THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-appellee,

G.R. No. 184957

Present:

- versus -

QUISUMBING,* J.,
CARPIO,
Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
PERALTA, and
ABAD,** JJ.

GRACE VENTURA y
Promulgated:
NATIVIDAD,
Accused-Appellant.
October 27, 2009
x---------------------------- -----------------------x
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

For Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is the

Decision[1] dated 30 June 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
02127, entitled People of the Philippines v. Grace Ventura y Natividad affirming
the Decision[2] rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78, Malolos,
Bulacan, dated 20 January 2006 in Criminal Case No. 3244-M-2003, convicting
Grace Ventura y Natividad (accused-appellant) of violation of Section 5, in relation
to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. [3] Accused-appellant was meted
the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.

In an Information dated 12 August 2003, accused-appellant Grace Ventura y

Natividad and Danilo Ventura y Laloza were charged before the RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan with illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, in relation to Section
26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The case was docketed as Criminal Case
No. 3244-M-2003 and raffled to Branch 78 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. The
Information contained the following allegations:
The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses Grace
Ventura y Natividad and Danilo Ventura y Laloza @ Danny of Violation
of Sec. 5, in relation to Sec. 26, Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as
follows:
That on or about the 10th day of August 2003, in the City of
Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of
law and legal justification, in conspiracy with each other, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away,
dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine
hydrochloride weighing 0.124 gram.[4]

During arraignment, both accused entered NOT GUILTY pleas. Trial on

the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer (PO) 2 Lorenzo

Sarmiento (Sarmiento) and PO3 Leonardo Magsakay (Magsakay). Accusedappellant Grace Ventura and Bernard Ventura were witnesses for the defense.

PO2 Sarmiento, 37 years old, married, police officer and a resident of

Sagrada Familia, Hagonoy, Bulacan, and PO3 Magsakay, 40 years old, married,
police officer, and a resident of Sikatuna St., San Gabriel, Malolos, Bulacan,
testified to receiving information from concerned citizens of Sto. Rosario, Malolos,
Bulacan, and reports received by Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG) Secretary Joey Lina on the alleged involvement of Danilo alias Danny
(father of accused-appellant) and accused-appellant in illegal drugs trade. On the
strength of this confidential information, a surveillance operation was conducted
by operatives of the Malolos Police Station in Malolos, Bulacan, two days before
the buy-bust operation. Results of the surveillance operation were relayed to the
chief of police, who thereafter instructed them to conduct a buy-bust operation
against accused-appellant and Danilo. The team was composed of PO2 Sarmiento,
PO1 Michael Silla, PO3 Magsakay, and a police asset.

On 10 August 2003, a briefing was conducted among the members of the

buy-bust team. During said briefing, PO2 Sarmiento placed the markings LCS,
which correspond to his initials, on the buy-bust money. The marked money
consisted of three P100.00 bills and one P50.00 bill. A police asset was also
designated as poseur-buyer. Both the buy-bust operation and serial numbers of the
bills to be used as buy-bust money were recorded in the police blotter. Prior to
proceeding with the operation, the buy-bust team coordinated with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and was assigned a control number for the
operation, with its pre-operational sheet signed by Hashim Maung of PDEA.

After being briefed on the operation, the buy-bust team proceeded to the
target site. While the members of the team positioned themselves at the alley
leading towards the house of accused-appellant, the police asset went directly to
the gate of Danilo and accused-appellant. The gate was approximately ten meters
away from them.

From where they were standing, the police officers saw the police asset
knocking at the gate. Thereupon, Danilo stepped out. The police asset handed the
marked money to Danilo. Danilo closed the gate and went inside the
house. Moments later, Grace (accused-appellant) went out and handed something
to the police asset. Indicating the sale was consummated, the police asset then
executed his pre-arranged signal by touching his hair with his right hand. The
police officers rushed towards the gate but accused-appellant noticed them and
closed the gate. PO2 Sarmiento pushed open the gate. As PO2 Sarmiento was
entering the compound, he saw a man holding a gulok. It turned out that the man
holding the gulok or bolo was one of Danilos sons, Vergel Ventura, who
attempted to hack PO2 Sarmiento. PO2 Sarmiento informed him that he was a
police officer, but Vergel still tried to hack him with the bolo causing him to seek
cover outside the gate while parrying the attack. PO3 Magsakay drew his gun and
poked it at Vergel, who ran inside the house. PO2 Sarmiento entered the gate and
arrested Danilo, while PO2 Magsakay arrested accused-appellant. PO1 Silla
arrested Vergel. After frisking Danilo, PO2 Sarmiento recovered from him the
marked money used for the buy-bust operation. The police asset handed to PO2
Sarmiento the shabu he bought from accused-appellant. The Venturas were

apprised of their rights and informed of the offense committed. Thereafter, the
suspects were brought to the police station for further investigation.

The testimony of forensic chemist Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria was dispensed
with due to the admission of the defense as to the existence and due execution of
the Request for Laboratory Examination, Chemistry Report No. D-606-2003, and
the specimens subject of the examination.

The laboratory examination conducted by Police Inspector (P/Insp.) and

Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria on the confiscated specimen
yielded the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A- One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings
LCS BB containing 0.124 gram of white crystalline
substance.
PURPOSE OF THE LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of dangerous drug. x x x.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen
gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x.
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A contains Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.[5]

The

defense

denied

all

material

allegations

of

the

prosecution. Grace Ventura, 28 years old, single and a resident of Sabitan, Sto.
Rosario, Malolos, Bulacan testified that she was at her house along Sabitan on 10
August 2003 when she saw her brother Bernard Ventura, alias Bening, having an
argument with Badong, a tricycle driver. As Badong was leaving, accusedappellant heard him threatening his brother, saying he would exact vengeance on
him. Thereafter, at about 3 to 4 oclock in the afternoon of the same day, a group
of policemen in civilian clothes barged into their house by kicking the door. The
group was apparently looking for his brother alias Bening. The group searched
the house. Not satisfied, the policemen took their money and told her to point to
them her brothers house. She informed them that his house was at the
crossing. The policemen took her. As she was being taken by the police, she
managed to tell her father, who was at the other house, to follow her because the
policemen were taking her. The policemen took her to the municipal hall, where
she was followed by one of her brothers an hour later and by her father half an
hour later. She then saw her father talking to the policemen. Later on, both she
and her father were placed inside the detention cell.

