Case5 10

G.R. No.
198452
February 19, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
VICENTE ROM, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the Decision dated 9 August 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00579
affirming with modification the Decision dated 24 June 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City,
Branch 10, in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062, CBU-55063 and CBU-55067, finding herein appellant
Vicente Rom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 15 (illegal sale of shabu), 15A (maintenance of a drug den) and 16 (illegal possession of shabu), Article III of Republic Act No. 6425,
also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. In Criminal Case
Nos. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063, for respectively violating Sections 15 and 16, Article III of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, the trial court imposed on the appellant the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period ranging between two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to four (4)
years and two (2) months, as maximum. While in Criminal Case No. CBU-55067, that is for violating Section
15-A, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the trial court sentenced the appellant to reclusion
perpetua and he was likewise ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals, however,
modified and reduced the penalty in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063 to an imprisonment of
six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
maximum, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
1
In three separate Informations all dated 1 September 2000, the appellant was charged with violation of
Sections 15, 15-A and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The three Informations read:
7
Criminal Case No. CBU-55062

That on or about the 31st day of August 2000, at about 10:30 P.M. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [herein appellant], with deliberate intent and without being
authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer one (1) heat sealed plastic
packet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.03 gram locally known as "shabu", containing
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug. (Emphasis and italics supplied).
8

That on or about the 31st day of August 2000, at about 10:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant], with deliberate intent and without being authorized
by law, did then and there have in [his] possession and control or use the following:
Four (4) heat sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance weighing 0.15 gram locally known as
"shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the corresponding license
or prescription. (Emphasis and italics supplied).
9

That on the 31s[t] day of August, 2000, at about 10:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant], with deliberate intent, did then and there knowingly maintain
a den for regulated users along the interior portion of Barangay T. Padilla in violation to (sic) the provision of
Sec. 15-A of Art. III of RA 6425. (Emphasis supplied).
10
On arraignment, the appellant, with the assistance of counsel de parte, pleaded NOT GUILTY to all the
charges. A pre-trial conference was conducted on 2 April 2001, but no stipulation or agreement was arrived
at. The pre-trial conference was then terminated and trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
11
12
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer 2 Marvin Martinez (PO2 Martinez), the designated
poseur-buyer; PO3 Franco Mateo Yanson (PO3 Yanson); and Police Senior Inspector Marvin Sanchez
(P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez), the team leader of the buy-bust operation against the appellant. They were all
assigned at the Vice Control Section of the Cebu City Police Office (VCS-CCPO). The testimony, however,
of P/Sr. Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas (P/Sr. Insp. Salinas), the forensic analyst, was dispensed with in view of
the admission made by the defense as to the authenticity and due existence of Chemistry Report No. D1782-2000 dated 1 September 2000 and the expertise of the forensic analyst.
13
14
The prosecutions evidence established the following facts:

Two weeks prior to 31 August 2000, the VCS-CCPO received confidential information from their informant
that alias Dodong, who turned out later to be the appellant, whose real name is Vicente Rom, was engaged
in the illegal sale of shabu and also maintained a drug den at his residence in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu
City. Thus, the VCS-CCPO, particularly PO2 Martinez, conducted surveillance and monitoring operation.
15
On 31 August 2000, at around 10:15 p.m., P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, Chief of VCS-CCPO, formed a team to
conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant. The buy-bust team was composed of PO2 Martinez
(poseur-buyer), Senior Police Officer 1 Jesus Elmer Fernandez (SPO1 Fernandez), PO3 Yanson, PO3
Benicer Tamboboy (PO3 Tamboboy), PO3 Jaime Otadoy (PO3 Otadoy) and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez (team
leader). Being the designated poseur-buyer, PO2 Martinez was provided with a P100.00 peso bill and
a P10.00 peso bill buy-bust money bearing Serial Nos. AD336230 and AM740786, respectively, and both
were marked with the initials of PO2 Martinez, i.e. "MM." The former amount would be used to buy shabu
while the latter amount would serve as payment for the use of the drug den.
16
After the briefing, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area and upon arrival there at around 10:20
p.m., PO2 Martinez proceeded directly to the appellants house, which was earlier pointed to by their
informant, who was also with them during the buy-bust operation. The rest of the buy-bust team strategically
positioned themselves nearby. Once PO2 Martinez reached the appellants house, he knocked on the door,
which the appellant opened. PO2 Martinez subsequently told the appellant that he wanted to buy shabu
worth P100.00. The appellant looked around to check if PO2 Martinez had a companion. Seeing none, the
appellant took out his wallet from his pocket and got one heat-sealed plastic packet containing white
crystalline substance, later confirmed to be shabu, and gave it to PO2 Martinez. The latter, in turn, gave
the P100.00 peso bill marked money to the appellant. While this sale transaction was going on, PO3 Yanson
and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez were only five to eight meters away from PO2 Martinez and the appellant. P/Sr.
Insp. Sanchez clearly witnessed the sale transaction as it happened right outside the door of the appellants
house.
17
Afterwards, PO2 Martinez told the appellant that he wanted to sniff the shabu, so the latter required the
former to pay an additional amount of P10.00 as rental fee for the use of his place. After paying the said
amount, the appellant allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his house. Once inside the house, PO2 Martinez was
directed by the appellant to proceed to the room located at the right side of the sala. Upon entering the said
room, PO2 Martinez saw three persons, later identified to be Jose Delloso (Delloso), Danilo Empuerto
(Empuerto) and Arnie Ogong (Ogong), already sniffing shabu.
18
Thereupon, PO2 Martinez made a missed call to P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, which was their pre-arranged signal,
to signify that the whole transaction was consummated. After the lapsed of about 10 to 15 seconds, the rest
of the team, who were just few meters away from the appellants house, barged in and identified themselves
as police officers. PO2 Martinez then told PO3 Yanson to hold the appellant. PO3 Yanson grabbed the
appellant and made a body search on the latter that led to the recovery of four heat-sealed transparent
plastic packets containing white crystalline substance, which were inside the appellants brown wallet that
was tucked in his pocket; the buy-bust money consisting of P100.00 peso bill and P10.00 peso bill;
and P280.00 consisting of two P100.00 peso bills, one P50.00 peso bill and three P10.00 peso bills believed
to be the proceeds of the appellants illegal activities. The one heat-sealed plastic packet of shabu bought
by PO2 Martinez from the appellant remained in the possession of the former.
19
The appellant, Delloso, Empuerto and Ogong were informed of their constitutional rights and were later
brought by the buy-bust team to their office, together with the confiscated items, for documentation. At the
office of the buy-bust team, the confiscated items were given to their investigator, SPO1 Fernandez, who
marked the one heat-sealed plastic packet containing white crystalline substance, which was the subject of
the sale transaction, with VRR-8-31-2000-01 (buy-bust) while the other four heat-sealed plastic packets
containing white crystalline substance, which were recovered from the appellant, were similarly marked with
VRR-8-31-2000-02 to VRR-8-31-2000-05. The "VRR" in the markings are the initials of the appellant, i.e.,
Vicente Ramonida Rom.
20
Thereafter, all the five heat-sealed plastic packets containing white crystalline substance, together with the
Request for Laboratory Examination, were brought by PO3 Yanson to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis, which examination yielded positive results for the presence of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu,"21 as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-1782-2000.
22
For its part, the defense presented the appellant and Teresita Bitos, whose testimonies consist of sheer
denials. Their version of the 31 August 2000 incident is as follows:
At around 10:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. of 31 August 2000, the appellant was at the house of his daughter,
Lorena Cochera (Lorena), in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, as Lorena had asked her father to get the
monthly house rental fee from Teresita Bitos, whose nickname is "Nene." While the appellant and Nene
were talking, the police officers suddenly barged in. The appellant noticed that PO2 Martinez proceeded to
the inner portion of the house and opened the door of the rooms. Nene stopped them but the police officers
told her to just keep quiet. The police officers went on opening the door of the two rooms, where they saw
three male persons. The police officers frisked the appellant and the three other men. The police officers
likewise took appellants wallet containing P360.00. The appellant then requested Nene to tell his daughter
that he was arrested. Thereafter, the police officers brought the appellant and the three other men to the
police station.
23
The appellant denied that he sold shabu to PO2 Martinez. He also denied that he was maintaining a drug
den and that he allowed persons to sniff shabu inside the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, in
exchange for a sum of money. The appellant likewise denied that he knew the three other men who were
arrested inside the room in the said house. The appellant claimed instead that he knew PO2 Martinez prior
to 31 August 2000 because the latter usually stayed at the house to apprehend snatchers. Also, a week
before 31 August 2000, he and PO2 Martinez had a conversation and he was asked to pinpoint the "fat
fish," which is the code for the big time pusher. When he said that he does not know of such pusher, PO2
Martinez got angry. The appellant maintained that on 31 August 2000, he was no longer living in the house
in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, as his daughter had already brought him to Minglanilla, Cebu, as early as
July 1999. On the said date, Nene was already occupying the house and had subleased one of its rooms as
his daughter Maya told him so. The appellant admitted that a year prior to 31 August 2000, and before he
transferred to Minglanilla, he was apprehended for illegal possession of shabu.
24
The narration of the appellant was corroborated by Nene on all material points.
Testifying on rebuttal, PO2 Martinez denied that he knew the appellant prior to 31 August 2000. PO2
Martinez clarified that he came to know the appellant only on the night that they conducted the buy-bust
operation.
25
Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible, competent and convincing as they were
able to satisfactorily prove all the elements of the offenses charged against the appellant, the trial court, in
its Decision dated 24 June 2002, held the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections
15, 15-A and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The trial court disposed of the case as
follows:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES, the Court finds the [herein appellant] for
1) Criminal Case No. CBU-55062, for violating Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
GUILTY. There being no mitigating nor any aggravating circumstance proven, the Court hereby imposes
the penalty of PRISION CORRECCIONAL in the MEDIUM PERIOD ranging between TWO (2) YEARS,
FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum[,] to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS, as
maximum;
2) Criminal Case No. CBU-55063, for violating Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
GUILTY. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the Court imposes the penalty of
PRISION CORRECCIONAL in the MEDIUM PERIOD ranging between TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS, as maximum;
and
3) Criminal Case No. CBU-55067, for violating Section 15-A, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, GUILTY. The court hereby imposes upon the [appellant] the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.
The five (5) heat-sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, are hereby CONFISCATED in favor of the government and shall be
destroyed in accordance with the law prohibiting said drug. (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied).
26
The appellant appealed the trial courts Decision to this Court via Notice of Appeal. However, pursuant to
this Courts decision in People v. Mateo, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate
review.
27
28
On 9 August 2010, the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed Decision affirming with modification the
ruling of the trial court. Its decretal portion reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the RTC, Branch 10, Cebu City in Criminal
Cases No. CBU-55062, CBU-55063 and CBU-55067 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION
concerning Criminal Cases No. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063, for which [the herein appellant] is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two
months of prision correccional, as maximum of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
29
The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the appellant on all the charges against him as the
prosecution was able to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt since all the essential elements of
illegal sale and possession of shabu were duly proven by the prosecution. As to the charge of maintaining a
drug den, the same was also established by the fact that PO2 Martinez himself paid P10.00 to sniff the
shabu in one of the rooms of the appellants house. The appellants denial, therefore, cannot prevail over
the evidence hurled against him.
The Court of Appeals, however, deemed it necessary to modify the penalty in Criminal Case Nos. CBU55062 and CBU-55063. It explained that the sale of less than 200 grams of shabu is punishable with a
penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, depending on the quantity. In this case, the
quantity of shabu illegally sold to the poseur-buyer by the appellant was 0.03 gram. Pursuant to the second
paragraph of Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the proper penalty to be
imposed for the illegal sale of 0.03 gram of shabu would be prision correccional. Also, in this case, the
appellant had in his possession 0.15 gram of shabu, which is punishable also with imprisonment of prision
correccional. Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant must be sentenced to an
imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision
correccional, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. CBU-55062, as well as in Criminal Case No. CBU-55063.
30
31
Still unsatisfied, the appellant appealed the Court of Appeals Decision to this Court via Notice of Appeal.
32
Both the appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that they would no longer file their
respective supplemental briefs as the issues have already been fully discussed in their respective appeal
briefs with the Court of Appeals.
33
34
The appellants assignment of errors as stated in his Appellants Brief are as follows:
I. The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the [herein appellant] notwithstanding the inherent
incredibility of evidence for the prosecution;
II. The Regional Trial Court gravely erred in allowing the evidence of the prosecution despite the
indubitable evidence that the [appellant] i[s] innocent of the crime[s] charged; [and]
III. The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the [appellant] in spite of the failure of the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the [appellant] beyond reasonable doubt.
35
The appellant avers that the testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason and
highly incredible for no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the house
open after such transaction. Moreover, no person would sell shabu to a buyer when he knew all along that
the said buyer was a police officer as it was ridiculous to expose oneself to the danger of being caught and
arrested.
The appellant similarly holds that the entry in the house was illegal and there was certainly no transaction
that took place therein. The search and the seizure made in connection thereto were also invalid. Thus, the
pieces of evidence allegedly obtained by the police officers were inadmissible for being the "fruit of a
poisonous tree." The same cannot be used against him in violation of his rights.
The appellant believes that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as their
testimonies as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case were contrary to human conduct,
especially with regard to the allegation that he knowingly maintained a drug den, since he was no longer the
owner of the house, which was the subject of the search, and he did not live there anymore.
The appellants contentions are devoid of merit.
In essence, the issues in this case hinge on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the
credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, more so, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension
of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The
reason behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses
having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The
rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial courts findings are sustained by the Court of
Appeals.
36
37
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to overturn the
findings of both lower courts, which were adequately supported by the evidence on record.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following essential elements must
be duly established: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseurbuyer, as well as the receipt of the marked money by the seller, successfully consummates the buy-bust
transaction. Hence, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.
38
39
In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish the above-enumerated elements beyond moral
certainty. The prosecution witnesses adequately proved that a buy-bust operation actually took place on
which occasion the appellant was caught red-handed giving one heat-sealed plastic packet containing white
crystalline substance to PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer, in exchange for P100.00. PO2 Martinez, being the
poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant in open court to be the same person who sold to him the
said one-heat sealed plastic packet of white crystalline substance for a consideration of P100.00, which
when examined was confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry Report No.
D-1782-2000 issued by P/Sr. Insp. Salinas, Head, Chemistry Branch, PNP Regional Crime Laboratory
Office 7. Upon presentation thereof in open court, PO2 Martinez duly identified it to be the same object sold
to him by the appellant as it had the marking "VRR-8-31-2000 (buy-bust)," which SPO1 Fernandez had
written thereon in their presence. This testimony of PO2 Martinez was corroborated by P/Sr. Insp.
Sanchez, who was just five to eight meters away from the former and the appellant during the sale
transaction.
40
41
42
Evidently, the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the appellants guilt for the offense of
illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
We already had occasion to show the unacceptability of the contention of the appellant that the testimony of
the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason and highly incredible for no person who is
engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the house open after such transaction. In case
after case, we observed that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a
stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, the drug pushers have
become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not
the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of
agreement and the acts constituting the sale and the delivery of the prohibited drugs.
43
With regard to the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must
be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said
drug. All these elements have been established in this case.
44
On the occasion of the appellants arrest for having been caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, PO3
Yanson conducted a body search on the former resulting to the recovery of four more heat-sealed plastic
packets containing white crystalline substance inside his wallet that was tucked in his pocket with an
aggregate weight of 0.15 gram, which were later confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu. PO3 Yanson identified in open the court the said four heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu with
markings "VRR-8-31-2000-02" to "VRR-8-31-2000-05" written thereon by SPO1 Fernandez to be the same
objects recovered from the appellant. PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer, corroborated this testimony of PO3
Yanson.
45
46
Definitely, the records do not show that the appellant has the legal authority to possess the four heat-sealed
plastic packets of shabu. Settled is the rule that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation of such possession. As such, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to
explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which the appellant in this case miserably failed
to do.
47
There is also no truth on the appellants claim that the entry in the house was illegal making the search and
the seizure in connection thereto invalid, rendering the pieces of evidence obtained by the police officers
inadmissible for being the "fruit of a poisonous tree."
This Court in Dimacuha v. People clearly states:
48
The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. To
give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the exclusionary principle that any evidence obtained
in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In People v. Chua Ho San [citation omitted] we pointed out that the interdiction against warrantless searches
and seizures is not absolute and that warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed
permissible by jurisprudence in the following instances: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain
view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search);
and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure
pursuant to an equally warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected
with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognizes permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest
in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners.
Here, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto while in the act of delivering 1.15 grams and in actual
possession of another 10.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) as a result of an
entrapment operation conducted by the police on the basis of information received from Benito Marcelo
regarding petitioner's illegal drug trade. Petitioner's arrest, therefore, was lawful and the subsequent seizure
of a bag of shabu inserted inside the cover of her checkbook was justified and legal in light of the prevailing
rule that an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any property found upon his person
in order to find and seize things connected with the crime. The seized regulated drug is, therefore,
admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the crime. (Emphasis supplied).
49
To repeat, the appellant, in this case, was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, thus, he was lawfully
arrested. Following Dimacuha, the subsequent seizure of four heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu in the
appellants wallet that was tucked in his pocket was justified and admissible in evidence for being the fruit of
the crime.
With the foregoing, this Court is fully convinced that the prosecution had likewise proved beyond a shadow
of reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offense of illegal possession of shabu in violation of
Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
Going to the charge of maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, the prosecution had also established appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are found. Its
existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of facts and
circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its general reputation among
police officers. In this case, this fact was proven by none other than the testimony of PO2 Martinez, the
poseur-buyer, who after buying the shabu had told the appellant that he wanted to sniff the same to which
the latter responded by requiring the former to pay a rental fee of P10.00. The appellant, thereafter, allowed
PO2 Martinez to enter his house and directed him to proceed to one of the rooms located at the right side of
the sala. Upon entering the said room, PO2 Martinez saw three other persons already sniffing shabu. This
testimony of PO2 Martinez was corroborated by PO3 Yanson and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez.
50
51
52
Moreover, as aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, several peso bills were found in the appellants wallet,
including three P10.00 peso bills, which circumstances bolstered the prosecutions assertion that the
appellant has indeed allowed his house to be used as a drug den for a fee of P10.00 per person.
53
In his attempt to exonerate himself, the appellant vehemently asserts that he was no longer the owner of the
house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, and he was no longer residing therein. The defense also presented
Teresita Bitos to corroborate this claim of the appellant.
The testimony of Teresita Bitos corroborating the appellants testimony was not credible. She herself
admitted that the appellant requested her to testify in his favor.
1wphi1
54
Also, considering the seriousness of the charges against the appellant, he did not bother to present his
daughter, who is the alleged owner of the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, to bolster his claim.
Time and again, this Court held that denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon
with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. Inherently weak, denial as a
defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the appellant, as in this case. The defense of denial
assumes significance only when the prosecutions evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, which is not the case here. Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the
testimony of the prosecution witness who testified on affirmative matters. Moreover, there is a presumption
that public officers, including the arresting officers, regularly perform their official duties. In this case, the
defense failed to overcome this presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, this
Court finds no ill motive that could be attributed to the police officers who had conducted the buy-bust
operation. Even the allegation of the appellant that PO2 Martinez got angry with him when he failed to
pinpoint the big time pusher cannot be considered as the ill motive in implicating the appellant on all the
three charges against him for this is self-serving and uncorroborated.
55
56
Given all the foregoing, this Court sustains the appellant's conviction on all the charges against him.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00579
dated 9 August 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 203028
January 15, 2014

