FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 243796, September 08, 2020 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROWENA BUNIEL Y

RAMOS AND ROWENA SIMBULAN Y ENCARNADO, ACCUSED,

ROWENA BUNIEL Y RAMOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

RESOLUTION

LOPEZ, J.:

For consideration of this Court is the Decision[1] dated May 31, 2017 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08192, which affirmed in toto the Joint Decision[2]
dated March 16, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 of the City of Manila, in
Criminal Case Nos. 12-291642 and 12-291643, finding the accused-appellant Rowena
Buniel y Ramos (in Criminal Case No. 12-291642) guilty of violation of Section 5, [3]
Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.[4]
ANTECEDENTS

Rowena Buniel y Ramos a.k.a "Weng” and Rowena Simbulan y Encarnado were
separately charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs,
respectively, in two informations that read:

Criminal Case No. 12-291642

Illegal sale of dangerous drugs

The undersigned accuses ROWENA BUNIEL y RAMOS (a) "WENG" of a violation of

Section 5, Article II [RA No.] 9165, committed as follows:

That on or about May 30, 2012 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute any
dangerous drug did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer
for sale to a police officer/poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet marked as "TK" containing ZERO POINT ONE ZERO EIVE (0.105)
 gram of white crystalline substance known as "shabu", which after a qualitative
examination gave positive result to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[5] (Emphasis in the original.)

Criminal Case No. 12-291643

Illegal possession of dangerous drugs

The undersigned accuses ROWENA SIMBULAN y ENCARNADO of a violation of

Section 11(3), Article II, [RA No.] 9165. committed as follows:

That on or about May 30, 2012, in the City of Manila Philippines, the said accused,
not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody
and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "TK1"
containing ZERO POINT ONE FOUR ZERO (0.140) gram of white crystalline
substance commonly known as "shabu", which after a qualitative examination
gave positive result to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[6] (Emphasis in the original.)

The two cases were consolidated.[7] On June 21, 2012, both accused were arraigned
and they pleaded not guilty to their respective charges.[8] Joint trial then ensued.

The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 2 Dennis Reyes as witness. Meanwhile,
the parties agreed to stipulate on the testimony of forensic chemist Police Chief
Inspector (PCI) Elisa G. Reyes (PCI Reyes), [9] PO3 Archie Bernabe (PO3 Bernabe), [10]
PO3 John Alfred Taruc (PO3 Taruc), [11] PO3 Modesto Bornel, Jr. (PO3 Bornel), [12] PO3
Christopher Palapal (PO3 Palapal)[13] and Rene Crisostomo.[14]
The version of the prosecution is that, in the afternoon of May 30, 2012, a confidential
informant arrived at the Manila Police District (MPD), District Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special
Task Group (DAID-SOTG) and reported that he made a deal with a certain Weng for the
delivery of sample shabu worth P1,000.00.[15] According to the informant, he agreed to
meet with Weng at Tiago Street corner Karapatan Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila at 10:00
p.m. of the same day.[16] With this information, the DAID-SOTG organized a buy-bust
operation composed of Police Inspector Eduardo Vito Pama, PO2 Reyes, PO3 Taruc,
PO3 Bornel and PO3 Palapal.[17] During the briefing, PO2 Reyes was designated as the
poseur-buyer.[18] He was provided with the buy-bust money, a 1000-peso [19] bill, which
he marked with his initials "DR." [20] Meanwhile, PO3 Taruc prepared the Authority to
Operate[21] and Pre-Operation Report,[22] and the team coordinated with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency.[23]
At about 9:30 p.m., the buy-bust team and the informant went to Tiago Street corner
Karapatan Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila to conduct the buy-bust. They arrived at around
10:00 p.m.[24] PO3 Taruc, Bornel and Palapal alighted from the vehicle first and
strategically positioned themselves at about 15-20 meters from the area. [25] PO2 Reyes
and the informant alighted next and they proceeded to the agreed place.[26]
At that time, there were no people around and it was drizzling. [27] After a while, PO2
Reyes saw two women coming from Tiago Street.[28] The informant whispered to PO2
Reyes that the small woman sporting short hair and wearing walking shorts and t-shirt
was Weng.[29] The informant approached Weng and they conversed briefly. [30]
Meanwhile, Weng's companion was standing about two meters away from them and
observing them.[31] Then, the informant introduced PO2 Reyes to Weng as the buyer of
sample shabu.[32] Weng said "akin na po," referring to the payment for the shabu, to
which PO2 Reyes handed her the buy-bust money.[33] Weng placed the money in her
right pocket, took out from the same pocket a small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, and gave it to PO2 Reyes.[34] Upon receipt of the sachet, PO2
Reyes removed his bull cap, which was the pre-arranged signal that the sale was
consummated.[35] The back-up team rushed to the area. PO2 Reyes searched Weng
and recovered from her right pocket the buy-bust money. [36] Next, he frisked Weng's
companion and recovered from her a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance.[37] As rain poured, the team decided to proceed to the police station.[38]
At the MPD DAID-SOTG office, Weng was identified as accused Buniel and her
companion, Simbulan. In the presence of Rene Crisostomo, a member of the media
connected with tabloid Remate,[39] PO2 Reyes marked the plastic sachet subject of the
sale with "TK,"' and the sachet recovered from Simbulan with "TK1." [40] PO2 Reyes
conducted the inventory[41] and prepared the Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized[42] and
the Chain of Custody Form.[43] Meanwhile, PO3 Bernabe took photographs.[44] He also
prepared the Requests for Inquest[45] and Laboratory Examination,[46] and Booking
Sheets and Arrest Report.[47] Thereafter, PO2 Reyes turned over the plastic sachets and
buy-bust money to PO3 Bernabe.[48]
PO3 Bernabe brought the specimens and the request for laboratory examination to the
crime laboratory,[49] and were received by forensic chemist PCI Reyes. [50] PCI Reyes
conducted qualitative examination on the two specimens and found the contents
positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu.”[51] She reduced
her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-443-12.[52] Thereafter, PCI Reyes presented the
specimens to the prosecutor and the defense counsel. After, she turned them over to
the prosecution for safekeeping.[53]
For the defense, only Buniel testified. She denied the charges and claimed that on May
30, 2012, she went to Simbulan's house to pick-up blood sugar strips for her mother.
About 8:00 p.m., Simbulan accompanied her along Tiago Street to get a ride home
when three men on board a van arrived. The men forced her and Simbulan to get on the
car and they were brought to the MPD DAID-SOTG where they were investigated,
mauled and forced to admit to selling dangerous drugs. Buniel averred that the police
officers told her that they will cooperate with her in exchange for P300,000.00. [54]
On March 16, 2016, the trial court rendered a decision convicting Buniel of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs and acquitting Simbulan of illegal possession. [55] The trial court found
all the elements of the crime of illegal sale present and that the prosecution proved an
unbroken chain of custody of the drugs. However, the court was not convinced on the
guilt of Simbulan as the alleged look-out and co-conspirator in the drug deal.