On cross-examination, accused-appellant testified that she was with her

father at their house in Sabitan at the time of arrest. She denied that her brother
Vergel was at their house at the time, but admitted there was a pending direct
assault case against him, for interfering in her and her fathers arrest. Accusedappellant admitted that it was only at the time of their arrest that she came to know
of the police officers who arrested them, and that she and her father had no

personal quarrel with the policemen. Accused-appellant maintained that the drugs
allegedly taken from her possession were only planted by the police officers. She
admitted to not filing any charges against them for the planting of evidence.

On redirect, accused-appellant reiterated her testimony on direct examination

that she was merely taken by the police authorities so she could show them her
brothers house. She again stated that it was Bening, her brother, who had a
misunderstanding with a certain Badong for the latters failure to remit the
boundary for the tricycle he was driving.

Bernard Ventura, alias Bening, 31 years old, married, a tricycle driver, and
a resident of Sumapang Matanda, Malolos, Bulacan, testified that he was the
brother of accused-appellant. On 10 August 2003, he was at his house along
Sumapang Matanda watching television, when a group of police officers went
inside his house asking if he hadshabu. They were accompanied by Badong, the
same man he had an argument with earlier that day. The policemen informed him
that his father Danilo and sister, accused-appellant, had been arrested for selling
prohibited drugs. He was taken to the Malolos municipal hall and charged with
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The case was
dismissed by Branch 20 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. He denied all the
allegations against him, his father, and his sister, contending that the only reason
for their arrest was the quarrel he had with Badong, who was a police asset.

On 9 February 2005, an order was issued by the trial court dismissing the
charge against accused Danilo Ventura y Laloza pursuant to Article 89 of the

Revised Penal Code, after Ariel B. Santiago, warden of the Bulacan Provincial Jail,
informed said court of the untimely demise of said accused in his custody.

According full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
in Criminal Case No. 3244-M-2003 for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section
26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing her with the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine ofP500,000.00.[6]

Via a Notice of Appeal,[7] accused-appellant sought to appeal the RTC ruling

with the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed by the appellate court as CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 02127.

The Court of Appeals gave more weight to the prosecutions claim that the
entrapment operation in fact took place and denied the appeal. Concurring in the
factual findings of the trial court, the appellate court resolved the appeal in this
wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
78 of Malolos, Bulacan dated January 20, 2006finding the accusedappellant Grace Ventura y Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.[8]

Electing to seek a final recourse before this Court, accused-appellant filed

her Notice of Appeal[9] on 28 July 2008.

Accused-appellant filed a supplemental brief while the prosecution adopted

its appellees brief earlier submitted to the Court of Appeals.

Accused-appellant seeks her acquittal, praying for the reversal of the

judgment of conviction in the illegal drugs case. The defense claims that the
appellate court committed serious error in (a) finding the existence of an unbroken
chain in the custody of the shabu subject of the buy-bust operation as well as its
evidentiary value; and (b) ruling that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 is not fatal.

At the heart of the defense argument is that the defense failed to account for
the chain of custody of the evidence.

The petition lacks merit.

The presumption of innocence[10] of an accused in criminal cases is a most

fundamental constitutional right that must be upheld at all times. Applying the
foregoing principle, it has been established that the burden of proof is a duty borne
by the prosecution.[11] Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, i.e., He who
asserts, not he who denies, must prove. With this in mind, conviction of an
accused must stand on the weight and strength of the evidence of the prosecution
and cannot rest on the weakness of the defense.[12]

The straightforward testimonies of the principal witnesses for the

prosecution established that at around 3 oclock in the afternoon of 10 August
2003, a group of police officers composed of PO2 Sarmiento, PO3 Magsakay,
Silla, and an asset, acting as poseur-buyer, went to the house of Danilo and
accused-appellant Grace Ventura. The team was to conduct a buy-bust operation
on instruction of the chief of police. Upon reaching the area, PO2 Sarmiento and
PO3 Magsakay positioned themselves near the gate of accused-appellant. While
they were stationed in their respective places, the police asset went to accusedappellants gate. He knocked thereon. They then saw Danilo opening the gate and
stepping out. The asset handed the marked money to Danilo, who then went inside
and closed the gate. A few minutes later, accused-appellant opened the gate and
handed a plastic sachet containing shabu to the police asset.

They then saw the police asset execute the pre-arranged signal by scratching
his head, indicating that the sale had been consummated. The police officers then
ran towards them, but accused-appellant managed to close the gate. PO2
Sarmiento pushed open the gate, but he was met by Vergel, the brother of accusedappellant, who was armed with a bolo and about to hack him. Attempting to parry
the attacks on him, PO2 Sarmiento went out of the gate and closed it. PO3
Magsakay drew his firearm and pointed it at accused-appellants brother, who ran
towards the direction of the house, but was accosted by PO1 Silla. PO3 Magsakay
arrested accused-appellant inside the house, while PO2 Sarmiento arrested Danilo.

Danilo was frisked upon being arrested at his house and the marked money,
consisting of three P100.00 bills and one P50.00 bill, was recovered from him.
[13]

Immediately after the buy-bust operation, the police asset turned over the plastic

sachet containing a white crystalline substance to PO3 Magsakay at the crime

scene.[14]

PO3 Magsakay and PO2 Sarmiento thereafter took accused-appellant Grace,

Danilo, Vergel, and the recovered evidence, i.e., marked money[15] and one plastic
sachet[16]containing white crystalline substance, to the police station for further
investigation. At the police station, PO2 Sarmiento marked the confiscated plastic
sachet with LCS BB, corresponding to the initials of his name, Lorenzo Cruz
Sarmiento, and the word buy-bust.[17] After the sachet was marked with LCS
BB, a request for laboratory examination was prepared by Chief of Police and
Police Superintendent Salvador I. Santos. [18] The sachet and request for laboratory
examination were thereafter brought to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office of the Philippine National Police by PO3 Magsakay. The sachet was turned
over by PO3 Magsakay to PO1 Boluran of the Bulacan Provincial Crime
Laboratory Office.[19] At the crime laboratory, Forensic Chemical Officer and
Police Inspector Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria conducted laboratory examination on the
0.124 grams of white crystalline substance found inside the plastic sachet. Per
Chemistry Report No. D-506-2003, the tests performed on the specimen yielded
positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[20]

It is clear from the foregoing that the identity of the seized item was duly
preserved and established by the prosecution. There is no doubt that the sachet

with the markings LCS BB and submitted for laboratory examination, found to
be positive for shabu, was the same one sold to the poseur-buyer during the buybust operation.

In prosecutions involving the illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof

that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. [21] For conviction of the
crime of illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must
concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. [22] The
testimonial and documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in
support of its case against accused-appellant establish the presence of these
elements.