vs.
JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ "Jose", Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
On appeal is the Decision dated March 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04466
affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Joselito Beran y Zapanta Beran) rendered by the Regional
Trial Court RTC) of Manila, Branch 13, in a Decision dated April 19, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 03-218039,
for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, under an Information which reads, as follows:
1
The undersigned accuses JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ JOSE of Viol. of Sec. 5 Art. II of Rep. Act No.
9165, committed as follows:
That on or about August 26, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been
authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale to a poseur buyer one (1) pc. plastic sachet containing ZERO
POINT ZERO THREE ZERO (0.030) gram of white crystalline substance known as SHABU containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
At his arraignment on November 5, 2003, Beran pleaded not guilty to the offense charged, and trial
followed.
The Facts
According to the prosecution, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon of August 26, 2003, a
confidential informant (CI) went to the District Anti-Illegal Drug (DAID) Office of the Western Police District
(WPD) at the United Nations Avenue, Manila, and approached Police Officer 3 (PO3) Rodolfo Enderina
(Enderina) to report that a certain Joselito Beran, alias "Jose," a pedicab driver, was selling prohibited drugs,
4
particularly "shabu," in the vicinity of San Antonio Street in Tondo, Manila. P03 Enderina relayed the
information to Police Colonel Marcelino Pedroso, Chief of DAID-WPD, who then ordered him to form a buybust team to apprehend the suspect. At around 5 :00 p.m., the buy-bust team, composed of PO3 Enderina,
PO3 Hipolito Francia, PO3 Benito Decorion (Decorion), PO2 Ernie Reyes, PO2 Alexander Delos Santos
(Delos Santos) and PO3 Knowme Sia (Sia), who was to act as the poseur-buyer, arrived in Tondo on board
an owner-type jeep and two scooters. In the jeep were PO3 Enderina, PO2 Delos Santos, and the CI, while
the rest of the team rode in the scooters. They parked near the Gat Andres Hospital and proceeded on foot
towards San Antonio Street. As arranged, PO3 Sia and the CI walked ahead of the others. PO3 Sia and the
CI reached the target area first, and there the CI saw Beran standing some 10 meters away near a ''poso"
or deep-well.
After recognizing and pointing Beran to PO3 Sia, the CI approached him and the two men conversed briefly.
Then the CI signaled to PO3 Sia to join them, and he introduced PO3 Sia to Beran, who then asked the CI
how much PO3 Sia was buying. The CI replied, ''piso lang," or P100, and Beran took out something from his
pocket, a small, heat-sealed plastic sachet, which he then handed to PO3 Sia. PO3 Sia took the sachet and
pretended to examine it discretely, after which he indicated to Beran that he was satisfied with its content.
He then took out a marked P100 bill which he handed to Beran; all this time the back-up members of the
buy-bust team were watching from strategic locations around the vicinity.
Thereupon, PO3 Sia executed the pre-arranged signal of touching his hair to signify to the back-up cops
that the buy-bust sale of shabu had been consummated, even as he then placed Beran under arrest. The
back-up operatives quickly converged upon Beran, with PO2 Delos Santos arriving first, to whom PO3 Sia
then handed over the custody of Beran, while he kept the plastic sachet. The buy-bust team brought Beran
to the DAID-WPD office, where PO3 Sia marked the confiscated plastic sachet with the initials of Beran, JB.
He also recorded the incident in the police blotter, and accomplished the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report
(Exhibit F and F-1), and the Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit G and G-1. He later brought the
seized plastic sachet to the WPD Crime Laboratory for examination, where after testing it was found to
contain the prohibited drug methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
5
In his defense, Beran vehemently denied the above incident. Testifying alone in his defense, he asserted
that on August 26, 2003 at around 2:00 p.m., while he was resting alone upstairs in his house, five WPD
policemen arrived and ordered him to come with them. He resisted and asked why they were arresting him,
but without apprising him of his constitutional rights they handcuffed and forcibly boarded him in an ownertype jeep and brought him to the WPD Headquarters. There, two of his arrestors, PO3 Francia and PO3 Sia,
demanded from him the amount of P20,000.00 in exchange for his release without any charge. But he could
not produce the amount they asked, and they trumped up a charge against him of illegal sale of shabu.
6
The trial of Beran took all of seven years to wind up, mainly on account of many postponements allegedly
due to supervening illnesses or reassignments of the subpoenaed arresting officers. The prosecution was
able to present two witnesses, PO3 Francia and PO3 Sia, but only PO3 Sia gave a witness account of the
drug buy-bust itself. PO3 Francia admitted that he served as a mere look-out to prevent any intruder from
interfering in the buy-bust operation, and that he did not witness the buy-bust transaction itself. As for PO3
Decorion, also a member of the buy-bust team, the RTC per its Order dated July 29, 2009 agreed to
dispense with his testimony after the parties stipulated that as the designated driver of the buy-bust team,
7
he did not see the actual exchange of drug and money between Beran and PO3 Sia, nor did he witness the
actual arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia.
Ruling of the RTC
On April 19, 2010, the RTC of Manila, Branch 13 rendered its judgment, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
8
THEREFORE premises considered and the prosecution having established to a moral certainty the guilt of
the accused JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA JOSE of the crime charged, this Court in the absence of any
aggravating circumstance hereby sentences the Accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay the fine of
five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In the service of his sentence, the actual confinement under detention during the pendency of this case shall
be deducted from the said prison term in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
The evidence presented is ordered transferred to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for
destruction.
SO ORDERED.
Beran went up to the CA to interpose the following alleged errors in the RTC decision, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [BERAN] DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS ARREST
AND THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED PROHIBITED DRUG.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING [BERAN] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PROHIBITED DRUG.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [BERAN] DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
10
Ruling of the CA
In affirming in toto the RTC the CA ruled that Beran was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of a valid and
legitimate buy-bust operation, an entrapment to apprehend law breakers while in the act of executing their
criminal plan. Relying solely on the testimony of PO3 Sia, it found that Beran sold the prohibited drug
shabu to an undercover buyer, PO3 Sia; that Beran was arrested at the moment of the consummation of the
sale transaction and immediately brought to the DAID-WPD along with the sachet of illegal drug confiscated
11
from him; that when the substance was subjected to chemical analysis by the WPD Drug Laboratory, the
content thereof was shown to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The CA further held that the arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia without warrant was valid under Section 5(b) of
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that "a police officer or a private
person may, without a warrant arrest a person when an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it." It also cited Section 5(a) of Rule 113, wherein it provides that "a police officer
can arrest a person without warrant when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense."
Quoted below at length are pertinent portions of the testimony of PO3 Sia which according to the CA have
proved beyond reasonable doubt the material facts attending the buy-bust and establishing the guilt of
Beran:
xxxx
============================
DIRECT EXAMINATION
CONDUCTED BY
ACP LIBERTAD RASA ON WITNESS
PO3 KNOW ME SIA
============================
xxxx
Q: How did you know that there was that informant who arrived at your office giving information about drugs
activities of a certain Beran?
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina formed a team in DAID office, ma'am.
Q: Did you know why Enderina formed a group at DAID?
A: He relayed to us that we have an Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation, ma'am.
Q: That you will have an Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation where and against whom?
A: Against one Joselito Beran alias Jose ma am.
Q: Where?
A: In the area of San Antonio Street Tondo Manila.
Q: Was there anytime that you saw them in front at your office when he relayed the information to Enderina?
A: Yes maam.
Q: What time of the day or the night was that?
A: Between 3-4 pm of August 26 2003 ma am.
Q: And what did your team leader Rodolfo Enderina do as soon as he received that information? A: He
formed his men and then he directed all of us and placed the confidential information for interrogation
maam.
Q: As a matter of standard operating procedure what does an operative of SAID or DAID do before
launching a buy-bust operation?
A: First there must be an information to be received then there was a plan of operation and then the
documents are required to be accomplished prior to the conduct of a buy-bust operation maam.
Q: What documents if any were you required to prepare prior to your operation?
A: Our dispatch record.
Q: Do you have a copy of this dispatch record?
A: Yes maam.
Q: Can you show it to the Court?
A: It is with the custodial of DAID maam.
xxxx
ACP Rasa:
Q: Aside from the dispatch record what other documents did you prepare?
A: The buy-bust money, maam.
Q: Do you have the buy-bust money with you?
A: I will bring it on the next hearing maam.
Q: How much buy-bust money did you prepare?
A: P100.00, maam.
Q: Who supplied that P100.00 buy-bust money?
A: Our team leader, maam.

Q: Who is your team leader?
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, Maam.
Q: Aside from the dispatch record, the buy-bust money, what other preparations did you do before launching
on the operation of buy-bust against one Joselito Beran alias Jose?
A: There was a preparation of Pre-Operation Report and Coordination Sheet, however, we cannot fax to the
PDEA because the PDEA fax at that time was not fully operational, maam.
Q: What other documents aside from those already mentioned did you prepare?
A: That s all, maam.
Q: And what were the other instructions given to you by the team leader, Rodolfo Enderina?
A: During our briefing, I was then chosen as the designated poseur-buyer, maam.
Q: What else?
A: The marked money was marked by me and then during the briefing, it was agreed that the pre-arranged
signal was to touch my hair as indication that the deed was done, ma am.
xxxx
Q: What time did you proceed to San Antonio?
A: Around 5:00 of August 26, 2003, maam.
Q: How many vehicles did you use?
A: We utilized one (1) owner type jeep and the others were on their respective motorcycle or scooter,
maam.
Q: And the others were aboard on scooters?
A: Yes, Maam.
Q: Who were inside the owner type jeep?
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, the confidential informant and PO1 (sic) Delos Santos, maam. Q: And who took
their scooters?
A: PO3 Benito Decorion and PO2 Ernie Reyes, maam.