Aggrieved, Buniel filed an appeal to the CA.[56]

On May 31, 2017, the CA affirmed Buniel's conviction. [57] The CA found that the
prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Illegal Sale of shabu.
Most importantly, the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
The CA found the explanation of PO2 Reyes that they were already wet from the rain,
thus, they decided to conduct the marking and inventory at the police station, justifiable.
Further, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO2 Reyes were
inconsequential and had no bearing on the prosecution's cause. Also, that only
Crisostomo witnessed the inventory-taking and did not present proof of his identity was
not fatal because the parties stipulated on Crisostomo's testimony that he signed the
Receipt of Inventory of Property/Evidence Seized as member of the media. Neither did
the CA find the failure of the prosecution to present the original of the buy-bust money
detrimental to the prosecution's case. The CA pointed out that neither law nor
jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. It
was sufficient that the sale of the dangerous drug was adequately proven and that the
corpus delicti was presented in court.

Hence, this appeal.[58] Accused-appellant and the People manifested that they will no
longer file their respective Supplemental Briefs, taking into account the thorough
discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before the CA.[59]
RULING

We acquit.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the prosecution bears not only the burden of
proving the elements of the crime, but also of proving the corpus delicti – the dangerous
drug itself. The identity of the dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable
doubt.[60] Such proof requires an unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug
presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him
in the first place.[61] It is thus crucial for the prosecution to establish the unbroken chain
of custody of the seized item.

Section 21(1) of RA No. 9165, the law applicable at the time of the commission of the
crime,[62] outlines the procedure that police officers must adhere to maintain the integrity
of the confiscated evidence, viz.:

(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.

Specifically, Article II, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA
No. 9165 enumerates the procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers to
confirm the chain of custody:

(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;

The law and implementing rules mandate that the physical inventory and photographing
of the seized items must be in the presence of the accused and the following insulating
witnesses: (1) a representative from the media; (2) the Department of Justice (DOJ);
and (3) any elected public official, who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy.[63]
However, in earlier cases, we clarified that the deviation from the standard procedure in
Section 21 will not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and
invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (1) there is justifiable
ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved.[64] The prosecution must explain the reasons behind the
procedural lapses and must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
evidence had been preserved.[65] In People v. Ramos,[66] this Court explained that in
case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the
prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the
fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render
the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a
showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses
under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held
that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives
were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were
employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded
as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious
attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for
noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are
ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the
information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare
for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements
beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set
procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled
not only to state reasons for their noncompliance, but must in fact, also convince the
Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that
under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. (Emphasis in the original:
citation omitted.)

Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the
preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. [67] In People v.
Caray,[68] we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any
acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain
of custody rule. Similarly, in Matabilas v. People,[69] sheer statements of unavailability of
the insulating witnesses, without actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify
non-compliance.

In this case, there is no showing that the marking and inventory were done in the
presence of the three insulating witnesses. The first and second photographs submitted
in evidence only show PO2 Reyes marking the plastic sachets in the presence of
accused-appellant and Simbulan; while the third photograph, the buy-bust money and
the marked plastic sachets.[70] That the marking and inventory were done without the
insulating witnesses, is evident in the testimony of Crisostomo, who is a kagawad of
another barangay and a media practitioner, that "he did not see the two (2) accused
when he signed the inventory[.]"[71]
And, even if Crisostomo was present, he signed in the inventory as a member of the
media.[72] In the Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized, Crisostomo is the lone signatory.
[73]
Meanwhile, the police officers did not explain the absence of a representative from
the DOJ and another elected public official.[74] To be sure, there was no earnest effort,
nay attempt, on the part of the buy-bust team to comply with the law and its
implementing rules.

It cannot also escape our attention that it was a certain "PO2 J Rodriguez" who received
the request for laboratory examination on the two specimens from PO2 Bernabe at
23:35 of May 30, 2012,[75] and not PCI Reyes as claimed by the prosecution. The
stipulated testimony of PCI Reyes failed to show how "PO2 J Rodriguez" turned-over
the items to her and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimens was
preserved, viz.:

The prosecution and the defense also stipulated on the following as regards PCI Elisa
G. Reyes and her testimony:

2.) On May 30, 2012, PCI Elisa G. Reyes received from PO3 Archie Bernabe a letter
request for laboratory examination dated May 30, 2012 x x x requesting for the
conduct of laboratory examination on two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets with markings TK and TK1 already marked as Exhibits B-1 to "B-2";

3.) Upon receipt of the letter request for laboratory examination as well as the
specimens. PCI Reyes conducted a laboratory examination;

xxxx
 6. ) PCI Elisa G. Reyes will be able to identify the request for laboratory examination,
chemistry report, and the specimens.

7. ) Due execution, existence, and authenticity of the documents i.e. request for
laboratory examination and the chemistry report.

8. ) PCI Reyes presented the specimens as well as the request for laboratory
examination to the prosecutor and to the defense counsel and were turned over to
the prosecution for safekeeping purposes and were shown to the defense counsel
and;

9. ) PCI Reyes has no personal knowledge with regard to the actual source of the
specimens.[76]
In People v. Pajarin,[77] this Court ruled that in ease the parties agreed to dispense with
the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the
forensic chemist would have testified that he had taken the precautionary steps required
to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the
forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2)
that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own
marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. [78]
Here, the stipulations do not reflect the manner of handling the drugs (1) after "PO2 J
Rodriquez" received the items from PO3 Bernabe; (2) when he turned them over to PCI
Reyes; and (3) after PCI Reyes completed his qualitative examination and before they
were presented in court. It was simply declared that PCI Reyes received the specimens
from PO3 Bernabe and after examination, she presented the specimens to the
prosecutor and the defense counsel. We stress that in order that the seized items may
be considered credible, the prosecution must show, by records or testimony, the
continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, 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 the witness' possession; the condition in which it was received and the
condition it was delivered to the next link in the chain.[79] Such is not the case here.

Finally, the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty applies only when
nothing in the record suggest that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct
of official duty required by law. [80] It is not conclusive and it cannot, by itself, overcome
the constitutional presumption of innocence. Thus, any taint of irregularity, as in this
case, affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. [81]
Time and again, we emphasize that while zealousness on the part of law enforcement
agencies in the pursuit of drug peddlers is indeed laudable, it is of paramount
importance that the procedures laid down by law be complied with. The breaches in the
procedure provided in Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 committed by police officers
and left unexplained by the State, militate against the conviction of accused-appellant
beyond reasonable doubt, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had
been compromised.

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision
dated May 31, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08192 is REVERSED. Rowena Buniel y
Ramos is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 12-291642 and is ORDERED
IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is being lawfully held for
another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the Correctional

Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. The
Superintendent is likewise ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five days from
receipt of this Resolution the action that has been undertaken.

SO ORDERED.

Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Gaerlan,* JJ., concur

*
Per raffle dated June 29, 2020.

[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-27; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Victoria Isabel A.
Paredes. See also CA rollo, pp. 112-136.

[2]
CA rollo, pp. 58-65; penned by Judge Emilio Rodolfo Y. Legaspi III. See also records,
pp. 209-217.

[3]
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drags and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. — The penalty x x x shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give 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.

[4]
An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing
Republic Act No. 6425. Otherwise Known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, As
Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes, June 7, 2002.