The two police officers, PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay, positively
identified Danilo and Grace Ventura as the same persons from whom their asset
purchased the plastic sachet of shabu. As correctly found by the trial court, the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses narrated the events leading towards the
conclusion that accused-appellant conspired with deceased Danilo in selling the
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, thus:
The act of accused Danilo in taking the marked money from the asset
and the act of Grace in handing the plastic sachet of shabu to the asset
unmistakably shows that they were in concert and both share a common
interest in selling the illegal substance. x x x. [23]

There was no need to present the poseur-buyer, since PO2 Sarmiento and
PO3 Magsakay witnessed the whole transaction, where the marked money was
exchanged for one sachet of shabu. The poseur-buyer was clearly visible from
where PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay were standing. In fact, the testimony of
a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from
an improper motive to impute a serious offense to the accused, deserves full
credit. Non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely
corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[24]

Moreover, the testimonies of the two police operatives are aptly supported
by the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, to wit: (a) Request for
Laboratory

Examination;[25] (b)

Chemistry

Report

No.

D-606-2003;[26] (c)

photocopy of the marked money consisting of three P100.00 bills and one P50.00
bill;[27] (d) the confiscated sachet containing shabu, with markings LCS BB; and
(e) the pre-operation report.[28]

Accused-appellants twin defenses of denial and frame-up must fail.

Mere denial and allegations of frame-up have been invariably viewed by the
courts with disfavor, for these defenses are easily concocted. [29] These are common
and standard defenses in prosecutions involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Law. In a long line of cases, we have ruled that the testimonies of police officers
involved in a buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the
presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[30] This presumption
can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented to prove either of

two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they
were inspired by an improper motive. [31] Otherwise, the police officers testimonies
on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[32]

Accused-appellant failed to adduce evidence to substantiate her claim of

irregularity in the performance of duty on the part of the police officers. This bare
allegation of irregularity in the performance of duty remained self-serving and
bereft of any supporting evidence.[33] Neither was any ill motive imputed on the
part of the police officers, thus failing to buttress the defenses claim of frameup. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accusedappellants plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible
and convincing evidence, must simply fail. [34] This Court realizes the disastrous
consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being
of society, if the courts accept in every instance this form of defense, which can be
so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed exists. If she were truly aggrieved, it is
quite surprising why accused-appellant did not even attempt to file a criminal or an
administrative

complaint, e.g., for

planting drugs,

against

the

arresting

officers. Such inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of
one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of. [35] The totality of the
evidence points to the fact of the sale of the prohibited drug, with the prosecution
witnesses clearly identifying accused-appellant as the offender.

Accused-appellant asserts that the police officers failed to account for the
chain of custody of the seized item alleged to be shabu.

Contrary to accused-appellants claim, there is no broken chain in the

custody of the seized item, found to be shabu, from the time the police asset turned
it over to PO3 Magsakay, to the time it was turned over to the investigating officer,
and up to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime
Laboratory for laboratory examination.

The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21,
paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:
(1) 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.

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of

Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said provision, stipulates:
(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: x x x 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.

Under the same proviso, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure,

under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.

Clearly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is

centered on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items. The testimony of PO2 Sarmiento outlines the chain of custody of the
confiscated item, i.e., sachet of shabu:
Q.
A.

And you said that the shabu, plastic sachet was recovered from
whom?
The police asset immediately handed to me.

Q.

What did you do with the plastic sachet that was handed by your
police asset to you?

A.

At the station, I placed markings, prepared the request for

laboratory examination.

Q.

What marking did you place on the plastic sachet?

A.

BB with initial LCS.

Q.

What do you mean by BB?

A.

Buybust.

Q.

LCS?

A.

My initial.

Q.
A.
Q.

If this plastic sachet will be shown to you, will you be able to

identify the same?
Yes, sir. This is the shabu we bought from them.
We move that the plastic sachet identified by the witness be
marked as Exh. B.

COURT
Mark it.
FISCAL
You said you requested for an examination of the plastic sachet
of shabu, can you tell us what was the result of the examination?
A.

I have read from the result

methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Q.

I am showing you the request and the result, tell us if these are
the same documents you are referring to?

A.
Q.

it

was

positive

for

This is the request for laboratory examination.

We move that the request for laboratory examination be marked
as Exh. F and the findings or result as Exh. G.

COURT
Mark them.[36]

Corroborating the statements of PO2 Sarmiento, PO3 Magsakay testified to

what was done to the recovered sachet alleged to be containing shabu:

Q.

What about Grace Ventura and Danilo Ventura, what happened to

them?

A.

I arrested Grace Ventura and PO2 Sarmiento arrested Danilo

Ventura.

Q.
A.

What happened when they were arrested?

PO2 Sarmiento recovered the marked money from Danilo
Ventura.

Q.

Was that all that were recovered from these 2 subjects?

A.

The police asset gave the specimen and the bolo.

Q.

What else?

A.

No more.

Q.

When the persons of the accused were restrained and all the
evidences were gathered, what finally did you do?

A.

We informed them that they violated Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 for

selling of illegal drugs and we also informed them of their
constitutional rights.

Q.
A.
Q.

After that what did you do with them?

Grace Ventura, Danilo Ventura and Vergel Ventura were brought
to the police station for further investigation.
What did you do with the specimen?

A.

We prepared a request for laboratory examination and the request

for drug test.

Q.

Before you prepared those requests, what did you do with those
documents in order to distinguish it to the other shabu that were
recovered from the operation?

A.

We placed the marking.

Q.

And the marking that you placed?

A.

The initial of PO2 Sarmiento.

Q.

Which happened to be in what letters?

A.

LCS.

Q.
A.

And later did you come to know the findings of the forensic
chemist of the crime laboratory?
Positive for shabu and positive for drug test.
xxxx

Q.

A.

You claimed also that you recovered one sachet of shabu as a

result of the operation. Attached to the record is a plastic sachet
containing of (sic) what appears to be white crystalline substance,
what relation has this to the one that you claimed as
the shabu sold to your group?
This is the same.

PROS. MEDRANO:
It was already marked as Exh. E. We pray that the marking
placed therein be submarked as E-1.
COURT:
Mark them.
PROS. MEDRANO:
Q.

You made mention of a request made by your unit to the PNP

Crime Laboratory. Im showing to you such document please
confirm to us if this is the same document that you made mention
of?

A.

Yes, sir. This is the one. It was previously marked as Exh.