Q: One scooter?
A: Two (2) scooters maam.
Q: Where did you park your vehicle?
A: We parked in the area of Gat Andres Hospital, maam.
xxxx
Q: As soon as you had parked your vehicles, what else happened?
A: When we parked our vehicle, PO3 Enderina grouped us and told us that at the area where we were
going, the vehicles could not enter San Antonio Street and after that, the confidential informant was the first
who proceeded to the target place, maam.
Q: You already said that you already parked your vehicles. So how did you arrive at San Antonio Street?
A: On foot, ma'am.
Q: How did you scout or identify your target person?
A: Upon arrival in the area of San Antonio, the confidential informant was the first who arrived and then in a
few minutes later, the confidential informant pointed to one (1) male person in the area
of San Antonio, ma'am.
Q: You were saying that, the confidential informant went ahead of you?
A: No, ma'am. We were together, ma'am.
Q: Where did you first notice the presence of the accused?
A: Near the alley, maam, in the middle of San Antonio where there is a "poso".
Q: When pointed to you, how far were you from the accused or your target?
A: Approximately 8-10 meters, ma'am.
Q: What was the accused doing when he was pointed at by the confidential informant to you?
A: He was spotted standing, ma'am.
Q: Standing only?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What happened after you saw him standing?
A: The CI went ahead of me to approach the suspect, ma'am.
Q: When you said the CI was ahead of you, about how far away were you following him?
A: 3-4 meters, ma'am.
Q: What else happened?
A: After that, ma am, the CI and the subject were conversing.
Q: Did you hear what the conversation was all about?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: After that conversation, what happened next?
A: The CI signaled to me to come close to them, ma'am.
Q: As soon as you were already with the group or with the CI and the target person, what else did you do?
A: I approached them, ma am, then the CI introduced me as the buyer of the prospected illegal drugs.
Q: What was the reply or the action of Beran?
A: He told the CI magkano ba'', ma'am.
Q: And what did the CI say?
A: The CI told him piso lang . Piso means One Hundred Pesos, ma'am.
Q: After knowing that you were only interested to buy "piso'', what happened after?
A: After that Beran took out something from his pocket, maam.
Q: What was that?
A: Beran showed me and the CI a small plastic sachet, ma am.
Q After showing to you, what else did Beran do with the plastic?
A: The subject handed to me one (1) plastic sachet, maam.

Q: What did you do after it was handed to you?
A: discretely examined the contents of the plastic sachet and after that, the subject person demanded for
the payment of said stuff, maam.
Q: What did you do?
A: gave the marked buy-bust money, maam.
Q: What happened after that?
A: After that, the pre-arranged signal was executed, maam.
Q What was the pre-arranged signal agreed upon?
A: Touching of the hair, maam.
Q: Who was able to recover that buy-bust money?
A: Me, maam.
Q: What happened next?
A: The other back-up operatives arrived and PO2 Delos Santos was the first to respond x x x and I gave the
suspect to him for custody, maam.
Q: What did you do with that plastic that you bought from the accused Beran?
A: immediately placed him (sic) in my custody, maam, and later on it was marked and forwarded to WPD
Drug Laboratory Office for laboratory examination, maam.
Q: Who brought that plastic sachet for the laboratory examination?
A: Me, maam.
Q: Who placed the marking on that plastic sachet?
A: Me, maam.
Q What marking did you place?
A JB, maam.
Q: Where did you place the marking?

A: At the office, maam.
Q: If shown that plastic sachet, will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: Why?
A: I recognized the markings, maam.
Q: What did you use to mark it?
A: I think it was a pentel pen, ma'am.
Q: Aside from this drugs (sic) which you said they requested and you personally brought for examination at
the WPD Crime Laboratory, what other things did you do as soon as you arrived at the office?
A: It was recorded it (sic) in our police blotter, ma'am, and the pertinent documents were prepared.
Q: Do you have a copy of the police blotter?
A: Yes, ma'am, but it's in the office.
Q: The buy-bust money and the dispatched report are also at your office. Can you bring all of those?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What was the result of the laboratory examination which you said you personally brought to the
laboratory?
A: It turned out to be positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, ma'am.
Q: What happened next after the examination?
A: After preparing the documents, we presented the case before the inquest fiscal, ma'am.
Q: Did you subject the accused for drug test?
A: I cannot remember, ma'am.
Q: You did not prepare a request for drug test?
A: I prepared the request for drug test, ma'am.
Q: And what was the result of the drug test?

A: I do not know the result, ma'am. Q: Can you bring the result of the drug test?
A: "Sa Crime Lab na lang po", ma'am.
x x x x.
12
====================================
CONTINUATION OF DIRECT EXAMINATION
CONDUCTED BY:
FISCAL PURIFICACION A. BARING-TUVERA
====================================
FISCAL TUVERA:
xxxx
Q: Mr. Witness, during your testimony on August 8, 2006, you were asked by former Prosecutor Rasa if you
will be able to identify the specimen which you said you bought from accused Joselito Beran, do you
remember having said that?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Will you still be able to identify the specimen if it will be shown to you again?
A: Yes, ma am. I was the one who. . . (interrupted)
Q: Will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes, ma am.
Q: And how will you be able to identify it, Mr. Witness?
A: I was the one who placed the marking on the alleged shabu.
Q: And what were the markings that you placed on the plastic sachet?
A: It was marked JB ma am.
Q: J?
A: JB.
Q: And will you kindly tell us who placed the markings JB on the plastic sachet?
A: I was the one who marked the specimen.

Q: And where did you place the markings Mr. Witness?
A: On the plastic sachet.
Q: At what time did you place the markings on the plastic sachet?
A: After the arrest of the suspect when he was brought to our office for investigation.
Q: In other words, when did you place the markings?
A: After 5 pm of August 23, 2003.
Q: And at what place Mr. Witness?
A: At the office.
Q: I am showing you Mr. Witness a plastic sachet, by the way, how many plastic sachets did you buy from
the accused?
A: One (1) plastic sachet.
Q: One plastic sachet only, Mr. Witness, I am showing you a plastic sachet with markings JB, will you kindly
tell us if that is the same plastic sachet that you bought from the accused and subsequently marked at the
police station?
A: This is the plastic sachet subject of the sale, I marked JB on the said plastic sachet.
FISCAL TUVERA: We manifest Your Honor that [t]he plastic sachet was already marked as Exhibit B-1 for
the prosecution.
Q: What did you use Mr. Witness in buying this shabu?
A: We utilized P100 bill.
Q: Do you have the genuine P100 bill with you now Mr. Witness?
(pause)
Q: Nasa iyo ba yung P100 bill?
A: I have it in my custody.
Q: You have it in your custody?
A: But I did not bring it today.

Q: Why did you not bring it today Mr. Witness?
A: I only knew ma am that I have my hearing on Joselito Beran but I forgot to bring it, next scheduled
hearing nalang po.
Q: Mr. Witness, before you used that buy-bust money to buy shabu from the accused Mr. Witness, did you
place markings on the P100 bill?
A: Yes maam
Q: And what were these markings did you place on the P100 bill?
A: I marked DAID at the left portion of the buy-bust money.
Q: And what else did you do aside from placing markings on the P100 bill?
A: The said money was then xeroxed for five (5) pieces and then the original was kept in our custody.
x x x x.
13
(Continuation of Direct-Examination of Witness PO3 Know me Sia by ACP Baring-Tuvera)

xxxx
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: Mr. Witness, you are here today for the continuation of your direct-examination. May we know if you
already brought with you the buy-bust money in connection with this case?
THE WITNESS
A: Yes, maam.
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: Will you kindly bring it out and show it to this Honorable Court so that the Court may be able to
appreciate it?
THE WITNESS
A: Here, maam.
COURT:
Q: The money is attached to a blank sheet of paper. Will you write something about it, the case number?
THE WITNESS
A: Yes, your Honor.
ACP BARING-TUVERA:
Q: May I just have this identified, your Honor? Mr. Witness, you said that you were the one who placed the
markings on this One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bill. Will you kindly tell us on what part of this money did you
place the markings?
THE WITNESS
A: I marked DAID at the left center portion of the buy-bust money.
xxxx
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: Mr. Witness, you said that you were the one -you were the poseur-buyer in this case. If you will be shown
the item again, will you be able to identify it again Mr. Witness?
THE WITNESS
A: Yes, maam.
Q: I am showing to you Mr. Witness -and how will you be able to identify it?
A: I was the one who marked it.
Q: And what markings did you place on the plastic sachet?
A: JB, maam.
xxxx
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: And who were present when you marked this plastic sachet at the office?
THE WITNESS
A: The arresting officers maam, my companions in the conduct of the buy-bust operation, ma am. THE
COURT:
Q: Who?
THE WITNESS
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, PO2 Hipolito Francia.
THE COURT:
Q: In the presence of your fellow officers?
THE WITNESS
A: Yes, Your Honor.
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: How about the police investigator, was he also present when you place this markings?
THE WITNESS
A: In that case maam, I was also the investigator.
Q: You were also the investigator. And after you placed the markings on that plastic sachet Mr. Witness, the
plastic sachet containing shabu, what else did you do?
A: We prepared the laboratory examination, maam.
Q: Who prepared the request for laboratory examination?
A: I prepared it, maam.
Q: Okay. And after you prepared the request for laboratory examination, what else happened?
A: And then we submitted the said specimen to the crime laboratory for laboratory examination.
Q: Was the laboratory examination actually conducted on the plastic sachet that you submitted? A: Yes,
maam.
Q: And what was the result of the laboratory examination that was conducted on the specimen that you
submitted?
A: It yielded positive result for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, maam.
xxxx
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: After you have arrested or after the buy-bust operation Mr. Witness, do you remember having executed
any document?
THE WITNESS
A: I executed the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer. I also prepared the Referral for Inquest, the Request for Drug
Test and the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report.
x x x x.
14
On cross-examination, PO3 Sia was asked why he omitted to mention in his affidavit his claimed marking of
the confiscated sachet of shabu. He could not explain his oversight except to say that he "forgot to include a
mention of the said fact, ma'am."
15
Our Ruling
According to the CA, the following elements are required to sustain Beran's conviction and these have been
shown to be present in the case below, namely: the identity of the buyer and the seller; the object of the sale
and the consideration; and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. It held that the prosecution
was able to establish the following facts: the identities of the poseur-buyer, PO3 Sia, and the seller, Beran;
the object of the sale, shabu contained in a heat-sealed plastic sachet handed by Beran to PO3 Sia; and,
the consideration which PO3 Sia paid for the staged purchase, a marked P100.00 bill confiscated in the
possession of Beran. Thus, according to the CA, a complete narrative was built of an illegal sale of shabu
leading to the arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia.
16
We disagree.
The crucial issue in this case is whether, to establish the corpus delicti the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized drug have been preserved in an unbroken chain of custody. We find no unbroken chain of
custody, and we rule that the prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged.
Beran must be set free.
Evidentiary gaps in the chain of
custody of the confiscated plastic
sachet cast reasonable doubt on its
integrity.
17
It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself, must be independently
established beyond reasonable doubt. In People v Pagaduan we ruled that proof beyond reasonable
doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed
in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug. The case of
People v. Tan, cited in People of the Philippines v. Datu Not Abdul, elucidates and reminds us why:
18
19
20
21
22
"By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady
characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in
pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals,
the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug
cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Needless
to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and prudence in deliberating upon
accused-appellants' guilt. It should have given more serious consideration to the pros and cons of the
evidence offered by both the defense and the State and many loose ends should have been settled by the
trial court in determining the merits of the present case.
Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established, and the chain of custody
requirement under R.A. No. 9165 performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that any doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. Blacks Law Dictionary describes "chain of custody,"
as follows:
23
"In evidence, the one who offers real evidence, such as the narcotics in a trial of drug case, must account
for the custody of the evidence from the moment in which it reaches his custody until the moment in which it
is offered in evidence, and such evidence goes to weight not to admissibility of evidence. Com. V. White,
353 Mass. 409, 232 N.E. 2d 335."
24
Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 nonetheless explains the said
term, as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature
of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of
custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, as thus dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of
the evidence. To be admissible, the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous
whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the possession of the police officers, until it was tested
in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time it was offered in evidence.
25
A review of the facts of this case will readily make evident that the appellate decision failed to take note of
vital gaps in the recording by the apprehending officers of authorized movements and custody of the seized
shabu as we shall point out, and these gaps compel us to rule that reasonable doubt exists as to the identity
of the very corpus of the offense herein charged, the sachet of shabu recovered from Beran. In People v.
Alcuizar, we reiterated the rule that under R.A. No. 9165 the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very
corpus delicti and that to sustain a conviction the identity and integrity of the drug must definitely be shown
to have been preserved:
26
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in
sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must
definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's
unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering,
alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the
identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in
court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for
possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails. (Citation omitted)
27
Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides that to
properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized pursuant to a buy-bust
operation, or under a search warrant, the following procedures shall be observed by the apprehending
officers, to wit:
xxxx
(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;
x x x x.
28
In People v. Dela Rosa we ruled that the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous
whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested
in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time it is offered in evidence. In the
instant case, from the testimony of PO3 Sia it is clear that the apprehending operatives did not, immediately
after seizure and confiscation of the illegal item, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused, his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and an elected public official, notwithstanding that they were supposed to have been
conducting a planned sting operation. Indeed, it is not gratuitous to state that they took no efforts
whatsoever to observe even a modicum of the above procedures. Worse, the prosecution did not bother to
explain why they failed to observe them, although they knew these procedures were intended to preserve
the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized.
29
30
Moreover, none of the other witnesses of the prosecution could corroborate the culpatory narrative of PO3
Sia at any of its material points to create the successive links in the custody of the seized drug. Of the six-
man buy-bust team, only PO3 Sia and PO3 Francia testified in court, and PO3 Francia himself twice stated
that he did not witness the actual buy-bust sale as it was taking-place:
(On Cross-examination of PO3 Francia by Atty. Anne Geraldine Agar)
xxxx
Q: And what was your participation in this case, Mr. Witness?
A; I acted as alalay or back-up, ma'am.
Q: Did you act as alalay on that day?
A; Yes, ma'am.
COURT:
Did you see what happened while you were acting as alalay or back-up?
WITNESS:
None, your Honor. Malayo po kasi ako.
COURT:
Wala pala, eh ..
ATTY.AGAR:
Nothing further, your Honor.
FISCAL:
Redirect, Your Honor.
COURT:
Proceed Fiscal.
Q: P03 Francia, you were one of those appointed to form a team?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: And you said, you were only as alalay ?
A: Yes, back-up, maam.