[5]
Records, p. 2.

[6]
Id. at 3.

[7]
Id. at 1-3.

[8]
Id. at 50, 51; and pp. 52 and 54.

[9]
Id. at 74-76.

[10]
Id. at 115-116.

[11]
Id. at 120-121.

[12]
Id.

[13]
Id. at 139-143.

[14]
Id. at 127-128.

[15]
TSN, January 17, 2013. p. 5. See also Prosecution's Exhibits, pp. 5-6.

[16]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 5.

[17]
Id. at 5-6.

[18]
TSN, January 17, 2013, pp. 6.

[19]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 16.

[20]
TSN, January 17, 2013, pp. 6-7.
[21]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 11.

[22]
Id. at 12.

[23]
TSN, January 17, 2013, p. 7.

[24]
Id. at 4-5, 9. See also records, pp. 120-121; p. 139.

[25]
Id. at 9-10.

[26]
Id. at 10.

[27]
Id.

[28]
Id. at 10-11.

[29]
Id. at 11-12.

[30]
Id. at 12-13.

[31]
Id. at 13.

[32]
Id. at 13-14.

[33]
Id. at 14.

[34]
Id. at 14-15.

[35]
Id. at 16.

[36]
Id. at 16-17.

[37]
Id. at 17.

[38]
Id. at 19.

[39]
Records, pp. 127-128.

[40]
TSN, September 13, 2013. p, 6. See also Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 14.
[41]
Id. at 7.

[42]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 13, Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized.

[43]
Id. at 14.

[44]
TSN, September 13, 2013, pp. 12-13. See also records, pp. 115-116; and
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 15.

[45]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 4.

[46]
Id. at 1.

[47]
Id. at 7-8.

[48]
TSN, September 13, 2013, pp. 7, 12. See also records, pp. 74-76; pp. 115-116,
Order; and Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 14.

[49]
Records, pp. 115-116. See also Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 1.

[50]
Id. at 74-76.

[51]
Id.; see also Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 2.

[52]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 2.

[53]
Records, p. 75; Minutes dated November 29, 2013, p. 114.

[54]
TSN, September 8, 2015, pp. 3-11.

[55]
CA rollo, p. 64. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
Criminal Case No. 12-291642
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused ROWENA BUNIEL
y RAMOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal for violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 (for pushing shabu) as charged and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine in the amount of P500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 12-291643
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds accused ROWENA SIMBULAN y
ENCARNADO NOT GUILTY.
The plastic sachets of shabu are ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be
disposed of in accordance with law.
This Court orders the immediate release from detention of ROWENA SIMBULAN y
ENCARNADO unless she is held for a lawful cause.
Issue a mittimus order committing ROWENA BUNIEL y RAMOS to the Correctional
Institution for Women for service of sentence.
Send copies of this Decision to the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA), to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and to the
Director of the Manila Police District (EPD).
SO ORDERED. (Underscoring in the original.)

[56]
CA rollo, pp. 15-16; records, pp. 220-221.

[57]
Rollo, p. 27. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated March 16, 2016 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.

[58]
Rollo, pp. 28-29.

[59]
Id. at 33; id. at 39.

[60]
People of the Philippines v. Suarez, G.R. No. 223141, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 281,
290.

[61]
Id.

[62]
RA No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated
April 23, 2015.

[63]
Under Section 21, Article II, RA No. 9165, as amended by RA No. 10640, it is now
mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items
must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected
public official and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media
who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. See also People
v. Bangalan G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018, 878 SCRA 533, where the Supreme
Court clarified that the inventory and photography shall be done in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or
counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (1) if prior to the amendment of
RA No. 9165 by RA No. 10640, "a representative from the media AND the Department
of Justice, and any elected public official"; or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. No.
9165 by RA No. 10640, "an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service OR the media." (Emphasis and underscoring in the original.)

[64]
People v. Dela Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 271 (2008); People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387
(2007); and People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458 (2007).

[65]
People v. Gadiana, 644 Phil. 686, 694 (2010).

[66]
G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018, 857 SCRA 175, quoted in People v. Lim, G.R.
No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

[67]
See People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R.
No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.

[68]
G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.

[69]
G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.

[70]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 15.

[71]
Records, p. 127.

[72]
Records, pp. 127-128.

[73]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 13.

[74]
TSN, January 17, 2013, p. 6.
ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
Q: There is [sic] no representative from the DOJ who witness [sic] the markings?
A: None Sir.
Q: How about an elected Brgy. Official?
A: Also none Sir. (Emphasis supplied.)

[75]
Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 1.
[76]
Records, p. 75.

[77]
654 Phil. 461 (2011), cited in People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 234051, November 27,
2019.

[78]
Id. at 466.

[79]
See Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).

[80]
People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2019.

[81]
People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 244 (2011).

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: February 02, 2021

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System