F. We pray that the stamp mark RECEIVED of the PNP Crime
Laboratory be submarked as F-1.[37]

All documentary, testimonial, and object pieces of evidence, including the

markings on the plastic sachet containing the shabu, prove that the substance tested
by the forensic chemist, whose laboratory tests were well-documented, was the
same as that taken from accused-appellant. The foregoing evidence established
and preserved the identity of the confiscated shabu. Moreover, the integrity of the
evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill
will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. [38] Accused-appellant, in
this case, bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered
or meddled with, to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of
exhibits by public officers and a presumption that they properly discharged their
duties.

In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that accused-appellant was
involved in the buy-bust operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto,
accused-appellants participation cannot be doubted.

Following the provisions of Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of Article II,

Republic Act No. 9165, the illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs is
penalized with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00
to P10,000,000.00. The statute, in prescribing the range of penalties imposable,
does not concern itself with the amount of dangerous drug sold by an accused.

Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 stipulates:

SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) 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.

Section 26 of the same Act provides:

Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt or conspiracy
to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same
penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this
Act:
(a)

Importation of any dangerous drug

controlled precursor and essential chemical;

and/or

(b)

Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,

distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;

(c)

Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any

dangerous drug is used in any form;

(d)

Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or

controlled precursor and essential chemical; and

(e)

Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources

of dangerous drugs.

Applying the foregoing provisions of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty
imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is proper.
There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending accusedappellants violation of the law, the penalty to be imposed is life
imprisonment. Considering that the weight of the shabu confiscated from accusedappellant is 0.124 gram, the amount of P500,000.00 imposed by the
court a quo, being in accordance with law and upheld by the appellate court, is
similarly sustained by this Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated

30 June 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02127, affirming the Decision promulgated
by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, in Criminal Case No.
3244-M-2003, finding accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of selling 0.124 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, a prohibited drug, in violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing upon her the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), is
hereby AFFIRMED.

In the service of her sentence, accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad,

who is a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the entire period during which
she has undergone preventive imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,

G.R. No. 182418

Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J.*
Chairperson,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO DE CASTRO,** and
BRION, JJ.

- versus -

EDWIN PARTOZA y EVORA,

Appellant.

Promulgated:
May 8, 2009

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
TINGA, J.:

On appeal is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 5

October 2007 affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court [2] (RTC) of San
Mateo, Rizal of Edwin Partoza y Evora (appellant) for the crime of possession and
sale of dangerous drug.

Appellant was charged in two (2) separate Informations before the Regional
RTC with possession and sale of shabu, viz:
Criminal Case No. 6524

That on or about the 2nd day of November 2002, in the

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not
being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance
weighing 0.04 gram, which substance, after confirmatory test, was found
positive to the test of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous,
popularly known as shabu a dangerous drug, in violation of the abovecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Criminal Case No. 6525
That on or about the 2nd day of November 2002, in the
Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without
being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another person one (1) heatsealed transparent plastic sachet weighing 0.04 gram of white crystalline
substance which gave positive result to the screening and confirmatory
test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous, popularly known
as shabu a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both Informations. Trial

ensued.

PO3 Juanito Tougan (PO3 Tougan) testified for the prosecution and narrated
that on 2 November 2002 at around 7:30 p.m., the police received an information
from an informant that a certain Parto was selling shabu at Sta. Barbara
Subdivision, Brgy. Ampid I, San Mateo, Rizal. Parto had apparently been under
surveillance by the police for selling prohibited drugs. They immediately planned
a buy-bust operation, with PO3 Tougan acting as the poseur-buyer. Tougan
received a P100.00 bill from the police chief and placed the serial numbers of the
bill on the police blotter.[5]

PO3 Tougan, together with PO2 Pontilla and the civilian informant then
proceeded to Sta. Maria Subdivision. However, before the actual buy-bust
operation, the group responded to a commotion in the area where they arrested a
certain Noel Samaniego.[6] Thereafter, they went to Neptune corner Jupiter
Street and spotted Parto in the tricycle terminal. The informant initially
approached appellant. The latter then went near the tricycle where PO3 Tougan
was in and asked him, How much[?] PO3 Tougan replied, Piso lang, which
means P100.00. Upon exchange of the money and the plastic sachet containing
the white crystalline substance, PO3 Tougan immediately alighted from the
tricycle, grabbed Partos hand and introduced himself as a policeman. PO3 Tougan
was able to recover another plastic sachet from the hand of Parto.[7]

At the police station, the two (2) plastic sachets confiscated from Parto were
marked. After marking, the police immediately prepared the request for laboratory
examination.[8]

Chemistry Report No. D-2157-02E confirmed that the two (2) plastic
sachets seized from appellant were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride,
or shabu.[9]

Appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that he was driving a
female passenger in his tricycle at around 7:00 p.m. on 2 November 2002 going to
Sta. Maria. Upon reaching Jupiter Street, appellant turned left and noticed the
police officers trying to arrest a person who was then causing trouble. PO2 then
Pontilla approached appellant and asked why he was driving drunk. Appellant
explained that he had been offered a drink by his friends. He was asked to alight
from his tricycle, took his drivers license and invited him to go to the police
station.[10]

On 28 April 2005, the trial court convicted appellant beyond reasonable

doubt of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

in these two cases, as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6524 finding accused EDWIN PARTOZA
Y EVORA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of
Possession of Dangerous Drug (Violation of Section 11, 2nd par.[,] No. 3
of Art. II of R.A. [No.] 9165) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day to Twenty (20) years
and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00);

2. In Criminal Case No. 6525 finding accused EDWIN PARTOZA

Y EVORA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of
Sale of Dangerous Drug (Violation of Sec. 5, 1st par.[,] Art. II of R.A.
No. 9165) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of P500.000.00.
The drugs shabu confiscated from accuseds possession are
forfeited in favor of the government and is directed to be turned over to
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.[11]

The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove that appellant had
taken the money in exchange for the shabu. It gave full faith and credence to the
testimony of PO3 Tougan.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

The appellate court held that the prosecution had successfully adduced
evidence which proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had sold one (1)
sachet of shabu to PO3 Tougan, who had acted as the poseur buyer during a
legitimate buy-bust operation. The Court of Appeals held further that appellant,
after having been validly arrested and in the course of the subsequent incidental
search, had been found with another sachet of shabu in his body.[12]

Appellant elevated the case to this Court via Notice of Appeal. [13] In its
Resolution[14] dated 30 June 2008, this Court resolved to notify the parties that they
may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30)
days from notice. Both parties adopted their respective appellant's and appellee's
briefs, instead of filing supplemental briefs.[15]

Appellant maintains that the presumption of regularity, upon which his

conviction rests, should not take precedence over the presumption of
innocence. He challenges PO3 Tougans account of the events that transpired on 2
November 2002 considering that the police were present in the vicinity to respond
to a report that Samaniego had been causing trouble and not to conduct a buy-bust
operation. Appellant also questions the integrity of the evidence used against him
on the grounds of failure to mark the items seized from him immediately and

failure to observe the chain of custody as required under Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165.[16]

The Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG), on the other hand, insists that the
direct testimony of PO3 Tougan sufficiently established the elements of illegal sale
and possession of shabu. With respect to the marking, the OSG argues that PO3
Tougan held on to the sachets from the time he confiscated them from appellant
until such time that he was able to place his initials on them and submitted the duly
accomplished

request

for

examination

of

said

sachets

to

the

crime

laboratory. Finally, the OSG avers that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 which
pertains to the chain of custody and disposition of confiscated or seized drugs was
not yet applicable at the time appellant committed his crimes.