Q: What does an alalay or back-up do?
A: We are there to prevent any intruder that may prevent our operation, maam.
Q: How far were you positioned from the poseur-buyer?
A: More than 5-7 meters, maam.
Q: Was there any incident or intruder that stopped you from arresting the accused?
A: None, maam.
Q: From where you were, were you able to see the pre-arranged signal by the poseur-buyer?
xxxx
A: No, I did not see, maam.
Q: As a back-up, when did you come to see that the deal was consummated?
A: When my companions moved to Know me Sia to assist him, maam.
Q: And what was your last act at that time?
A: "Umalalay," maam.
31
Incidentally, neither did PO3 Francia corroborate PO3 Sia's claim that he and PO3 Enderina were present
when he marked the subject sachet at the precinct.
In People v. Morales, we acquitted the accused due to the failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and
inventory the seized items or to give justifiable grounds for their non-observance of the required procedures.
In People v. Garcia, the accused was acquitted because "no physical inventory was ever made, and no
photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its
implementing rules." We issued the same ruling in Bondad Jr. v. People, where the police without
justifiable grounds did not inventory or photograph the seized items. We reiterated the same ruling in People
v. Gutierrez, People v. Denoman, People v. Partoza, People v. Robles, and People v. dela Cruz. In all
these cases, we stressed the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures in Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165 concerning the preservation of the chain of custody of confiscated drugs in a buy-bust
operation.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Further, in Mallillin v. People we emphasized that the chain of custody rule requires that there be testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the object seized was picked up to the time it was offered in
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched it would describe how and from whom it was
41
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the possession of the witness, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
42
The RTC and CA both convicted Beran on the basis alone of the uncorroborated testimony of PO3 Sia, and
despite the buy-bust team s unexplained non-observance of the procedures laid down in Article II, Section
21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165. As the Court of last resort, we are now called upon to correct this error.
Unlike in People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Mali y Quimno a k a "Linda", where we found that the
prosecution adequately established the unbroken links in the chain of custody of the confiscated drug, and
the apprehending officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized and
justified their non-compliance with the above procedures, in the instant appeal we rule that the chain of
custody has not been established at all, and thus the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug seized has
not been preserved.
43
Contrary to the settled rule in a

buy-bust operation, the confiscated
shabu was not (1) marked in the
presence of Beran (2) immediately
upon confiscation.
Concerning the marking of evidence seized in a buy-bust operation or under a search warrant, vis-a-vis the
physical inventory and photograph, it must be noted that there are distinctions as to time and place under
Section 21 of R A No. 9165. Thus, whereas in seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory
and photograph must be conducted in the place of the search warrant, in warrantless seizures such as a
buy-bust operation the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, consistent with the "chain of custody" rule.
In People v. Sanchez the Court held that:
44
"Physical inventory and photograph

requirement under Section 21
vis--vis "marking" of seized evidence
While the first sentence of Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165
states that "the apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same," the second sentence makes
a distinction between warrantless seizures and seizures by virtue of a warrant, thus:
"(a) x x x 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."
Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ and depend on
whether the seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through a warrantless seizure such as a buybust operation.
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the
place where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in case of warrantless seizures such as a
buy-bust operation, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station
or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable; however, nothing prevents the
apprehending officer/team from immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items
at the place where they were seized, as it is more in keeping with the law's intent of preserving their integrity
and evidentiary value.
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of
marking of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension
is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the
police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the
marking of the seized itemsto truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2)
immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious
and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based
on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft. (Citations omitted and
emphases in the original)
45
It needs no elaboration that the immediate marking of the item seized in a buy-bust operation in the
presence of the accused is indispensable to establish its identity in court. PO3 Sia admitted that he marked
the sachet of shabu only at the DAID-WPD precinct, several kilometers from the buy-bust scene, as well as
impliedly admitted that Beran was not then present. Indeed, none of the buy-bust team attested that they
saw him take custody of the confiscated shabu and later mark the sachet at the DAID-WPD office.
Also, the operatives rode in separate vehicles on the trip back to the WPD, and PO3 Sia took a scooter with
another teammate, who could then have attested as to his exclusive custody of the subject drug, but that
person was not presented to affirm this fact. So even granting that P03 Sia did mark the same sachet at the
precinct, breaks in the chain of custody had already taken place, first, when he confiscated it from Beran
without anyone observing him do so and without marking the subject sachet at the place of apprehension,
and then as he was transporting it to the precinct, thus casting serious doubt upon the value of the said links
to prove the corpus delicti.
It has been held that "while a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken
chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange." Moreover, as the investigator of
the case, PO3 Sia claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing, but there is no
showing who the laboratory technician was who received the drug from him. The records also show that he
submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his
46
exclusive custody thereof overnight. All these leave us with no conclusion but that there is serious doubt that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised.
Lapses in the strict compliance with
the requirements of Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 must be explained in
terms of their justifiable grounds,
and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized must be
shown to have been preserved.
In People v. Coreche, we explained that the above-cited rules are intended to narrow the window of
opportunity for tampering with evidence, as expressed in Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165. As noted by the
Court which is worth stating:
47
1wphi1
RA 9165 is silent on when and where marking should be done. On the other hand, its implementing rules
provide guidelines on the inventory of the seized drugs, thus: "the physical inventory x x x shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures" (Section 21(a) of
Implementing Rules and Regulations). In People v. Sanchez G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA
194), we drew a distinction between marking and inventory and held that consistent with the chain of
custody rule, the marking of the drugs seized without warrant must be done "immediately upon confiscation"
and in the presence of the accused.
The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found legislative
expression in Section 21(1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by
putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs the duty to "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." Although RA 9165 is silent
on the effect of non-compliance with Section 21(1), its implementing guidelines provide that "noncompliance 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." We have interpreted this provision to mean that the
prosecution bears the burden of proving "justifiable cause" (People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Garcia, G.R.
No. 173480, 25 February 2009, 580 SCRA 259).
48
In Sanchez, we recognized that under varied field conditions the strict compliance with the requirements of
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible, and we ruled that under the implementing
guidelines of the said Section "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." But we added
that the prosecution bears the burden of proving justifiable cause."
49
Thus, in Almorfe, we stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the
reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had
nonetheless been preserved. In People v. de Guzman, we emphasized that the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that
they even exist.
50
51
52
In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer an explanation for why an inventory and
photograph of the seized evidence was not made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the police
station, as required by the Implementing Rules in case of warrantless arrests, or why the marking of the
seized item was not made at the place of seizure in the presence of Beran. Indeed, the very identity of the
subject shabu cannot be established with certainty by the testimony alone of PO3 Sia since the rules insist
upon independent proof of its identity, such as the immediate marking thereof upon seizure. And as we
already noted, PO3 Sia claimed that he personally transported the shabu to the WPD station, yet other than
his lone testimony there is no other evidence of his exclusive and uninterrupted custody during the interval
from seizure and transportation to turn over at the WPD. Then, the record shows that PO3 Sia submitted the
sachet of shabu for laboratory examination only the next day, and therefore presumably he retained
custody of the subject sachet overnight. In view of his self-serving admission that he marked the sachet only
at the precinct, but without anyone present, along with his lack of mention of the laboratory technician or
officer who received the sachet from him, the charge that the subject drug may have been tampered with or
substituted is inevitable.
53
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated March 9, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04466 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Joselito Beran y Zapanta is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. His immediate RELEASE from detention is hereby
ORDERED unless he is being held for another lawful cause. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation, who is then also
directed to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from his receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y
ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON
G.R. No. 191366
Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ

Y CAROLINO, and RAFAEL
GONZALES Y CUNANAN,
Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the August 7, 2009 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269, which affirmed
the February 13, 2008 Decision [2] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2006-0525D, finding the accused guilty of violating Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for Possession
of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
The Facts
The Information indicting the accused reads:
That on or about the 2nd day of September 2006, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ARNOLD MARTINEZ y
ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ y CAROLINO, ROLAND DORIA y DIAZ
and RAFAEL GONZALES y CUNANAN, without authority of law, confederating together, acting jointly
and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, sniff and possess
dangerous drugs (shabu residues) contained in empty plastic sachets and rolled aluminum foil, during
a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) person[s].
Contrary to Section 13, Article II, R.A. 9165.[3]
Version of the Prosecution

As culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Police Officer 1 Bernard Azardon (PO1 Azardon), one of the
apprehending officers, and Police Inspector Lady Ellen Maranion (P/Insp. Maranion), the forensic chemical officer, it appears that
on September 2, 2006, at around 12:45 oclock in the afternoon, PO1 Azardon was on duty at the Police Community Precinct II
along Arellano Street, Dagupan City, when a concerned citizen entered the precinct and reported that a pot session was going on in
the house of accused Rafael Gonzales (Gonzales) in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon receipt of the report, PO1 Azardon,
PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and members of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team hied to Trinidad
Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon inquiry from people in the area, the house of Gonzales was located.
As the police officers entered the gate of the house, they saw accused Orlando Doria (Doria) coming out of the side door
and immediately arrested him. Inside the house, they saw accused Gonzales, Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez), Edgar
Dizon (Dizon), and Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a room. The four were surprised by the presence of the police. In front of them
were open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of used aluminum foil.
The accused were arrested and brought to the police precinct. The items found in the room were seized and turned over to
the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime Laboratory Officer, P/Insp. Maranion. The latter conducted a laboratory examination on
the seized items and all 115 plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were subjected to a drug test and, except for Doria, they were
found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Version of the Defense
The defense, through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez, Dizon, and R. Martinez, claimed that in the morning of September 2,
2006, the three of them were along Arellano Street in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City, to meet with a certain Apper who
bumped the passenger jeep of R. Martinez and who was to give the materials for the painting of said jeep. As they were going
around the subdivision looking for Apper, they saw Gonzales in front of his house and asked him if he noticed a person pass
by. While they were talking, Doria arrived. It was then that five to seven policemen emerged and apprehended them. They were
handcuffed and brought to the police station in Perez, Dagupan City, where they were incarcerated and charged with sniffing
shabu.
The Ruling of the RTC
The case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer to evidence.

On February 13, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositve portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ARNOLD
MARTINEZ y Angeles, EDGAR DIZON y Ferrer, REZIN MARTINEZ y Carolino, and RAFAEL
GONZALES y Cunanan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Possession of Dangerous
Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings defined and penalized under Section 13 in
relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and each of them is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine in the amount of P500,000.00, and to pay the cost of
suit.
The subject items are hereby forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in
accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED.[4]
The RTC was of the view that the positive testimony of prosecution witness PO1 Azardon, without any showing of illmotive on his part, prevailed over the defenses of denial and alibi put up by the accused. The accused were held to have been in
constructive possession of the subject items. A conspiracy was also found present as there was a common purpose to possess the
dangerous drug.
The Ruling of the CA

The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the RTC as to the constructive possession of the
dangerous drugs by the accused. It further held that although the procedure regarding the custody and disposition of evidence
prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were
nonetheless safeguarded. The CA was of the view that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was not
sufficiently controverted by the accused.
Not in conformity, the accused now interposes this appeal before this Court praying for the reversal of the subject
decision, presenting the following
Assignment of Errors
For accused Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon and Rezin Martinez

1. The lower court erred in finding the accused-appellants
to be having a pot session at the time of their arrest;
2.
The lower court erred in not seeing through the antics of the police to plant the shabu paraphernalia
to justify the arrest of the accused-appellants without warrant;
3.
The lower court erred in not finding that the corpus delicti has not been sufficiently established;
4.
The lower court erred in not finding the uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Azardon insufficient to
convict the accused-appellants of the crime charged;
5.
The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused-appellants.
For accused Rafael Gonzales

I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE
THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE
THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED DRUG.
After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary records, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
the accused. The principal reasons are 1] that the evidence against the accused are inadmissible; and 2] that granting the same to be
admissible, the chain of custody has not been duly established.
Illegal Arrest, Search and Seizure

Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such issue before arraignment.
[5]
However, this waiver is limited only to the arrest. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.[6]
Although the admissibility of the evidence was not raised as in issue by the accused, it has been held that this Court has
the power to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary in arriving at a just decision, [7] especially when the
transcendental matter of life and liberty is at stake. [8] While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than
frustrate the ends of justice, they nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, this Court has
reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate
it. Technicalities should never be used to defeat substantive rights. [9] Thus, despite the procedural lapses of the accused, this Court
shall rule on the admissibility of the evidence in the case at bench. The clear infringement of the accuseds right to be protected
against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be ignored.
The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into
their houses, papers and effects.[10] Sec. 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 2. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
This constitutional guarantee, however, is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures without warrant.
Arrests and seizures in the following instances are allowed even in the absence of a warrant (i) warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest;[11] (ii) search of evidence in "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v)
customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances. [12]
This case would appear to fall under either a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest or a plain view search, both of
which require a lawful arrest in order to be considered valid exceptions to the constitutional guarantee. Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the circumstances under which a warrantless arrest is lawful. Thus:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
A review of the facts reveal that the arrest of the accused was illegal and the subject items were confiscated as an incident
thereof. According to the testimony of PO1 Azardon and his Joint Affidavit [13] with PO1 Dela Cruz, they proceeded to, and entered,
the house of accused Gonzales based solely on the report of a concerned citizen that a pot session was going on in said house, to
wit:
Q: I go back to the information referred to you by the informant, did he not tell you how many persons
were actually conducting the pot session?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you went to the place of Rafael Gonzales, of course you were not armed with a search
warrant, correct?
A: None, sir.
Q: Before the information was given to you by your alleged informant, you did not know personally
Rafael Gonzales?
A: I have not met [him] yet but I heard his name, sir.
Q: When this informant told you that he was told that there was [an] ongoing pot session in the house
of Rafael Gonzales, was this report to you placed in the police blotter before you proceeded to
the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: I think it was no longer recorded, sir.
Q: In other words, you did not even bother to get the personal data or identity of the person who told
you that he was allegedly informed that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael
Gonzales?
A: What I know is that he is a jeepney driver of a downtown jeepney but he does not want to be
identified because he was afraid, sir.
Q: And likewise, he did not inform you who told him that there was an ongoing pot session in the
house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: No more, sir.
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately formed a group and went
to the place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
Q: When you were at the open gate of the premises of Rafael Gonzales, you could not see what is
happening inside the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not also see the alleged paraphernalia as well as the plastic sachet of shabu on the table
while you were outside the premises of the property of Rafael Gonzales?
xxx
Q: Before they entered the premises they could not see the paraphernalia?
COURT: Answer.
A: Of course because they were inside the room, how could we see them, sir.
Q: But still you entered the premises, only because a certain person who told you that he was informed
by another person that there was an ongoing pot session going on inside the house of Rafael
Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And that is the only reason why you barged in inside the house of Rafael Gonzales and you arrested
the persons you saw?
A: Yes, sir.[14]
Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to this case. Paragraphs (a) and (b), on the other hand, may be applicable
and both require probable cause to be present in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid. Probable cause has been held to signify a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious mans belief that
the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.[15]
Although this Court has ruled in several dangerous drugs cases [16] that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to
effect a warrantless search,[17] such rulings cannot be applied in the case at bench because said cases involve either a buy-bust
operation or drugs in transit, basically, circumstances other than the sole tip of an informer as basis for the arrest. None of these
drug cases involve police officers entering a house without warrant to effect arrest and seizure based solely on an informers
tip. The case of People v. Bolasa[18] is informative on this matter.
In People v. Bolasa, an anonymous caller tipped off the police that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited drugs at
a certain house. The police immediately proceeded to the house of the suspects. They walked towards the house accompanied by
their informer. When they reached the house, they peeped inside through a small window and saw a man and woman repacking
marijuana. They then entered the house, introduced themselves as police officers, confiscated the drug paraphernalia, and arrested
the suspects. This Court ruled:
The manner by which accused-appellants were apprehended does not fall under any of the
above-enumerated categories. Perforce, their arrest is illegal. First, the arresting officers had no
personal knowledge that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants had just committed, were
committing, or were about to commit a crime. Second, the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge that a crime was committed nor did they have any reasonable ground to believe that
accused-appellants committed it. Third, accused-appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from
a penal establishment.
Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain view. First, there was no valid
intrusion. As already discussed, accused-appellants were illegally arrested. Second, the evidence, i.e.,
the tea bags later on found to contain marijuana, was not inadvertently discovered. The police officers
intentionally peeped first through the window before they saw and ascertained the activities of
accused-appellants inside the room. In like manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of a
moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search, a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot even
fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for the evidence at hand is bereft of any such
showing.
On the contrary, it indicates that the apprehending officers should have conducted first a
surveillance considering that the identities and address of the suspected culprits were already
ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause for
arresting accused-appellants, they should have secured a search warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest
and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every
evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against accused-appellants; hence,
their acquittal must follow in faithful obeisance to the fundamental law.[19]
It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion, that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing an offense, is based on actual facts, that is, supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. [20]
As to paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of the
arrest, accused had just committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime, as they had no probable cause to enter the
house of accused Rafael Gonzales in order to arrest them. As to paragraph (b), the arresting officers had no personal knowledge of
facts and circumstances that would lead them to believe that the accused had just committed an offense. As admitted in the
testimony of PO1 Azardon, the tip originated from a concerned citizen who himself had no personal knowledge of the information
that was reported to the police:
Q: Mr. Witness, you claimed that the reason for apprehending all the accused was based on a tip-off by
an informant?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What exactly [did] that informant tell you?
A: He told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of one of the
accused Rafael Gonzales, sir.
Q: You mean to say that it was not the informant himself to whom the information originated but from
somebody else?
A: That was what he told me, sir.
Q: Because of that you proceeded to where the alleged pot session was going on? [No Answer]
Q: Did you[r] informant particularly pinpointed [sic] to where the alleged pot session was going on?
A: No more because he did not go with us, sir.
Q: So you merely relied on what he said that something or a pot session was going on somewhere in
Arellano but you dont know the exact place where the pot session was going on?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And your informant has no personal knowledge as to the veracity of the alleged pot session because
he claimed that he derived that information from somebody else?
A: This is what he told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot session, sir.
Q: Despite of [sic] that information you proceeded to where?
A: Trinidad Subdivision, sir.
xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, did your informant named [sic] those included in the alleged pot session?
A: No, sir.
Q: That was, because your informant dont [sic] know physically what was really happening there?
A: He was told by another person that there was an ongoing pot session there, sir. [21] [Emphasis
supplied]
Neither can it be said that the subject items were seized in plain view. The elements of plainview are: (a) a prior valid
intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent; and, (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.[22]
The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as the police officers intentionally entered the house with no prior
surveillance or investigation before they discovered the accused with the subject items. If the prior peeking of the police officers
in Bolasa was held to be insufficient to constitute plain view, then more so should the warrantless search in this case be struck
down. Neither can the search be considered as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search, a customs search, a
stop and frisk, or one under exigent and emergency circumstances.
The apprehending officers should have first conducted a surveillance considering that the identity and address of one of
the accused were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause, then a
search warrant should have been secured prior to effecting arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal, the ensuing search as a result
thereof is likewise illegal. Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded.[23] The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are thus
inadmissible. The drug, being the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, its inadmissibility thus
precludes conviction, and calls for the acquittal of the accused.
As has been noted previously by this Court, some lawmen, prosecutors and judges have glossed over illegal searches and
seizures in cases where law enforcers are able to present the alleged evidence of the crime, regardless of the methods by which
they were obtained. This attitude tramples on constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the name of law enforcement. It is ironic that
such enforcement of the law fosters the breakdown of our system of justice and the eventual denigration of society. While this
Court appreciates and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society,
we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law.[24]
Chain of Custody
Even granting that the seized items are admissible as evidence, the acquittal of the accused would still be in order for failure of the
apprehending officers to comply with the chain of custody requirement in dangerous drugs cases.
The accused contend that the identity of the seized drug was not established with moral certainty as the chain of custody
appears to be questionable, the authorities having failed to comply with Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165, and Dangerous Drug
Board (DDB) Resolution No. 03, Series of 1979, as amended by Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990. They argue that there was
no prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), no inventory of the confiscated items conducted at
the crime scene, no photograph of the items taken, no compliance with the rule requiring the accused to sign the inventory and to
give them copies thereof, and no showing of how the items were handled from the time of confiscation up to the time of
submission to the crime laboratory for testing. Therefore, the corpus delicti was not proven, thereby producing reasonable doubt as
to their guilt. Thus, they assert that the presumption of innocence in their favor was not overcome by the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty.
The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the dangerous
drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.
[25]
Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the
possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate
company of at least two (2) persons.
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a
condition sine qua non for conviction. In order to establish the existence of the drug, its chain of custody must be sufficiently
established. 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.[26] Malillin v. People was the first in a growing number of cases to explain the importance of chain of
custody in dangerous drugs cases, to wit:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission
of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, 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 in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.[27]
Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,[28] defines chain of custody as follows:
b. Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as
evidence, and the final disposition;
Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity
of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
SEC. 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.
People v. Habana thoroughly discusses the proper procedure for the custody of seized or confiscated items in dangerous
drugs cases in order to ensure their identity and integrity, as follows:
Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising
officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is
unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the
officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal
the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic
container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed
to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.
If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the
same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was
seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory technician tests and verifies the nature of the
substance in the container, he should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a
new seal since the police officers seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe the
sealed condition of the plastic container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he
took afterwards to preserve its integrity.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to
present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain
of custody, no matter how briefly ones possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the
substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care. [29]
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborates, and provides for, the
possibility of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure:
(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 noncompliance 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. [Emphasis supplied]
Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not necessarily render the seizure and custody of
the items void and invalid, provided that (i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, however, no justifiable ground is found availing, and it is
apparent that there was a failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to ensure the identity of
the corpus delicti from the time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. A review of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the documentary records of the case reveals irreparably broken links in the chain of custody.
According to the apprehending police officers in their Joint Affidavit, the following were confiscated from the accused, to wit:
a)
b)
Several pcs of used empty plastic sachets containing suspected shabu residues.
Eight used (8) disposable lighters ( two (2) pcs colored orange, two (2) pcs colored yellow, one (1)
pc colored green & one (1) pc colored white ).
c)
Several pcs of used rolled aluminum foil containing suspected shabu residues.
d)
Several pcs of used cut aluminum foil containing suspected shabu residues.
e)
One (1) pc glass tube containing suspected shabu residues.[30]

[Emphases supplied]
At the police station, the case, the accused, and the above-mentioned items were indorsed to Duty Investigator Senior
Police Officer 1 Pedro Urbano, Jr. (SPO1 Urbano) for proper disposition.[31] A letter-request for laboratory examination was
prepared by Police Superintendent Edgar Orduna Basbag for the following items:
a)
Pieces of used empty small plastic sachets with suspected shabu residues marked DC&A-1.
b)
Pieces of used rolled and cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues marked DC&A-2.
c)
Pieces of used cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues marked DC&A-3.[32]
[Emphases supplied]
The letter-request and above-mentioned items were submitted to P/Insp. Maranion by SPO3 Froilan Esteban (SPO3
Esteban). Final Chemistry Report No. D-042-06L listed the specimens which were submitted for testing, to wit:
SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:
A A1 to A115 One Hundred fifteen (115) open transparent plastic sachet with tag each containing
suspected shabu residue without markings.
B B1 to B11 Eleven (11) rolled used aluminum foil with tag each containing suspected shabu
residue without markings.
C C1 to C49 Forty-nine (49) used aluminum foil with tag each containing suspected shabu
residue without markings.[33]
[Emphases supplied]
Three days after the subject items were seized, or on September 5, 2006, a Confiscation Receipt was issued by PO1
Azardon and PO1 Dela Cruz, which reads:
DCPS AID SOTG 05 September 2006
CONFISCATION RECEIPT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on or about 12:45 noon of September 4, 2006, we together with our
precinct supervisor, SPO4 Pedro Belen Jr., and SWAT members composed of SPO1 Marlon Decano,
PO3 Manuel Garcia, PO2 Adriano Cepiroto and PO1 Aldrin Guarin apprehended the following names
of persons of ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, 37 yrs old, married, jobless, a resident of Lucao Dist.,
this city; EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, 36 yrs old, single, tricycle driver, a resident of 471 Lucao Dist.,
this city. REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, 44 yrs old, married, jitney driver, a resident of Lucao
Disttrict this city; ROLAND DORIA Y DIAZ, 39 yrs old, married, businessman, resident of Cabeldatan,
Malasiqui, Pangasinan and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, 49 yrs old, separated, jobless and a
resident of Trinidad Subd., Arellano-Bani this city.
Suspects were duly informed of their constitutional rights and were brought to Dagupan City
Police Station, Perez Market Site Dagupan City and indorsed to Duty Desk Officer to record the
incident and the sachet of suspected Shabu Paraphernalias were brought to PNP Crime Laboratory,
Lingayen, Pangasinan for Laboratory Examination.
Seizing Officer:
(sgd.) (sgd.)
PO1 Bernard B Azardon PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz
Affiant Affiant
Remarks:
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed[34]
[Emphases supplied]
The 115 open transparent plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 (of the 49) pieces of used aluminum foil,
all containing shabu residue, as identified in the Final Chemistry Report, were presented in court and marked as Exhibits H and
series, I and series, and J and series, respectively. Said items were identified by PO1 Azardon and P/Insp. Maranion at the witness
stand.[35]
The CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject items were properly preserved as there was sufficient evidence
to prove that the items seized from the accused were the same ones forwarded to the crime laboratory for examination, as shown in
the Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for laboratory examination.
A review of the chain of custody indicates, however, that the CA is mistaken.
First, the apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. After seizure and confiscation of the subject
items, no physical inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused, or their representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. Thus, no inventory was prepared, signed, and provided to the accused in the
manner required by law. PO1 Azardon, in his testimony,[36] admitted that no photographs were taken. The only discernable reason
proffered by him for the failure to comply with the prescribed procedure was that the situation happened so suddenly. Thus:
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately formed a group and went
to the place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Such that you did not even inform the PDEA before you barged in that place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: It was so suddenly, [sic] sir.
Q: And that explains the reason why you were not able to have pictures taken, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.[37]
[Emphasis supplied]
The Court does not find such to be a justifiable ground to excuse non-compliance. The suddenness of the situation cannot
justify non-compliance with the requirements. The police officers were not prevented from preparing an inventory and taking
photographs. In fact, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides specifically that in case of warrantless seizures, the
inventory and photographs shall be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.
Whatever effect the suddenness of the situation may have had should have dissipated by the time they reached the police station, as
the suspects had already been arrested and the items seized.Moreover, it has been held that in case of warrantless seizures nothing
prevents the apprehending officer from immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at their place
of seizure, as it is more in keeping with the laws intent to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. [38]
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in
the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,[39] People
v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,[41] People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v. Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,
[45]
and People v. Kimura.[46]
Second, the subject items were not properly marked. The case of People v. Sanchez is instructive on the requirement of
marking, to wit:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the
matter of "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon
apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are
undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of
custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same
items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (1) in the
presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of
protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on
allegations of robbery or theft.
For greater specificity, "marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or
the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the item/s seized. x x x Thereafter, the seized
items shall be placed in an envelope or an evidence bag unless the type and quantity of the seized items
require a different type of handling and/or container. The evidence bag or container shall accordingly
be signed by the handling officer and turned over to the next officer in the chain of custody.
[47]
[Emphasis in the original]
Nowhere in the testimony of PO1 Azardon or in his Joint Affidavit with PO1 Dela Cruz does it appear that the subject
items were at all marked. It was only in the letter-request for laboratory examination that the subject items were indicated to have
been marked with DC&A-1, DC&A-2 and DC&A-3. There is no showing, however, as to who made those markings and when
they were made. Moreover, those purported markings were never mentioned when the subject items were identified by the
prosecution witnesses when they took the stand.
The markings appear to pertain to a group of items, that is, empty plastic sachets, rolled and cut aluminium foil, and cut
aluminium foil, but do not specifically pertain to any individual item in each group. Furthermore, it was only in the Chemistry
Report[48] that the precise number of each type of item was indicated and enumerated. The Court notes that in all documents prior to
said report, the subject items were never accurately quantified but only described as pieces, [49] several pcs,[50] and shabu
paraphernallas.[51]Strangely, the Chemistry Report indicates that all the subject items had no markings, although each item was
reported to have been marked by P/Insp. Maranion in the course of processing the subject items during laboratory examination and
testing.[52] Doubt, therefore, arises as to the identity of the subject items. It cannot be determined with moral certainty that the
subject items seized from the accused were the same ones subjected to the laboratory examination and presented in court.
This Court has acquitted the accused for the failure and irregularity in the marking of seized items in dangerous drugs
cases, such as Zarraga v. People,[53] People v. Kimura,[54] and People v. Laxa.[55]
Third, the Confiscation Receipt relied upon by the prosecution and the courts below gives rise to more uncertainty. Instead of being
prepared on the day of the seizure of the items, it was prepared only three days after. More important, the receipt did not even
indicate exactly what items were confiscated and their quantity. These are basic information that a confiscation receipt should
provide. The only information contained in the Confiscation Receipt was the fact of arrest of the accused and the general
description of the subject items as the sachet of suspected Shabu paraphernallas were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The
receipt is made even more dubious by PO1 Azardons admission in his testimony [56] that he did not personally prepare the
Confiscation Receipt and he did not know exactly who did so.
Fourth, according to the Certification[57] issued by the Dagupan Police Station, the subject items were indorsed by PO1 Dela Cruz
to Duty Investigator SPO1 Urbano for proper disposition. These were later turned over by SPO3 Esteban to P/Insp. Maranion.
There is, however, no showing of how and when the subject items were transferred from SPO1 Urbano to SPO3 Esteban.
Fifth, P/Insp. Maranion appears to be the last person in the chain of custody. No witness testified on how the subject items were
kept after they were tested prior to their presentation in court. This Court has highlighted similar shortcomings in People
v. Cervantes,[58] People v. Garcia,[59] People v. Sanchez,[60] and Malillin v. People.[61]
More irregularities further darken the cloud as to the guilt of the accused. Contrary to PO1 Azardons testimony[62] that
they were tipped off by a concerned citizen while at the police station, the Letter [63] to the Executive Director of the DDB states that
the apprehending officers were tipped off while conducting monitoring/surveillance. Said letter also indicates, as does the
Confiscation Receipt, that the arrest and seizure occurred on September 4, 2006, and not September 2, 2006, as alleged in the
Information. It was also mentioned in the aforementioned Certification of the Dagupan Police and Joint Affidavit of the police
officers that a glass tube suspected to contain shabu residue was also confiscated from the accused. Interestingly, no glass tube was
submitted for laboratory examination.
In sum, numerous lapses and irregularities in the chain of custody belie the prosecutions position that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the subject items were properly preserved. The two documents specifically relied on by the CA, the
Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for laboratory examination, have been shown to be grossly insufficient in proving the
identity of the corpus delicti. The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This means that proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential before the accused can be found guilty.[64]
Regarding the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA provided in Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, in People v. Sta. Maria,
[65]
this Court held that said section was silent as to the consequences of such failure, and said silence could not be interpreted as a
legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal, nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest
inadmissible. Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the lead agency in the investigation and prosecution of
drug-related cases. Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as
long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter.
Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the evidence
but only its weight.[66] Thus, had the subject items in this case been admissible, their evidentiary merit and probative value would
be insufficient to warrant conviction.
It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the police officers, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty should prevail. However, such presumption obtains only when there is no deviation from the regular
performance of duty.[67] Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, the presumption of regularity cannot stand.
In this case, the official acts of the law enforcers were clearly shown and proven to be irregular. When challenged by the
evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of the
accused.[68]
This Court once again takes note of the growing number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to the failure of law
enforcers to observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure under the law.[69] Some bona fide arrests and seizures in
dangerous drugs cases result in the acquittal of the accused because drug enforcement operatives compromise the integrity and
evidentiary worth of the seized items. It behooves this Court to remind law enforcement agencies to exert greater effort to apply the
rules and procedures governing the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs.
It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, as
earlier stated, non-compliance therewith is not necessarily fatal. However, the lapses in procedure must be recognized, addressed
and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to
have been preserved.[70]
On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be instructive on Sec. 11 [71] (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Sec.
15[72] (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This Court notes the
practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is
only and solely in the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be
more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug
use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last
paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for
first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on
the basis of residue alone would frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to
recover for a second chance at life.
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the
accused were found positive for use of dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained admissible, and
the chain of custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs
and, if there was no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 14 [73] (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus
and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum
penalty under Sec. 12[74] (Possession of Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous
Drugs) shall be imposed on any person who shall possess any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum penalty is imprisonment of four years and a fine of P50,000.00. In fact, under the
same section, the possession of such equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the possessor has
used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Sec. 15.
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls on law enforcers and
prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs is only
and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such
cases, to afford the accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of dangerous drugs should
only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the possession of the accused
as provided for in Sec. 15.
WHEREFORE, the August 7, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and another judgment enteredACQUITTING the accused and ordering their immediate release from detention, unless they
are confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five days from receipt of this
decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the Director-General, Philippine National Police, and the DirectorGeneral, Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency, for their information and guidance.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, is directed to turn over the seized items to the Dangerous Drugs
Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 190621
February 10, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
GLENN SALVADOR y BAL VERDE, and DORY ANN PARCON y DEL ROSARIO, Accused,
GLENN SALVADOR y BALVERDE, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from
the accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved.
1
Factual Antecedents
For review is the Decision dated September 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No.
03230 that affirmed in toto the January 15, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82,
Quezon City, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-120799-800. The said RTC Decision found. Glenn Salvador y
Balverde (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (illegal sale), and accused
Dory Ann Parcon y Del Rosario (Parcon) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 (illegal
possession), both of Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
2
The Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 filed against appellant in Criminal Case No.
Q-03-120799 has the following accusatory portion:
4
That on or about the 3rd day of September, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there,
willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction,
one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline substance containing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
While the pertinent portion of the Information for violation of Section 11 of Article II, RA 9165 filed against
Parcon in Criminal Case No. Q-03-120800 is as follows:
6
That on or about the 3rd day of September, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his/her possession and control one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline substance
containing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon motion of the prosecution, the cases were consolidated. On November 4, 2003, appellant and Parcon
were arraigned. They entered separate pleas of not guilty.
8
During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the following facts which the prosecution offered for
stipulation:
x x x [T]hat [Police Inspector Leonard T. Arban (P/Insp. Arban)] is a Forensic Chemist of the PNP; that he
received a letter-request for Laboratory Examination for certain specimen which was marked as Exhibit "A";
that together with the said request is a brown envelope marked as Exhibit "B"; that said brown envelope
contained a plastic sachet marked as Exhibit "B-1" and thereafter he conducted the examination of the said
specimen and submitted a report marked as Exhibit "C"; the findings thereon that the specimen was positive
for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride was marked as Exhibit "C-1" and the signature of the said police
officer was marked as Exhibit "C-2". Thereafter, said police officer turned over the said evidence to the
Evidence Custodian and retrieved the same for purposes of the hearing today.
10
Trial ensued. Parcon failed to attend the scheduled hearings, hence, she was tried in absentia.
11

