets it was [sic] put in the

pocket of Officer Santos 1
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And those two plastic sachets were identical, is it not?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: They are of the same size?

A: Yes, sir.

Q : They are approximately the same contents?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: The same color'!

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And Mr. witness, before Officer Santos pocketed those two

plastic sachets did be shown [sic] to you or demonstrated the
contents of his pocket'?
A: Because when we approached them, sir where the
transaction happened he immediately showed to us, to me, the
item he purchased before he placed it on his pocket.

Q: Yes, but my question is did he shown [sic] to you the

contents of his pocket before he place [sic] those two plastic
sachets in his pocket?
A: No, sir.

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

In People v. Asaytuno, 55 the Court ratiocinated as follows:

The prosecution's recollection of how P02 Limbauan

"pocketed" the sachet supposedly sold to him fails to assuage doubts.
People v. Dela Cruz concerned a similar situation where, after sachets
were supposedly taken from the accused, a police officer claimed to
have kept those sachets in his pockets. Dela Cruz decried such a
manner of handling as "fraught with dangers[,]" "reckless, if not
dubious[,]" and ''a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the
integrity of the items":

The circumstance of PO 1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own

pockets precisely underscores the importance of strictly complying
with Section 21. His sub·-;eyuent identification in open court of the
items coming out of his O'.h/11 pockets is self-serving.

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.

Even without refen-ing to the strict requirements of Section 21 ,

common sense dictates that a single police officer ' s act of bodily-
keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Art of 2002, is fraught with dangers.
One need not engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the
requirements of Section 21 l\1 view with distrust the items coming out
of PO 1 Bobon 's pockets. T!:at the Regional Trial Court and the Court

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.

Moreover, POI Bobon die sc without even offering the slightest

justification for dispensing w;111 fri~~ requirements of Section 21 . 56
(Citation omitted)

Similarly, the act of PO 1 Santos in immediately placing the seized

plastic sachets in his pockets even before the items were marked is a fatal
deviation from the required procedure. As the Court ruled in Nisperos,
"[m]arking is the first stage in the chain of custody which serves to
separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other simi lar or
related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until they are
disposed of at the end of the crirninal proceedings." 57 This prevents
switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.58 While the rule on
marking is not found in statute, Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.
1, series of 2002, requires that the seized item/s be properly marked for
identification. 59 Likewise, the PDEA Guidelines on the IRR of Section 21
of RA 9165 require that the apprehending or seizing officer mark the
seized item/s immediately upon seizure and confiscation. 60

Again, PO 1 Santos did not provide a reasonable explanation as to

why he dispensed with the requlrements of Section 21.

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

However, in the case, there was no turnover made by the seizing or

arresting officer to the investjgating officer. POI Santos testified that he

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.

Fourth. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs

from the forensic chemist to the court were not shown. Significantly, to
abbreviate the proceedings, the parties merely entered into general
stipulations on P/Insp. Tang's testimony: 66

1. The qualification, competence, and expertise of the PINSP Ma. Ce-

cilia Tang as Forensic Chemist;
2. That she examined the specimen subject matter of this case with
markings "JCS -1" and ''JCS -2";
3. The existence and due execution of the Chemistry Report D-274-
15 Bataan;
4. The existence [sic] due execution and authenticity of Laboratory
Examination dated August 16, 2015 for the examination of speci-
men subject matter of this case with markings "JCS- I" and "JCS-
2"·
'
5. That POI Joey Santos delivered the specimen to the PNP Crime
Laboratory with markings "JCS -1" and "JCS -2" and the same was
received by PO2 Carbone! together with Maria Cecilia Tang;
6. That Ma. Cecilia Tang will identify the specimen with markings
"JCS-1" and "JCS-2" as the same specimen she examined and she
and PO2 Carbone! received from POI Joey Santos.67

While stipulations regarding prosecution witnesses are allowed,

these stipulations must be co1t1plete and establish that the seized items'
integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. 68

In the case, the stipulatiou made is not sufficient to establish the

fourth link as nothing was mentioned regarding the following: ( l) the
condition of the specimens when P/Insp. Tang received them; (2) the
description of the method uti 1ize<l in analyzing the chemical composition
of the drug samples; (3) whether she resealed the specimens after
examination of the content and placed her own marking on the drug 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

evidence showing that P/In~p. 'fang tock precautionary measures after

examination of the seized drug itern s to preserve their integrity and
evidentiary value. 70

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.

It is worth stressing that "while the law enforcers

enjoy the presumption of regularity in the perfonnance of their duties, this
presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to
be presumed innocent." 73 To stress, the presumption of regularity cannot
by itself constitute proof of guiit beyond reasonable doubt. 74 This is
disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 75 Thus, when the law
enforcers' perfonnance of duties is tainted with irregularities, the
presumption is effectively destroyed, 76 as in this case.

All told, the prosecution's failure to establish with moral ce1iainty

the identity and the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs
allegedly seized from accused-appellant creates reasonable doubt as to
whether these illegal drugs were the same drugs presented in court.
Without a doubt, this compromises the identity, integrity, and evidentiary
value of the corpus delicti of the offenses charged.

Therefore, in view of the non-compliance with the required

procedure, it necessitates the acquittal of accused-appellant from both
charges. Corollary, the Court need not anymore delve into the validity of
the buy-bust operation as raised by accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, the appe8.l ts GRANTED. The Decision dated

June 11, 2021, of the Court o:A.. ppe::ds in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11256 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDI?. 1~_ccordingly, accused-appellant Anthony

69 People v. Fandialan, G.R. No. 254Ll I :2 , July 6, :? 022 .

70 Id.
71
750 Phi l. 212(2015).
72 856Phil.339(2019).
73
People v. Padua, 938 SCRA 61, 69 i::: u'20).
74 ld.
75 Id.
76 Id .
Decision 18 G.R. No. 260990

David y Matawaran @ "Anto" is ACQUITTED of violation of Sections

5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful
cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director General ,

Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation.
Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is
DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5)
days from receipt of this Decision.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.

HEN

WE CONCUR:

iiMU~ Associate Justice

(On official business)
JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO
Associate Justice

(On official business)

MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
Associate Justice
Decision 19 G.R. No. 260990

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

Per Special O der No. 2980 dated June 15, 2023