In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the

prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1)

identities of the

buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor.[17] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale
of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale or had actually taken
place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[18]

Otherwise stated, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are:

(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[19] Similarly, in this case, the
evidence of the corpus delictimust be established beyond doubt.

Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that 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.
In People v. Obmiranis,[20] appellant was acquitted due to the flaws in the
conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered
from appellant, taken together with the failure of the key persons who handled the
same to testify on the whereabouts of

the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court. [21] In Bondad v. People,
[22]

this Court held that the failure to comply with the requirements of the law

compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of
the crimes charged against appellant, hence his acquittal is in order.[23] And
in People v. De la Cruz,[24] the apprehending team's omission to observe the
procedure outlined by R.A. No. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized
drugs significantly impairs the prosecution's case.[25]
In the instant case, it is indisputable that the procedures for the custody and
disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were
not complied with.
PO3 Tougan stated that he marked the two plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance in the police station, thus:
Q
A
xxx

And after handing to him the P100.00 bill[,] what reaction was
there, if any, from this alias Parto?
He immediately handed to me one (1) plastic sachet
containing shabu, sir.

Q
A

After placing him under arrest what, if any, did you do next?
After holding his hand, I immediately introduced myself as a
policeman, sir.

Q
A

What else did you do after that?

I was able to recover another plastic sachet from his hand and
also the P100.00 bill that I used in buying the shabu with serial
number EN-668932, sir.

xxx
Q
A

And having informed him of his constitutional rights[,] where did

you take him, if any?
It did not take long PO2 Pontilla arrived [sic] and we brought
him to the police station together with his tricycle, sir.

xxx
Q
A

At the station[,] what happened to the two (2) plastic sachets, one
that was the subject of the sale and one which was the subject of
your confiscation?
I placed my initial, sir.[26]

PO3 Tougan did not mark the seized drugs immediately after he arrested
appellant in the latter's presence. Neither did he make an inventory and take a
photograph of the confiscated items in the presence of appellant. There was no
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public
official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign an
inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof. None of these statutory
safeguards were observed.

While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team

with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team, [27] yet these conditions were not met
in the case at bar. No explanation was offered by PO3 Tougan for his failure to
observe the rule.

Furthermore, while PO3 Tougan admitted to have in his possession

the shabu from the time appellant was apprehended at the crime scene to the police
station, records are bereft of proof on how the seized items were handled from the
time they left the hands of PO3 Tougan. PO3 Tougan mentioned a certain
Inspector Manahan as the one who signed the request for laboratory
examination. He did not however relate to whom the custody of the drugs was
turned over. Furthermore, the evidence of the prosecution did not reveal the
identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its
examination and pending presentation in court. The failure of the prosecution to
establish the chain of custody is fatal to its cause.

All told, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

The courts below heavily relied on the testimony of PO3 Tougan and in the
same breadth, banked on the presumption of regularity. In People v. Garcia,[28] we
said that the presumption only arises in the absence of contrary details in the
case that raise doubt on the regularity in the performance of official duties. Where,

as in the present case, the police officers failed to comply with the standard
procedures prescribed by law, there is no occasion to apply the presumption.[29]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated 5 October

2007 of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Appellant Edwin Partoza y Evora is ACQUITTED based reasonable
doubt and is ordered immediatelyRELEASED from detention, unless he is
confined for any other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT
this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days
from receipt.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,

G.R. No. 178202

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CORONA, J., Chairperson,

- versus -

VELASCO, JR.,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,* and
MENDOZA, JJ.

NORMAN SITCO and

RAYMUNDO BAGTAS
(deceased),

Promulgated:

AccusedAppellants.

May 14, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the October 19, 2006 Decision of the

Court

of

Appeals

(CA)

in

CA-G.R.

CR-H.C.

No.

00038

entitled People of the Philippines v. Norman Sitco y De Jesus and

Raymundo Bagtas y Caparas, which affirmed the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72 in Malabon, in Criminal Case

Nos. 19456-MN to 19459-MN for violation of Sections 15 and 16 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 6425 or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
The

affirmed

RTC

decision

adjudged

accused-appellants

Raymundo Bagtas and Norman Sitco guilty in Crim. Case No.

19456-MN for drug pushing and sentenced them to reclusion
perpetua. For illegal possession of drugs, Bagtas was sentenced
to two months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one
year and one day of prision correccional, as maximum, in Crim.
Case No. 19458-MN, and reclusion perpetua in Crim. Case No.
19459-MN. While the RTC convicted Sitco in Crim. Case No.
19457-MN, the CA would later overturn his conviction in this case.

The Facts

In Crim. Case No. 19456-MN, Sitco and Bagtas were

charged with drug pushing in an information reading:

That on or about the 11th day of May 1998, in

Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
private persons and without authority of law, conspiring[,]
confederating and mutually helping with one another, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell
and deliver, in consideration of the sum of P2,000.00+,

most of which were boodle or fake money to a poseur

buyer[,] two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic bags
containing white crystalline substance with net weight of
108.40 grams and 105.84 grams respectively, which
substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave
positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
otherwise known as Shabu, a regulated [drug].[1]

The other informations for illegal possession of drugs that

were separately filed against either Sitco or Bagtas read as
follows:

Crim. Case No. 19457-MN against Sitco (illegal possession)

That on or about the 11th day of May 1998, in

Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being [a]
private person and without authority of law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in [his]
possession, custody and control One (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic bag, containing white crystalline
substance with net weight of 20.29 grams, which
substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave
positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
otherwise known as Shabu, a regulated drug.[2]

Crim. Case No. 19458-MN against Bagtas (illegal possession)