The prosecution presented PO2 Sofjan Soriano (PO2 Soriano) to testify on the entrapment operation that
resulted in the arrest of appellant and Parcon. From his testimony, the following facts emerged:
12
While PO2 Soriano was on duty in Police Station 2, Baler Street, Quezon City on September 2, 2003, a
confidential informant (CI) arrived at around 9:00 a.m. and reported that a certain alias Bumski was
engaged in the illicit sale of dangerous drugs in Barangay Pag-asa, Quezon City. PO2 Soriano immediately
relayed this information to Police Chief Inspector Joseph De Vera (P/C Insp. De Vera). A surveillance
operation conducted the same day on alias Bumski, who turned out to be the appellant, confirmed the
report. Thus, a police team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Soriano was designated as
poseur-buyer while PO2 Richard Vecida, PO1 Alexander Pancho, PO1 Alvin Pineda (PO1 Pineda) and P/C
Insp. De Vera would serve as his backup.
At around 2:45 p.m. of September 3, 2003, the team arrived at Road 10, Barangay Pag-asa, Quezon City.
PO2 Soriano and the CI proceeded to appellants house while the rest of the buy-bust team positioned
themselves within viewing distance. The CI introduced PO2 Soriano to appellant as a drug dependent who
wanted to purchase P200.00 worth of shabu. During their conversation, Parcon arrived and asked appellant
for shabu. Appellant gave her a small heat-sealed plastic sachet that she placed in her coin purse.
Thereafter, PO2 Soriano handed to appellant the buy-bust money consisting of two 100-peso bills and the
latter, in turn, gave him a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Soriano
then immediately arrested appellant and recovered from his right hand pocket the buy bust money. At this
juncture, PO2 Sorianos teammates rushed to the scene. PO1 Pineda arrested Parcon and recovered from
her a plastic sachet also containing white crystalline substance.
Appellant and Parcon were then taken to the Baler Police Station. The items recovered during the buy-bust
operation were marked by PO2 Soriano as "SJ-03" and "AP-03" and turned over to the designated
investigator, PO1 Vicente Calatay (PO1 Calatay). PO1 Calatay then prepared a letter-request for laboratory
examination, which, together with the confiscated specimen, was brought by PO2 Soriano to the PNP Crime
Laboratory.
The prosecution intended to present PO1 Calatay and PO1 Pineda as witnesses, but their testimonies were
likewise dispensed with after the defense agreed to stipulate on the following facts:
PO1 Calatay
[T]hat he was the police investigator assigned to investigate these cases; that in connection with the
investigation that he conducted, he took the Joint Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 Richard Vecida, PO2 Sofjan
Soriano, PO1 Alvin Pineda, and PO1Alexander Pancho marked as Exhibits "F" and "F-1"; that the
specimen[s] consisting of two (2) plastic sachets marked as Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" were turned over to
him by the arresting officers; that in connection therewith, he prepared the request for laboratory
examination marked as Exhibit "A" and received a copy of the Chemistry Report, the original of which was
earlier marked as Exhibit "C"; that the buy-bust money consisting of two (2) pieces of Php100.00 bill marked
as Exhibits "D" and "E" were likewise turned over to him by the arresting officer; that he thereafter prepared
a letter referral to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City marked as Exhibits "G" and "G-1".
13
PO1 Pineda
[T]hat he was part of the buy-bust team which conducted a buy[-]bust operation on September 3, 2003 at
about 2:45 a.m. at Road 10, Pag-asa, Quezon City; that he acted as back-up to PO2 Sofjan Soriano, the
poseur buyer in the said operation; that he was with PO2 [Richard] Vecida and PO1 Alexander Pancho
during said operation; that after the consummation of the transaction between PO2 Sofjan Soriano and
Glenn Salvador, he assisted in the arrest of accused Doryann Parcon; that upon [body] search of accused
Parcon, he recovered from the latter a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance; that said plastic
sachet was marked as Exhibit "B-2".
14
Version of the Defense

In his testimony, appellant claimed that at about 11:00 p.m. of September 2, 2003, he was parking his
tricycle outside his residence at 135 Road 10, Brgy. Pag-asa, Quezon City when a patrol car suddenly
stopped in front of his house. Three policemen alighted, aimed their guns at him, and forced him to board
their vehicle. Already inside were two men in handcuffs sitting on the floor. The police car then proceeded to
Police Station 2 in Baler, Quezon City, where he and the two other men were taken to a room and frisked by
policemen who demandedP20,000.00 from each of them. They were told to call their relatives to inform
them of their arrest for engaging in a pot session. When appellant refused to oblige, PO2 Soriano said to
him: "matigas ka, hindi ka marunong makisama dapat sayo ikulong." He was thereafter detained and no
longer saw the two men he mentioned. Two days later, he was presented to the Prosecutors Office for
inquest.
15
Appellant accused the police officers of falsehood but could not file a case against them since his parents
were in the Unites States of America and he did not know anyone else who could help him. He denied
knowing Parcon and the arresting officers and claimed that he saw Parcon for the first time during the
inquest and the arresting officers when they arrested him.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
of appellant and Parcon for the crimes charged. It did not find impressive appellants claim of extortion by
the police officers and instead upheld the buy-bust operation which it found to have been carried out with
due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards. It ruled that absent proof of evil motive on the part of the
police, the presumption of regularity which runs in their favor stands. Thus, the dispositive portion of the
RTCs Decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused GLENN SALVADOR y
BALVERDE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 charged in
Criminal Case No. Q-03-120799. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) PESOS.
On the other hand, judgment is likewise rendered in Criminal Case No. Q-03-120800 finding accused DORY
ANN PARCON y DEL ROSARIO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 11, Article II of the
same Act. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of
TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as MINIMUM to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS as MAXIMUM and to
pay a fine in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS.
SO ORDERED.
16
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. In his Brief, he imputed to the RTC the following errors:
17
18
I
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DECLARING THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF
SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. No. 9165.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE APPREHENDING TEAM
TO PROVE ITS INTEGRITY.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BASED ONLY
ON PO2 SOFJAN SORIANOS TESTIMONY.
19
Aside from the prosecutions failure to prove the elements constituting the crime of illegal sale of shabu,
appellant asserted that the apprehending officers failed to immediately conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and photograph the same as mandated by Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165;
that the chain of custody was broken since PO2 Soriano could not determine with certainty whether the
plastic sachet allegedly seized from him was the same specimen subjected to laboratory examination; that
the prosecution was unable to substantiate its claim that the two 100-peso bills were the same money used
in purchasing shabu since the said bills were neither dusted with fluorescent powder nor was he subjected
to fingerprint examination; that the failure to coordinate the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was prejudicial to his substantive right; and, that PO2 Soriano and the buybust team did not accord him due process by failing to apprise him of his rights after he was arrested.
The People of the Philippines, on the other hand, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserted
in its Brief that the Decision of the RTC must be affirmed since the guilt of appellant was established
beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution proved all the elements of the illegal sale of drugs; that the
testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation and their positive identification of
appellant as the seller of the shabu prevail over the latters denial; that the chain of custody of the illegal
drug seized from appellant was sufficiently established; that the failure to use fluorescent powder in the
marked money does not result in a failure of the buy-bust operation since the same is not a prerequisite to
such operation; that the failure of the law enforcers to conduct a physical inventory or to photograph the
seized items in accordance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal; that the failure of the buy-bust
team to coordinate with the PDEA does not invalidate appellants arrest; that PO2 Sorianos failure to recall
the markings on the specimen shows that he was not coached as a witness; that appellants defenses of
denial and frame-up are unconvincing; and that the failure to apprise appellant of his constitutional rights at
the time of his arrest is not fatal since such rights apply only against extrajudicial confessions.
20
In its Decision, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. Anent the defects in the chain of custody alleged by
appellant, the said court ruled that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs sold
by appellant to PO2 Soriano was taken to the police station and marked therein and then forwarded to the
crime laboratory where it was found positive for shabu; the marked money used in the buy-bust operation
was the same money introduced in evidence; and that the failure of the arresting team to faithfully observe
the requirements of conducting physical inventory and coordinating the buy-bust operation with PDEA are
not fatal since the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were preserved. Thus, the
dispositive portion of the CAs Decision, viz:
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is perforce dismissed.
Accordingly, the assailed decision dated January 15, 2008 insofar as the accused-appellant Glenn Salvador
Y Balverde is affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.
21
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
22
On February 8, 2010, the parties were directed to file their supplemental briefs. The OSG opted to adopt
the brief it submitted before the CA as its appeal brief while appellant filed a Supplemental Brief which,
however, contains practically the same arguments he advanced before the CA. Again, aside from
questioning the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against him, appellant questions the arresting
officers alleged failure to comply with the chain of custody rule.
23
24
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
All the elements for the prosecution of
illegal sale of shabu were sufficiently
established in this case.
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be
established: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation
in court of the corpus delicti" or the illicit drug in evidence. "[T]he commission of the offense of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs x x x merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the
moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place."
25
26
In this case, the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of shabu. The testimony
of PO2 Soriano reveals that an entrapment operation was organized and conducted after they confirmed
through a surveillance operation the information that appellant is engaged in drug peddling activities.
Designated as a poseur-buyer, PO2 Soriano, together with the CI, approached appellant outside his
residence. After having been introduced by the CI to appellant as a drug user, PO2 Soriano asked appellant
if he could purchase P200.00 worth of shabu. PO2 Soriano handed to appellant the marked money
consisting of two P100 bills and the latter, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu. PO2 Soriano then
arrested appellant and recovered the buy-bust money from the latter. Immediately thereafter his back-up
who were monitoring the transaction from viewing distance arrived. Forensic examination subsequently
confirmed that the contents of the sachets bought from appellant and recovered from Parcon were indeed
shabu.
Prosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buybust operation. Their narration of the incident, "buttressed by the presumption that they have regularly
performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight." Here, the
CA affirmed the RTCs ruling that the testimonies and facts stipulated upon were consistent with each other
as well as with the physical evidence. Thus, there is no justification to disturb the findings of the RTC, as
sustained by the CA, on the matter.
27
The defenses of denial and frame-up

are unavailing.
The Court cannot convince itself to reverse the finding of facts of the lower courts on the basis of appellants
self-serving allegations of denial and extortion/frame-up.
Denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecution witness. "A defense of denial which is
unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving,
deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward
and probable testimony on affirmative matters."
28
Appellant cannot likewise avail of the defense of frame-up which "is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it
can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Law." To substantiate this defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the
buy-bust team was inspired by improper motive or was not properly performing its duty. Here, there is no
evidence that there was ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team. In fact, appellant himself admitted that
he did not know the police officers prior to his arrest. There could therefore be no bad blood between him
and the said police officers. Moreover, there was no proof that the arresting officers improperly performed
their duty in arresting appellant and Parcon.
29
30
Non-compliance with Section 21,

Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is
not fatal.
In arguing for his acquittal, appellant heavily relies on the failure of the buy-bust team to immediately
photograph and conduct a physical inventory of the seized items in his presence. In this regard, Section
21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 provides:
Sec. 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
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
However, failure to strictly comply with the above procedure will not render an arrest illegal or the seized
items inadmissible in evidence. Substantial compliance is allowed as provided for in Section 21(a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. This provision reads:
31
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
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. (Emphasis supplied).
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and
photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or
render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules
stating that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved. "What is crucial is that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused."
32
33
The links in the chain of custody must be established.

"The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved for as long as the chain of
custody of the same are duly established." "Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court. Such record of movements and custody of seized item
shall include the identity and signature of the person who had temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition."
34
35
There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, namely: "first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and, fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court."
36
In this case, the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu.
There is no evidence that PO2 Soriano lost possession and control of the seized shabu from the time it was
recovered from the appellant until its turnover to the police station. He marked the seized item immediately
upon arrival at the police station. He turned it over to PO1 Calatay, the investigating officer, who prepared
the letter request for the laboratory examination of the contents of the plastic sachets. These facts were
admitted by the appellant.
37
On the same day, PO2 Soriano personally brought the letter request and specimens to the PNP Crime
Laboratory where they were received by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Arban who conducted the examination on
the specimens submitted. During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the purpose for which P/Insp.
Arbans testimony was being offered. The marked sachet of shabu and the marked money used in
purchasing the same were both presented in evidence.
38
Appellants contention that the marking of the seized sachets of shabu should have been made in his
presence while at the scene of the crime instead of in the police station fails to impress. It is clear from the
earlier cited Sec. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 that in a buy-bust situation,
the marking of the dangerous drug may be done in the presence of the violator in the nearest police station
or the nearest office of the apprehending team. Appellant should not confuse buy-bust situation from search
and seizure conducted by virtue of a court-issued warrant. It is in the latter case that physical inventory
(which includes the marking) is made at the place where the search warrant is served. Nonetheless, "noncompliance with [the] 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."
39
Appellants claim that the testimony of PO2 Soriano does not deserve credence due to his failure to identify
and/or recall the markings he made on the subject specimen also fails to convince. His failure to
immediately recall the markings on the specimens only show that he is an uncoached witness. "Such
momentary lapse in memory does not detract from the credibility of his testimony as to the essential details
of the incident." It must also be considered that aside from the fact that police officers handle numerous
cases daily, he testified three years after appellants arrest. It is therefore understandable that PO2 Soriano
could no longer easily remember all the details of the incident.
40
41
Lastly, appellants argument that the entrapment operation is fatally flawed for failure of the buy-bust team to
coordinate with the PDEA deserves scant consideration. "[C]oordination with PDEA, while perhaps ideal, is
not an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation;" it is not invalidated by mere non-coordination
with the PDEA.
42
43
Penalty
All told, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA
9165. Under this law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is
life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the enactment
of RA 9346, only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC and
affirmed by the CA is proper.
44
45
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed in toto the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82, insofar as the conviction of Glenn Salvador
y Balverde for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No.
9346, and the penalty of life imprisonment and payment of fine of P500,000.00 imposed upon him are
concerned, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 205610
July 30, 2014

vs.
RAMONITO VILLARTA y RIVERA and ALLAN ARMENTA y CABILES, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 July 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04953
affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Joint Decision dated 26 October 2010 in Criminal Case Nos.
14948-D, 14949-D, 14950-D, 14951-D and 14952-D, convicting herein appellant Ramonita Villarta y Rivera
alias Monet (Villarta) for Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known
as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,'' and herein appellant Allan Armenta yCabiles alias
Ambo (Armenta) for Violation of Section 11 of the same law.
1
Appellant Villarta was charged in three (3) separate Informations, all dated 24 April 2006, for Violation of
Sections 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 15 (Illegal
Use of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:
4
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14948-D

On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [herein
appellant Villarta], not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and give away to [Police Officer 2 (PO2) Ronald R. Caparas], a police poseur buyer, one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found
positive to the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law. (Emphasis supplied).
5

On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [appellant
Villarta], not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for
ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law. (Emphasis supplied).
6

Villarta], not being lawfully authorized by law to use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body a methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, and, that this is the first offense of the [appellant Villarta] under Section 15, of the
abovecited law, who after a confirmatory urine test, was found positive to the test for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law. (Emphasis supplied).
7
Appellant Armenta was charged in two (2) separate Informations, all dated 24 April 2006, for Violation of
Sections 11 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:
8

On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [the herein
appellant Armenta], not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found
positive to the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law. (Emphasis supplied).
9

Armenta], not being lawfully authorized by law to use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body a THC-metabolites, a dangerous drug, and,
that this is the first offense of the [appellant Armenta] under Section 15, of the above-cited law, who after a
confirmatory urine test, was found positive tothe test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug, in violation of the above-cited law. (Emphasis supplied).
10
Upon arraignment, both appellants pleaded NOT GUILTY to the respective charges against them.
Thereafter, joint trial on the merits ensued.
11
The prosecution presented PO2 Ronald R. Caparas (PO2 Caparas), who acted as the poseur-buyer in the
buy-bust operation conducted against appellant Villarta; PO2 Jesus Cambronero (PO2 Cambronero), who
acted as the immediate back-up of PO2 Caparas; and Police Senior Inspector Sandra Decena Go (P/Sr.
Insp. Go), the forensic chemical officer who conducted physical, chemical and confirmatory tests on the
items seized from the appellants. The testimony, however, of the other prosecution witness PO1 Allan
Mapula (PO1 Mapula) was dispensed with per stipulation of the parties that: (1) he is the investigating
officer in these cases; and (2) he was the one who prepared the Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 Caparas and the
Request for Laboratory Examination, aswell as the Request for Drug Test.
12
13
14
15
On the side of the defense, both appellants were presented to contradict all the allegations of the
prosecution.
16
The respective versions of the prosecution and the defense, as accurately summarized by the Court of
Appeals, are as follows:
On 19 April 2006 at around 9:30 oclock in the evening, PO2 [Caparas] was at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) office in Pasig City. A confidential informant arrived and spoke
with Police Inspector Ronaldo Pamor [P/Insp. Pamor]. The informant gave the tip that a certain MONET was
selling shabualong Urbano Velasco Avenue, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. As a result, [P/Insp. Pamor]
conducted a short briefing attended by [Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1)] Baltazar, PO2 Camb[r]onero, PO2
Monte, [Police Officer 1 (PO1)] Caridad, PO1 Mapula and PO2 Caparas. [P/Insp.] Pamor instructed PO1
Mapula to prepare a pre-operational report to be submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), and directed PO1 Caparas to act as the poseur-buyer while PO2 Camb[r]onera was to serve as his
back-up.
17
In preparation for their operation, PO2 Caparas marked two pieces of the One-Hundred Peso (P100.00) bill
with his initials "RRC" on the lower right portion. Tout de suite, the team, together with the confidential
informant proceeded to Velasco Avenue. There, they went inside an alley located at the Cupa Compound.
However, they learned from the two persons standing along the alley that MONET had already left. [P/Insp.]
Pamor instructed the informant to inform them whenever MONET would return.
The following day, at about 5:00 oclock in the afternoon, the confidential informant called and tolda member
of the SAID-SOTF that MONET was already in the target place.Subsequently, the buy-bust team met with
the former at the market terminal. PO2 Caparas and the informant again proceeded to Velasco Avenue.
When they reached Cupa Compound, the latter secretly told PO2 Caparas that MONET was standing at the
alley. They approached MONET. The informant then told him: "Pare iiscore to" referring to PO2 Caparas. He
told MONET that he would buy P200.00 worth of shabuafter which, he handed MONET the money. At this
point, a male person arrived and asked MONET: "Pare, meron pa ba?" MONET retorted: "Dalawang piraso
na lang ito." The male person then gave MONET P100.00. Immediately thereafter, MONET handed one
sachet to PO2 Caparas and the other one to the male person. PO2 Caparas examined the sachet and gave
the pre-arranged signal by wearing his cap. He then introduced himself as a police officer, and arrested
MONET who was identified as [herein appellant] Ramonito Villarta [y Rivera]. When the other members of
the team arrived, PO2 Caparas told PO2 Camb[r]oner[o] thatthe other male person was also possessing
shabu. In a bit, he was also apprehended and identified later on as [herein appellant] Allan Armenta [y
Cabiles] @ AMBO. PO2 Caparas recovered from MONET the marked money and one plastic sachet while
PO2 Camb[r]onero recovered from AMBO the other plastic sachet. Both PO2 Caparas and PO2
Camb[r]onero marked the items they had seized.
At the police station, PO1 Mapula prepared the requests for drug test and laboratory examination.
Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. Forensic
Chemical Officer [P/Sr. Insp. Go] received the above-mentioned requests and conducted laboratory tests on
the subject specimens. The seized drugs gave positive result for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Likewise, the
drug tests showed that the respective urine samples of MONET and AMBO were positive for
methamphetamine and THC metabolites, both of which are dangerous drugs.
The defense proffered a divergent version of the facts.
Both MONET and AMBO denied the charges. MONET asseverated that between 3:00 oclock and 4:00
oclock inthe afternoon of 19 April 2006, he was resting in the room he was renting. Suddenly, four armed
male persons entered looking for a certain "Jay Jay." When he replied that he did not know such person, he
was brought and detained in Pariancillo. It was there where he first met AMBO.
On the other hand, AMBO maintained that between 1:00 oclock and 2:00 oclock in the afternoon on
evendate while waiting for a tricycle in front of the 7-11 Store, three armed persons approached him. One of
them placed his arm around his shoulder, the other one handcuffed him, while the third called for a tricycle.
Subsequently, he was brought to the Pariancillo Headquarters. When heasked why he was arrested, the
aforesaid men did not answer him. At the headquarters, he was frisked since they were looking for a cellular
phone which he had allegedly snatched. When nothing was found with him, he was mauled and forced to
confess where he brought the phone. It was there where he got to know MONET.
18
On 26 October 2010, the RTC, after considering the testimonies of both parties, rendered its Joint
Decision,the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. 14948-D, this Court finds the [herein appellant] Ramonito Villarta yRivera
aliasMonet, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002, and he is sentenced to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2) In Criminal Case No. 14949-D and Criminal Case No. 14951-D, this Court finds the [appellants]
Ramonito Villarta yRivera aliasMonetand Allan Armenta yCabiles alias Ambo, guiltybeyond reasonable of
the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs of 2002 and they are each sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and
to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
3) Criminal Case No. 14950-D and Criminal Case No. 14952-Dfor Violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 against [appellants]
Ramonito Villarta y Rivera alias Monetand Allan Armenta y Cabiles aliasAmbo are ordered DISMISSED.
In the meantime, the Branch Clerk ofCourt is directed to transmit the dangerous drugs, "ephedrine," subject
of these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its disposition in accordance with
law. (Emphasis supplied).
19
The RTC elucidated that the prosecution has sufficiently established all the elements for a successful
prosecution of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, which is in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. PO2 Caparas, who acted as the poseur-buyer, specifically stated that appellant Villarta sold tohim
one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance
worth P200.00. It was seized and later on found positive to the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Their
transaction was proven bythe actual exchange of the marked money consisting of two P100.00-pesobills,
and the drug sold. PO2 Caparas positively identified appellant Villarta as the seller of the said oneheat
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which was later on confirmed as
ephedrine, a dangerous drug, by P/Sr. Insp. Go, the Forensic Chemist, who performed laboratory
examination on all the seized items.
20
As for the charge of illegal possession of prohibited drugs, which is in violation of Section 11, Article II
ofRepublic Act No. 9165, against both appellants, the RTC also found that all the elements thereof were
completely satisfied. When the appellants werearrested by PO2 Caparas and PO2 Cambronero, they were
both found in possession of dangerousdrugs. Both of them could not present any proof orjustification that
they were fully authorized by law to possess the same. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is
prima facieevidence of animus possidendior intent to possess.
21
In dismissing the charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, against both appellants, the RTC applied the provisoof the afore-stated Section 15. The RTC,
thus, held that when a person is found tohave possessed and used dangerous drugs at the same time,
Section 15 shall not be applicable in which case the provisions of Section 11 shall apply.
22
The RTC likewise held that despite the non-compliance with the requirements of physical inventory and
photograph of the seized items, the integrity and evidentiary value of the same were properly preserved
because the chain of custody appears not to havebeen broken. Thus, in its entirety, there was substantial
compliance with the law.
23
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Joint Decision dated 26 October 2010.
24
Hence, the present appeal raising the same assignment of errors in their Appellants Brief filed before the
Court of Appeals, towit: (a) the trial court gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the [appellants] despite
the obvious non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under
Republic Act No. 9165; and (b) the trial court gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the [appellants]
notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly
seized dangerous drugs.
25
This Court sustains appellants conviction.