That on or about the 11th day of May 1998, in

Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being [a]
private person and without authority of law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control One (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic bag, containing white crystalline
substance with net weight of 1.31 grams, which
substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave
positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
otherwise known as Shabu, a regulated drug.
Crim. Case No. 19459-MN against Bagtas (illegal possession)

That on or about the 11th day of May 1998, in

Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being [a]
private person and without authority of law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control One (1) brick of
suspected marijuana with net weight of 887.01 grams,
which is a regulated drug.[3]

During the arraignment, both accused-appellants entered a

not guilty plea to all the charges. A joint trial then ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

From the testimony of the prosecution witness, Police

Officer 3 (PO3) Alex Buan, the following version is gathered:

Acting on a tip from an informant, Senior Inspector Gatlet of

the Navotas Police Station ordered the conduct of a buy-bust
operation against accused-appellants, who were allegedly selling
illegal drugs on Espina St. in Navotas, Metro Manila. The team
consisted of Buan, as poseur-buyer, a confidential informant, and
several police operatives as back-up. Marked money, consisting of
four (4) PhP 500 bills for a total of PhP 2,000 and boodles or fake
money amounting to PhP 196,000, was prepared.

On May 11, 1998 at 11:15 in the evening, the team

proceeded to a house in the target place where Bagtas answered
the knocking of the door. Thereupon, the confidential informant
introduced him to Buan who, then and there, expressed his desire
to buy shabu. Bagtas replied that he did not have enough supply
of shabu, but manifested thatmarijuana was available. Buan,
however, insisted on buying only shabu.[4]

Bagtas informed Buan that someone would be delivering

more shabu. After waiting for a few minutes, a man, who turned

out to be Sitco, arrived. After the usual introductions, Sitco told

Buan to follow him to his motorcycle. He asked for the payment
and took out a bag with two plastic bags of shabu inside. Buan
examined the contents, then identified himself as a police officer,
and arrested Sitco. The back-up officers joined the scene and
frisked Sitco and Bagtas. Sitco was found to have in his
possession a loaded caliber .38 paltik revolver, the buy-bust
money, and more shabu. Bagtas had in his possession marijuana
and shabu.[5]

The seized items were sent to Forensic Chemist Grace N.

Eustaquio for laboratory examination and were found positive
for shabu and marijuana per Physical Science No. D-411-98.

During trial, Buan identified accused-appellants, the four (4)

PhP 500-bill marked money used, the shabu confiscated from both
accused-appellants, and the marijuanaseized from Bagtas. Buan
explained during his testimony that the boodle money placed inbetween the genuine marked money the buy-bust team used was
unavailable as it had been confiscated by a policeman named
Barlin when he himself (Buan) was arrested for violating Sec. 27
of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[6]

Version of the Defense

The evidence for the defense consists of the testimonies of

Sitco and Bagtas.

Bagtas branded as fabricated the accusations against him

and Sitco. According to him, on the day of the alleged buy-bust
operation, he was busy cleaning his motorcycle when, all of a
sudden, policemen, led by Buan, entered his house. Buan came
armed with an armalite rifle and a .45 caliber pistol, but did not
show any document to justifying the police officers entry into his
(Bagtas) home. The intruders pointed guns at Bagtas, his
common-law wife, his nephew, a certain Boy Macapagal, a certain
Malou, a helper in his store, a girl applying for work as a
househelper, and Sitco, who was visiting Buan at the time. They
were ordered to lie face down as Bagtas house was being
searched. He was told that he was a suspect in the killing of a
Navotas policeman named Ira. After the search was done, no
illegal drugs were found. Yet the police officers took his camera,
tape recorder, and the cash from his stores sales. The pieces of
jewelry they were wearing, including his ring and necklace, were
also confiscated. Afterwards, all of them were handcuffed and

asked to board the police officers vehicles. Two motorcycles

belonging to Sitco and Bagtas were also seized. [7]

At the police headquarters, Buan and the other police

officers demanded payment for the release of Bagtas group. After
some haggling, the group relented and paid some amount for
their freedom. Sitco and Bagtas, however, were detained. Instead,
they were handcuffed to a steel post after being blindfolded by
the police.[8] Bagtas overheard the police officers dividing the
jewelry among them. He was then beaten along with Sitco to
extort money for their release. The police officers eventually told
them to pay a reduced amount, which they still could not afford to
give. Complaints were thus filed against them, with the police
officers manufacturing the evidence used by the prosecution.
Bagtas ended his testimony with a declaration that he was filing
complaints against the police officers once he was released from
detention.[9]

Sitco corroborated Bagtas testimony, adding that Buan had

already been dismissed from the service. [10] He testified that the
police officers frisked him and confiscated his wallet, watch, ring,
and motorbike. He was told that they were suspects in the killing
of a Navotas policeman. At the headquarters, he claimed being

tortured. Eventually, he fell asleep. When he woke up, he saw

Buan

with

two

others

sniffing shabu. He

declined

Buans

invitation to join the session. The police officer likewise instructed

him to produce PhP 100,000 for his release. Sitco informed Buan
that he could not afford the amount. The next day, May 12, Buan
took some shabu from the cabinet and told Sitco that the charge
against him would push through if he did not pay. Sitco was also
warned about the difficulty of posting bail once charged. Since he
could not raise the money, the police officers brought him to the
prosecutors office for inquest where manufactured evidence
allegedly taken from him and Bagtas were shown to the fiscal.
[11]

On cross-examination, he admitted to having been previously

arrested for possession of shabu and violation of Presidential

Decree No. 1866.[12]

Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of Buan and,

mainly on that basis, convicted Bagtas and Sitco of the crimes
charged.

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision [13] reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered finding the two accused, namely Norman
Sitco y de Jesus and Raymundo Bagtas y Caparas guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged against
them in these cases. In the absence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and applying the provisions of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (where applicable), the
two accused are hereby sentenced as follows:

1) In Crim. Case No. 19456-MN: for drug pushing under

Section 15, Article III, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659,
involving more than 200 grams of shabu, for each of them
to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and for each
of them to pay a fine in the amount of Php500,000.00;

2) In Crim. Case No. 19457-MN against Sitco only for

illegal possession of 20.29 grams of shabu under Section
16, Article III, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, to a
prison term ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS of arresto
mayor as minimum, to SIX (6) years of prision
correccional, as maximum;

3) In Crim. Case No. 19458-MN against Bagtas only for

illegal possession of 1.31 grams of shabu under Section
16, Article III, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, to a
prison term ranging from TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1)
DAY of arresto mayor, as minimum, to ONE (1) YEAR and
ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as maximum;

4) In Crim. Case No. 19459-MN against Bagtas only for

illegal possession of 887.01 grams of marijuana under
Section 8, Article II, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659,
said accused is sentenced to suffer the prison term
of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

Since the death penalty was imposed, the case came to this
Court on automatic review. In accordance with People v. Mateo,
[14]

however, we ordered the transfer of the case to the CA for

intermediate review.