Essentially, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be
disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since the trial court is in a better position to examine the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. This rule finds aneven more stringent application where said
findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in this case.
26
27
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the lower courts
findings that, indeed, the appellants guilt on the respective charges against them were sufficiently proven by
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like ephedrinein this case, the following
elementsmust be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as
the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. The commission of the offense of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the
moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went
through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs
delivered to the former; the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.
28
In the present case, this Court totallyagrees with the lower courts that the aforesaid elements of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs were adequately and satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
To note, appellant Villarta, who was caught in flagrante delicto, was positively identified by PO2 Caparas,
who acted as the poseur-buyer, as the same person who sold the one heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, later confirmed as ephedrine, for a consideration
ofP200.00.The said one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of ephedrinewas presented in court, which
PO2 Caparas identified to be the same object sold to him by appellant Villarta. Moreover, the same bears
the markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06, which he had written at the scene of the crime. "RRV" represents the
initials of appellant Villarta while "RRC" represents the initials of PO2 Caparas. The marking "04-20-06"
represents the date the said drug was seized. PO2 Caparas similarly identified in court the recovered
marked money from appellant Villarta consisting of two P100.00-peso bills in the total amount of P200.00
with markings "RRC" on the lower right portion thereof.
29
Likewise, the testimony of PO2 Caparasclearly established in detail how his transaction with appellant
Villarta happened starting from the moment their informant introduced him to appellant Villarta as someone
interested in buying his stuff, up to the time he handed to appellant Villarta two P100.00 peso bills marked
money amounting toP200.00and, in turn, appellant Villarta handed him the one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet of ephedrinethus consummating the sale transaction between them. PO2 Caparas caused
the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet of ephedrineto be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The item weighing 0.02 gram was tested positive for ephedrineas evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D355-06 prepared by P/Sr. Insp. Go, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame,
Quezon City.
30
31
From the foregoing, it is already beyond question that appellant Villartas guilt for illegal sale of ephedrine, a
dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RepublicAct No. 9165 was proven by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to the prosecution ofillegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proved:
(a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and
(c) the accused was freely and consciouslyaware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.
32
In the case under consideration, this Court also conforms to the lower courts findings that all the elementsof
illegal possession of dangerous drugs were adequately proven by the prosecution.
It bears emphasis that when the sale transaction between PO2 Caparas and appellant Villarta was ongoing, another male person, who was later on identified to be appellant Armenta, came in and also bought
one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance later on
confirmed to be ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Upon the consummation of the sale transaction,between PO2
Caparas and appellant Villarta, the former gave the pre-arranged signal by wearing his cap. PO2 Caparas
then introduced himself as the police officer and arrested appellant Villarta. PO2 Caparas then recovered
from appellant Villarta the marked money and another one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
0.03 gram of white crystalline substance later on confirmed as ephedrine, a dangerous drug. When the
immediate back-up officer, PO2 Cambronero, arrived, PO2 Caparas informed him that appellant Armenta
was in possession of one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance,which the latter just bought from appellant Villarta. Thus, appellant Armenta was also
apprehended and PO2 Cambronero recovered from him one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance confirmed to be ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Clearly,
both appellants were found in possession of dangerous drugs. As observed by the RTC, which the Court of
Appeals affirmed, both appellants could not present any proof or justification that they were fully authorized
by law to possess the same. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facieevidence of animus
possidendior intent to possess.
33
Now, going to the issue raised by the appellants on the failure of the prosecution to comply with Section
21,Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, this Court similarly affirms the findings of both lower courts that such
failure will not render the appellants arrestillegal or the items seized/confiscated from them inadmissible.
In People v. Ventura, this Court held that:
34
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
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
1wphi1
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
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 saiditems, 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 preservationof
the integrityand evidentiary valueof the seized items. (Emphasis supplied). The chain of custody
requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be
admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit
at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the
laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence.
35
36
In the case at bench, after PO2 Caparas seized and confiscated the one heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing 0.02 gram of ephedrine, which was the subject of the sale transaction, as well as the one
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine, which was recovered from
appellant Villarta after he was arrested and ordered to empty his pocket, and the marked money used in the
buy-bust operation, the former immediately marked the seized drugs atthe place of arrest. He put the
markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06 on the seizeddrug subject of the sale and the markings RRV/RRC on the
seized drug recovered from appellant Villarta. PO2 Cambronero, the immediate back-up of PO2 Caparas,
also recovered from appellant Armenta one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of
ephedrine. PO2 Cambronero, who was then beside PO2 Caparas, similarly marked the seized drug from
appellant Armenta at the place of arrest. They then brought the appellants, together with the seized items at
their station. Where PO1 Mapula, the investigating officer, prepared the Request for Laboratory
Examination, the Request for Drug Test and the Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 Caparas. Thereafter, PO2
Caparas personally brought all the seized items to the crime laboratory for examination. The seized items
were examined by P/Sr. Insp. Go and they all yielded positive results for ephedrine, a dangerous drug.
When the seized items were offered in court, they were all properly identified by the prosecution witnesses.
These facts persuasively proved that the three plastic sachets of ephedrine presented in court were the
same items seized from the appellants during the buy-bust operation.The integrity and evidentiary value
thereof were duly preserved.
37
38
39
It has been judicially settled that in buy-bust operations, the testimony of the police officers who
apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they
have performed their duties regularly. This presumption is overturned only if there is clear and convincing
evidence that they were not properly performing their duty or that they were inspired by improper motive. In
this case, there was none.
40
In comparison to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, all that the appellants could muster is the
defense of denial and frame-up. Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just
as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of
DangerousDrugs Act. The defense of frameup or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing
evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance
of their official duties. In the present case, the bare denial of the appellants cannot prevail over the positive
testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
41
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 July 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 04953 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 193385
December 1, 2014

vs.
DATSGANDAWALI y GAPAS and NOL PAGALAD y ANAS, Accused-Appellants.
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
For final review is the June 21, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03736,
which affirmed the November 18, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 of Quezon
City in Criminal Case No. Q-03-118597 finding appellants Dats Gandawali y Gapas (Gandawali) and Nol
1
Pagalad y Anas (Pagalad) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
3
Factual Antecedents
On July 3, 2003, an Information for Violation of Section Article II of RA 9165 was filed against Gandawali
and Pagalad, viz:
4
That on or about the 30th day of June 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring
together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, not being authorized by law tosell, dispense,
deliver[,] transport, or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell,
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker inthe said transaction, zero point twenty four (0.24)
gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride[,] a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned on September 3,2003, both Gandawali and Pagalad pleaded "not guilty" to the charge.
Pre-trial and trial ensued.
6

On June 30, 2003, a confidential informant informed the Baler Police Station 2 that a possible drug deal
would take place at the corner of Sto. Nio St. and Roosevelt Avenue, San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon
City. A buy-bust team was thereupon created composed of P/Insp. Joseph de Vera (P/Insp. DeVera), as
team leader; PO2 Sofjan Soriano (PO2 Soriano), as the poseur-buyer who was given a P500.00 bill as buybust money; and PO1 Alvin Pineda (PO1 Pineda), PO1 Ernesto Sarangaya (PO1 Sarangaya), PO2 John
John Sapad (PO2 Sapad), and PO2 Eric Jorgensen (PO2Jorgensen), as members.
The team along with the informant proceeded to the target area and arrived there at at around 1:30 p.m. In
accordance with the plan, PO2 Soriano and the informant approached Gandawali and Pagalad, while the
rest of the team positioned themselves strategically. The informant introduced PO2 Soriano to appellants as
a drug dependent who wanted to buy shabuworth P500.00. As Pagalad first asked for payment, PO2
Soriano gave theP500.00 billto Gandawali. Gandawali, in turn, gavethe money to Pagalad who took a small
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from his pocket. Pagalad gave the plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance to Gandawali, who then handed the same to PO2 Soriano. Thereupon, PO2 Soriano
signaled to his team members by taking off his cap. He then arrested appellants together with PO1
Sarangaya, and the latter recovered from Pagalad the P500.00 bill used as buy-bust money. Appellants
were thereafter brought to the Baler Police Station 2.
PO2 Soriano marked the plastic sachetwith the initials "ES-6-30-03" (the initials of PO1 Sarangaya) and
together with the P500.00 bill, turned them over to the desk officer for proper disposition. Thereafter, P/Insp.
De Vera prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination. On the same day, PO2 Soriano and the other
team members submitted the plastic sachet to P/Insp. Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. (P/Insp. Banac) at the
Central Police District Crime Laboratory Office where a qualitative examination of its contents was made.
7
The specimen, as found by P/Insp. Banac, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a
dangerous drug. Version of the Defense
8
Appellants denied the accusation against them and claimed extortion. Their version of the incident is as
follows:
At about 6:35 a.m. of June 30, 2003,while waiting for a bus at Litex, Fairview, Quezon City, Pagalad was
arrested for unknown reason by PO1 Sarangaya. When questioned, he told the arresting officer that he has
a companion Gandawali, who was likewise later arrested. Both were then brought to Police Station 2 at
Baler, Quezon City where PO1 Sarangaya demanded from them P15,000.00 in exchange for their release.
Unfortunately, they were unable to produce the money, hence,their incarceration.
Gandawali and Pagalad explained that despite their wrongful apprehension and the polices act of extortion,
they did not file any case against them because they were afraid and were also unfamiliar with the
procedures in filing a case.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Finding sufficient evidenceto sustain a finding of guilt, the RTC convicted appellants through a
Decision dated November 18, 2008, the dispositive portion of which reads:
9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused DATS GANDAWALI y
GAPAS and NOL PAGALAD y ANAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of x x x violation of Section 5, Article II
of R.A. 9165. Accordingly, they are hereby sentencedto suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
each to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
10
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA found no reason to overturn appellants conviction.
Thus, the dispositive portion ofits June 21, 2010 Decision reads:
11
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment promulgated by Branch 82, Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, inCriminal Case No. Q-03-118597 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
12
Issues
Appellants argue that all the elements of the offense charged were not proven and that the police officers
failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
The Court's Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.
All the elements of the offense charged were duly established by the prosecution.
The essential requirements for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, such as
shabuare: "(1) the identity ofthe buyer and the seller, the object and consideration ofthe sale; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." Equally settled is the rule that "[t]he delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the
buy-bust transaction." Here, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its burden of establishing
all the aforesaid elements. The prosecution positively identified appellants as the sellers of the seized
substance which was later found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Appellants sold the drug to PO2 Soriano, the police officer who acted asthe poseur-buyer, and received
from the latter the P500.00 buy-bust money aspayment therefor.
13
14
Appellants contention that the consideration of the sale was not established since the buy-bust money was
notpresented as evidence is unavailing. Suffice it to say that "[n]either law nor jurisprudence requires the
presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation x x x." "It is sufficient to show that the illicit
transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delictiin evidence. These
weredone, and were proved by the prosecutions evidence."
15
16
The integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized from appellants were duly proven by the
prosecution to have been properly preserved; its identity, quantity and quality remained untarnished.
Appellants persistently argue that the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the identity of the
substance seized and the preservation of its integrity. They assert that the apprehending officers failed to
observe the procedures for the custody and disposition of the seized drug as laid down in Section 21(1),
Article II of RA 9165, particularly the conduct of physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized
item.
The Court finds appellants contentions unconvincing.
Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 clearlyoutlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and
disposition of seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a
photograph thereof 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. The explicit directive of the above statutory provision notwithstanding, the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the said law provide a saving clause whenever the procedures laid
down in the law are not strictly complied with, to wit:
17
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.
18
Thus, gleaned from a plain reading of the implementing rules, the most important factor is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt
orinnocence of the accused. As long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly
preserved, strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of RA 9165 may be disregarded.
19
20
In this case, while it was admitted by PO1 Sarangaya that no physical inventory of the seized item was
madeand no photograph thereof was taken as mandated by law, and also while the reason given for such
failure appears to be unsatisfactory, i.e., PO1 Sarangaya was not familiar with Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 since the said law was just then newly implemented, it was nonetheless shown that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item had been preserved and kept intact. The crucial links in the chain of
custody of the seized drug subject matter of the case, from the time Gandawali handed it to the poseurbuyer
up to its presentation as evidence in court, were duly accounted for and shown to have not been broken.
21
To recap, the prosecution established that after the seizure of the small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance and of the buy-bust money from appellants possession, PO2 Soriano marked the
sachet with "ES 6-30-03," the initials of PO1 Sarangaya. The police officers thereafter took appellants and
the recovered items to the desk officer who investigated the case. After the investigation, a request for
laboratory examination was prepared by P/Insp. De Vera. On the same day, the confiscated small plastic
sachet bearing the same marking, "ES-06-30-03," and the request were thereupon brought by PO2 Sapad,
a member of the team, together with PO2 Soriano and some others to the Central Police District Crime
Laboratory Office and were received by P/Insp. Banac for examination. P/Insp. Banac conducted a
laboratory examination of the 0.24 gram of white crystalline substance found inside the plastic sachet
marked with "ES-06-30-03," which per Chemistry Report No. D-555-03 tested positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride. During trial, and based on the marking he placed, PO2 Soriano
identified the seized item as the very same sachet containing shabuthat he bought and recovered from
appellants. He also identified appellants to be the same persons who sold the shabu to him. Moreover, as
gleaned from the Pre-Trial Order, P/Insp. Banac, the chemist, brought the specimen himself to the court
during the scheduled hearing.
Following the above sequence of events, the Court entertains no doubt that the sachet containing white
crystalline substance sold by appellants to the poseurbuyer was the same one marked with "ES-06-30-03,"
which was submitted for laboratory examination, found positive for shabu,and later presented to the court
during the trial as the corpus delicti. Contrary therefore to appellants claim, "the totality of evidence
presented by the prosecution leads to an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated item from
[appellants]. Though there were deviations from the required procedure, i.e., making physical inventory and
taking of photograph of the seized item, still, the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug
seized from [appellants] were duly proven by the prosecution to have been properly preserved; its identity,
quantity and quality remained untarnished."
22
Appellants defense of extortion and/or frame-up must fail.
"The defense of extortion and/or frame up is often put up in drug cases in order to cast doubt on the
credibility of police officers. This is a serious imputation of a crime hence clear and convincing evidencemust
be presented to support the same. There must also be a showing that the police officers were inspired by
improper motive." In this case, appellants claim that PO1 Sarangaya tried to extort from them P15,000.00
in exchange for their release after they were arrested. However, they failed to substantiate this allegation
with clear and convincing evidence. Neither were they able to show that the said police officer was impelled
by improper motive in imputing the offense against them. Consequently, appellants defense of extortion
and/or frame-up must fail.
23
1wphi1
Conspiracy between appellants in the sale of illegal drug was likewise duly established by the prosecution.
In line with the principle that an appeal in a criminal case throws wide open the whole case for review
whether raised as an issue or not, the Court finds it imperative to make a brief discussion on the conspiracy
angle of this case considering that the courts below failed to pass uponthe same.
"To establish the existence of conspiracy, direct proof is not essential. Conspiracy may be inferred from the
acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are
indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest." The series of overt acts as
recounted by the prosecution witnesses unmistakably show that appellants were in concert and shared a
common interest in selling the shabu. Thus, when P02 Soriano gave the P500.00 bill to Gandawali, the
latter handed the money to Pagalad; when Pagalad took a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from
his pocket, he gave it to Gandawali who, in tum, gave the same to P02 Soriano; and when P02 Soriano
announced their arrest, both appellants tried to escape. Clearly, there was conspiracy between them to sell
and deliver a dangerous drug. In view thereof, they are liable as co-principals regardless of their
participation in the commission of the offense.
24
Appellants are not eligible for parole.

The Court agrees with the penalty of life imprisonment and payment of fine of P500,000.00 imposed by the
lower courts upon appellants. It must be emphasized, however, that appellants are not eligible for parole.
25
WHEREFORE, the June 21, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03736 is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants DATS GANDAWALI y GAPAS and NOL PAGALAD y
ANAS shall not be eligible for parole.
SO ORDERED.

Case5 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case5 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

February 19, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Criminal Case No. CBU-55062

Criminal Case No. CBU-55063

Criminal Case No. CBU-55067

The prosecutions evidence established the following facts:

G.R. No. 203028

January 15, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

A: Our team leader, maam.

A: PO3 Benito Decorion and PO2 Ernie Reyes, maam.

A: The subject handed to me one (1) plastic sachet, maam.

Q: Where did you place the marking?

Q: And what was the result of the drug test?

A: I was the one who marked the specimen.

A: But I did not bring it today.

(Continuation of Direct-Examination of Witness PO3 Know me Sia by ACP Baring-Tuvera)

A: Yes, back-up, maam.

Contrary to the settled rule in a

"Physical inventory and photograph

G.R. No. 191366

Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ

Version of the Prosecution

The case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer to evidence.

The Ruling of the CA

For accused Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon and Rezin Martinez

The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused-appellants.

For accused Rafael Gonzales

Illegal Arrest, Search and Seizure

One (1) pc glass tube containing suspected shabu residues.[30]

and People v. Kimura.[46]

G.R. No. 190621

February 10, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Version of the Prosecution

Version of the Defense

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.

The defenses of denial and frame-up

Non-compliance with Section 21,

The links in the chain of custody must be established.

July 30, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14948-D

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14949-D

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14950-D

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14951-D

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14952-D

This Court sustains appellants conviction.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Version of the Prosecution

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court's Ruling

Appellants defense of extortion and/or frame-up must fail.

Appellants are not eligible for parole.

You might also like