Pending CA review of the case, or on May 5, 2006, Bagtas

died at the National Bilibid Prison Hospital.

Ruling of the Appellate Court

Before the CA, Sitco argued against the credibility of Buan

as witness, the latter having been involved in drug-related
activities and was in fact dismissed from the service in March
1999. He also claimed that the alleged drug sale involving him
was improbable as no one would sell drugs to a stranger.

On October 19, 2006, the CA acquitted Sitco of illegal

possession of drugs but affirmed his conviction of the other
offenses charged. It reasoned that Buans testimony was focused
only on the two (2) plastic bags of shabu which were the object of
the buy-bust; no attempt was made to make a distinction
between

the

said

bags

and

the

additional

bag

of shabu supposedly recovered from Sitco when he was frisked.

The quantum of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for illegal
possession of shabu was, thus, not met. However, as to the other
charges, the CA ruled that the factual findings of the trial court on
Buans credibility must be respected and upheld.

The fallo of the CAs Decision[15] reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed
Joint Decision dated August 26, 1999 of the RTC of
Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 72 in Criminal Case Nos.
19456-MN
to
19459
is
hereby AFFIRMED with
modification ACQUITTING accused-appellant
Norman
Sitco y De Jesus in Criminal Case No. 19457-MN for
violation of Sec. 16, Art. II of RA 6425, as amended by RA
7659, on the basis of reasonable doubt. The rest of the
Joint Decision stand[s].

SO ORDERED.

On November 14, 2006, Sitco filed his Notice of Appeal of

the appellate courts Decision.

On September 24, 2007, this Court required the parties to

submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The People,
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that
it was submitting the case for decision based on the records
previously submitted. In his Supplemental Brief, Sitco submits
that PO3 Buan is not a credible witness given his arrest on drug
charges and dismissal from the service.

The Issue

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING

ACCUSED-APPELLANTS CONVICTION ON THE BASIS OF
AN UNRELIABLE WITNESS.

The Ruling of the Court

We

find

sufficient

compelling

surviving accused-appellant Sitco.

reasons

to

acquit

the

Credibility of Buan as Witness

We start with the credibility of the lone prosecution witness,

Buan, whose testimony Sitco has assailed at every turn. Sitco
insists and with reason that Buan cannot competently make a
plausible account of something of which he himself was equally
culpable.
Sitcos assault on the credibility of Buan is well-taken. As it
were, Buans involvement as a police officer in illegal drug
activities makes him a polluted source and renders his testimony
against Sitco and Bagtas suspect, at best. It is like a pot calling a
kettle black.

To be believed, testimonial evidence should come only from

the mouth of a credible witness.[16] Given his service record, Buan
can hardly qualify as a witness worthy, under the limited confines
of this case, of full faith and credit. And lest it be overlooked,
Buan is a rogue cop, having, per his own admission, been arrested
for indulging in a pot session, eventually charged and dismissed
from the police service. [17] It would appear, thus, that Buans had

been a user. His arrest for joining a pot session only confirms this
undesirable habit.

The Court, to be sure, has taken stock of the well-settled

rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on
the credibility of police buy-bust operators, and that the trial
courts finding on the police-witness credibility deserves respect.
Juxtaposed with this rule, however, is the postulate that when
confronted with circumstances that would support a reasonable
doubt in favor of the accused, then acquittal or the least liability is
in order. Buans involvement in drugs and his alleged attempt to
extort money from appellant Sitco in exchange for his freedom
has put his credibility under a heavy cloud.

The imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt has a vital

role in our criminal justice system, the accused, during a criminal
prosecution, having a stake interest of immense importance, both
because of the possibility that he may lose his freedom if
convicted and because of the certainty that his conviction will
leave a permanent stain on his reputation and name. [18] As
articulated in Rabanal v. People:

Law and jurisprudence demand proof beyond

reasonable doubt before any person may be deprived of
his life, liberty, or even property. Enshrined in the Bill of
Rights is the right of the petitioner to be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome
the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable
doubt must be established by the prosecution. The
constitutional presumption of innocence requires
courts to take a more than casual consideration
of every circumstances or doubt proving the
innocence of petitioner.[19](Emphasis added.)

Chain of Custody

But over and above the credibility of the prosecutions lone

witness as ground for acquittal looms the matter of the custodial
chain, a term which has gained traction in the prosecution of
drug-related cases.

In

prosecutions

involving

narcotics

and

other

illegal

substances, the substance itself constitutes part of the corpus

delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[20] Of

chief

concern in drug cases then is the requirement that the

prosecution prove that what was seized by police officers is the
same item presented in court. This identification, as we have held

in the past, must be established with moral certainty [21] and is a

function of the rule on chain of custody. The chain of custody
requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the
identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused,
to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. [22]

The procedure to be followed in adhering to the chain of

custody requirements is found in Sec. 21 of RA 9165:

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:
(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;
(2)
Within
twenty-four
(24)
hours
upon
confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination.

The trial court summarized the chain of custody over the

evidence as follows:

x x x [Sitco] asked for the money and then took from

a covered part of the motorcycle a plastic bag inside [of]
which were two plastic bags with shabu which Sitco gave
to Buan. Buan examined the same and upon being
satisfied that it was really shabu, identified himself as a
policeman and arrested Sitco. Buans companions then
approached and Sitco and Bagtas were frisked. Found
from Sitco was a caliber .38 paltik revolver with six
bullets, the buy-bust money and additional shabu. The
marijuana earlier shown to Buan by Bagtas was also
recovered along with the additional shabu found in the
motorcycle of Bagtas which was parked nearby.

The buy-bust shabu, the marijuana and the

confiscated additional shabu from Sitco and Bagtas were
sent to a Forensic Chemist for laboratory examination
(Exhibit A) and were found to be positive for being shabu

and marijuana, respectively, by examining PNP Forensic

Chemist Grace N. Eustaquio under an initial laboratory
report (Exhibit B) and a final report (Physical Science No.
D-411-98) marked as Exhibit C.[23]

From this narration and an examination of the records, a

number of disturbing questions arise as to the identification and
handling of the prohibited drugs seized. It is unclear at the outset
whether Buan himself made the inventory of the seized items.
There is no detail as to who brought the specimens to the forensic
laboratory and who received it prior to the examination by the
forensic chemist. It is also uncertain who took custody of the
specimens before they were presented as evidence in court.
There are, thus, glaring gaps or missing links in the chain of
custody of evidence, raising doubt as to the identity of the seized
items and necessarily their evidentiary value. This broken chain of
custody is especially significant given that what are involved are
fungible items that may be easily altered or tampered with. [24]

It cannot be over-emphasized that pertinent provisions of

RA 9165 require that the seized illegal items shall, after their
inventory, be photographed in the presence of the drug dealer,
representatives of media, the Department of Justice, or any
elected public official who participated in the operation. The

records do not yield an indication that this particular requirement

has been complied with.

The Court reiterates that, on account of the built-in danger

of abuse that it carries, a buy-bust operation is governed by
specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs,
separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that
the rights of persons under criminal investigation and of the
accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[25] To reiterate,
the chain of custody requirement is necessary in order to remove
doubts as to the identity of the evidence, by monitoring and
tracking custody of the seized drugs from the accused, until they
reach the court. We find that the procedure and statutory
safeguards prescribed for compliance by drug enforcement
agencies have not been followed in this case. A failure to comply
with the aforequoted Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165 implies a concomitant
failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of
the seized illegal items as part of the corpus delicti.[26]

Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses

who can attest to an unbroken chain of custody of evidence may,
in some instances, be excused, there should be a justifying factor
for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies. [27] In -

People v. Denoman,[28] the Court discussed the saving mechanism

provided by Sec. 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations

of

RA

9165.[29] Denoman explains

that

the

aforementioned provision contains a saving mechanism to ensure

that not every case of non-compliance will permanently prejudice
the prosecutions case. The saving mechanism applies when the
prosecution recognizes and explains the lapse or lapses in the
prescribed procedures.[30] In this case, the prosecution did not
even acknowledge and discuss the reasons for the missing links in
the chain.

To reiterate, in prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the

substance itself constitutes the key part of the corpus delicti of
the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [31] Taken with
the uncorroborated testimony of Buan, the broken chain of
custody over the marijuana and shabu in the instant case creates
reasonable doubt on accused-appellants guilt.

In a string of cases, [32] we declared that the failure of the

prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a
sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu,
and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the

evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with

every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.

As in People v. Partoza,[33] this case suffers from the failure

of the prosecution witness to provide the details establishing an
unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the police officer testifying
did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over.
The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the
identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the
drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court.

Given the prosecutions failure to abide by the rules on the

chain of custody, the evidentiary presumption that official duties
have been regularly performed cannot apply to this case. This
presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. Not only is
it rebutted by contrary proof, as here, but it is also inferior to the
constitutional presumption of innocence. [34] On this score, we have
held that while an accuseds defense engenders suspicion that he
probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a
conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or
probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to
overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the

quantum of evidence required.[35] This quantum of evidence has

not been met in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, the assailed CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.

No.

00038

is REVERSED and SET

ASIDE. Accused-appellant

Norman Sitco y De Jesus isACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and

is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is
confined for any other lawful cause. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to
report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days
from receipt.

SO ORDERED.

People vs. Pringas

Trial Court and Court of Appeals found him GUILTY Issue: WON
Pringas is guilty of the offenses charged despite the inadmissibility of
the evidence having been obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86,
RA 9165 Ruling: YES Ratio: Pringas Arguments Police officers
violated Section 86 of RA 9165 when the alleged buy-bust operation
that led to the apprehension of the appellant was conducted without
the involvement of PDEA. SC It was very clear in the Joint Affidavit of

Arrest of Esmanaller and Matias that the buy-bust operation subject of

the case was not with the involvement of the PDEA.

Non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the custody

and disposition of the confiscated/seized dangerous drugs and
paraphernalia will make these items inadmissible in evidence. Even
assuming ex gratia argumenti, there is nothing in RA 9165 which even
remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an arrest
made without participation of PDEA illegal and evidence obtained
pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not
deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests. Non-compliance will
not render an accuseds arrest illegal of the items seized/confiscated
from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. The Court held that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the items involved were safeguarded they were
immediately marked for proper identification and forwarded to the
Crime Laboratory for examination. The justifiable ground for noncompliance will remain unknown because appellant only raised the
issue before the CA, which he cannot do. Objection to evidence
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Appellant was charged
with violations of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of RA 9165. The elements
necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) Identity of
the buyer and seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) Delivery of
the thing sold and payment thereof. The evidence for the prosecution
showed the presence of all these elements. The elements necessary
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) Accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited
drug (2) Such possession is not authorized by law (3) Accused freely
and consciously possessed the sad drug. All these elements have
been established in the case at bar.

The conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode

of apprehending those involved in an illegal sale of prohibited or
regulated drugs. The Court did not see any clear and convincing
evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any
improper motive, so the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties must be upheld. Three of his neighbours witnessed
the violent Pringas failed to present them or any of them to entry made
by the policemen in his house. prove his point. APPEAL DENIED.
Decisions of RTC and CA AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

 Pringas was charged with Violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of

Republic Act No. 9165 Pringas Defense: He denied the buy-bust
operations. He claimed that he and his common-law wife Gina Dean
were with their three children in their House in Beverly Street, Buting,
Pasig City when somebody (later identified as Esmanaller, Mapula,
Espares and Familiara) kicked the door of their house, entered without
any search warrant or arrest warrant. The policemen subsequently
conducted a search in the house but they neither recovered nor took
anything. The violent entry was even witnessed by 3 of his neighbours
who were having a drinking session. Matias recovered the following
from Pringas house: o 3 pcs. of heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets containing a white crystalline substance which turned out to
be shabu (Methamphetamine Hydrochloride) o 2 disposable lighters o
6 strips of aluminium foil with traces of shabu (Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride) o Improvised water pipe used as a tooter o Improvised
burner o Wooden sealer o Small scissors o 14 pcs. Of transparent
plastic sheets o 1 small needle on top of a small chair (bangkito)
After conducting the sale, Esmanaller then arrested Pringas. He
introduced himself as a police officer and informed the Pringas of his
violation and his constitutional rights. Upon recognizing the
informant, Pringas sold to Esmallaner a plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance later found to be shabu, for Php100. On
22 Apr 2003, SP04 Tuano, Officer-in-charge of the Station Drug
Enforcement Unit of the Pasig City Police designated P01 Joselito
Esmallaner to act as a poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation headed
by SP03 Leneal Matias to be conducted against Alvin Pringas in his
house in Beverly Street, Buting, Pasig City. People v. Pringas (2007)
Jackie Canlas APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Facts: