Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 186380 October 12, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MANUEL RESURRECCION, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the August 8, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02399 entitled People of the Philippines v.
Manuel Resurreccion, which affirmed the August 5, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 119 in Pasay City in Criminal Case No. 00-
1225 for violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 6425, as amended by RA 7659. Accused-appellant Manuel Resurreccion was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

The Facts

An Information charged accused-appellant as follows:

That on or about the 13th day of July 2000, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, Manuel Resurreccion, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to another
992.9835 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug.

Contrary to law.1

During his arraignment, accused-appellant gave a not guilty plea.

The Prosecution’s Version of Facts

At the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Forensic Chemist Felicisima Francisco and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
Special Task Force members Atty. Reynaldo Esmeralda, Special (SA) Agent Romeo J. Vallejo, and Special Investigator (SI) Eric Isidoro.

According to Atty. Esmeralda, an informant went to the NBI Special Task Force office on July 13, 2000. The informant reported to SI Eduardo Villa the
drug activities of a certain Manuel Resurreccion. Atty. Esmeralda assembled and briefed a 12-member buy-bust team on the basis of the informant’s
report. He designated SA Vallejo as the poseur-buyer. The team headed to Matias St. in Pasay City on board five vehicles. Atty. Esmeralda was 200 to
300 meters away from their target when the pre-arranged signal, a radio transmission, was received. The target turned out to be accused-appellant,
whom SA Vallejo had arrested. Along with the seized shabu, they brought accused-appellant to their office where he was subjected to printing and
photographing.2

During cross-examination, Atty. Esmeralda stated that their computer records also revealed that accused-appellant was convicted in one case by the
RTC, for which he was presently serving sentence.3

SA Vallejo gave details as to his role as poseur-buyer and likewise corroborated Atty. Esmeralda’s testimony. He testified that he and the informant
waited for accused-appellant to arrive while the rest of the buy-bust team hid within the vicinity. Accused-appellant arrived around 3:30 in the
afternoon. Inside accused-appellant’s house, the informant introduced SA Vallejo as an interested buyer. Accused-appellant then handed SA Vallejo
a green plastic bag and demanded payment. SA Vallejo took out a white envelope containing marked money and gave it to accused-appellant. Once
accused-appellant had the white envelope in his hand, SA Vallejo announced that he was a law enforcer and that he was conducting a buy-bust. He
then alerted the rest of the team via radio transmitter that the operation had just concluded. SA Vallejo then gave the green plastic bag to SI Isidoro,
who counted 10 small plastic bags inside containing suspected shabu. The specimens were marked at the office and brought to the Forensic
Chemistry Division for laboratory examination.4

During his rebuttal examination, SA Vallejo said that accused-appellant’s claim of extortion on the part of the buy-bust team was incredible. He said
the amount of PhP 300,000 mentioned by accused-appellant as the buy-bust team’s asking price was unbelievable considering that the street value
of a kilo of shabu is PhP 1,500,000.5

SI Isidoro, a member of the back-up team, was likewise presented by the prosecution. On the witness stand he said that after the buy-bust
operation, SA Vallejo gave him the green plastic bag. He, in turn, marked the plastic bag and its contents and personally brought the shabu to the
Forensic Chemistry Division.6

NBI Forensic Chemist Francisco stated that she received the specimen, a plastic bag, from SA Vallejo at her office. It was pre-marked and
accompanied by a Disposition Form. The contents of the 10 plastic sachets inside the plastic bag were tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu after a series of examinations. She likewise subjected accused-appellant to examination and found traces of ultra-violet
fluorescent powder on his hands.7

Version of the Defense

The defense offered the testimonies of accused-appellant, his housemaid, Corazon Meliton (Meliton), and Barangay Captain Dominador Costales.

Accused-appellant claimed that on the morning of July 13, 2000, he bought food for his invalid friend, Vilma Vivas. He proceeded to her house on
foot, accompanied by his house maid, Meliton. At her house, they handed her the food they bought. Accused-appellant and Vivas started talking.
Suddenly, three men barged in around 11 o’clock in the morning. They introduced themselves as NBI agents and manhandled accused-appellant.
They dragged him out of the house and started shouting, "Shabu shabu shabu!" Accused-appellant was then made to lie on his stomach, and frisked.
His belongings were confiscated and he was boarded into a van along with Meliton and three others. Inside the van, the agents asked him about a
certain "Nestor." He was hit with a gun when he answered that he did not know who they were referring to. They likewise demanded payment of
PhP 300,000 for his release. When he said he did not have money, he was brought to the NBI where he was beaten up and forced to hold a white
envelope. He was also made to place his hands over a machine. Four days later, he was taken for inquest.8
Meliton, who had been accused-appellant’s housemaid for three years, testified that while they were at Vivas’ house, three men arrived and
arrested accused-appellant. One of the men ordered Meliton to go out. She then saw accused-appellant being hit by a gun on his right side. He was
also frisked and his wallet taken from him. She immediately left the place since she was scared and wanted to inform accused-appellant’s wife of
what had happened.9

Costales was last to testify for the defense. He was the Barangay Captain of the area where the buy-bust operation took place. He confirmed that
Vivas walked with a limp and said that he would see her in the area. He testified that Vivas has since left her house and that he received a letter
from accused-appellant seeking his assistance.10

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC pronounced accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. It found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements in the sale of
illegal drugs. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision11 reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused MANUEL [RESURRECCION] y ALBERTO beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 15, Article III,
Republic Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659, said accused is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

The Ruling of the Appellate Court

On appeal, accused-appellant faulted the trial court for disregarding his defense of denial. He pointed to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. The CA, however, affirmed the Decision of the RTC.12 It agreed with the trial court in holding that the inconsistencies cited
by accused-appellant were trivial and did not affect the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole. The appellate court also observed that
accused-appellant failed to prove his claim that the evidence against him was manufactured and that the police tried to extort money from him.

On September 2, 2008, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal from the appellate court’s Decision.

On March 30, 2009, this Court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested that they were
submitting the case for decision based on the records already submitted to the Court.

The Issues

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 15,
ARTICLE III OF RA 6425.

II

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S DEFENSE OF DENIAL.

The Ruling of this Court

Accused-appellant maintains that certain flaws in SA Vallejo and the other witnesses’ testimonies were overlooked.

Another claim made in this appeal is that the first link in the chain of custody was not established by the prosecution. Accused-appellant points to
the failure of the buy-bust team to immediately mark the seized drugs as a cause to doubt the identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on the other hand, counters accused-appellant’s arguments by saying that the alleged inconsistencies
referred to are too trivial to merit consideration. On the issue of chain of custody, the OSG argues that accused-appellant’s contention is speculative
and without basis. The OSG likewise reasons that it is of no moment that the confiscated drugs were marked at the NBI office.

We affirm accused-appellant’s conviction.

Inconsistencies in Testimonial Evidence

Inconsistencies referring to who the informant talked to at the NBI office, how many informants there were, and how many vehicles were used, are
not material. These matters were not necessary to establish the elements of the crimes committed.13 The inconsistencies do not detract from the
elements of the offense of illegal sale of drugs, which the prosecution adequately established.14

Thus, the trial court observed:

While this Court notes some discrepancy in the testimony of SA Vallejo and SI Isidoro as to the identity of the informant, wherein the former claimed
that he [talked] to only a male informant while the former saw SA Vallejo talking with a male and a female [informant], this is trivial and does not
impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole. SI Isidoro even explained that he was busy with other work in the office and
just saw SA Vallejo conversing with the informants and his participation in this operation commenced when he was called in for a briefing. 15

In fact, it may well be pointed out that it was accused-appellant’s witness, Meliton, who substantially contradicted the evidence presented by
accused-appellant. She stated under oath that upon accused-appellant’s arrest, she immediately left the place out of fear and to inform the wife of
accused-appellant of the arrest. Yet accused-appellant testified that he was boarded into a van with Meliton and a few others. We find this
contradiction substantial as Meliton’s testimony could have otherwise backed up accused-appellant’s alibi.

What is more, the allegation of material inconsistencies involves a question of fact which generally cannot be raised. We will not disturb the findings
of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or
the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.16 This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts have; they are in
a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial. They can, thus, more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.17 All the more do we apply this rule when the trial courts’
findings are sustained by the appellate court.18

Chain of Custody Requirements

Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.

The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 does not necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or
confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items,
as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.19

As we held in People v. Cortez,20 testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain. Cognizant of this fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized dangerous
drugs provides as follows:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(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 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. (Emphasis supplied.)

Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoro’s failure to mark the confiscated shabu immediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as
to the drug’s identity. People v. Sanchez,21 however, explains that RA 9165 does not specify a time frame for "immediate marking," or where said
marking should be done:

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.

To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon
immediate confiscation. "Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen,22 testimony that included the marking of
the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody.
Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.

It is clear then that the prosecution was able to provide all the facts necessary to establish adherence to the chain of custody rule. First, SA Vallejo,
upon consummation of the transaction with accused-appellant, handed the sachets of shabu to SI Isidoro; second, SI Isidoro marked the sachets at
their headquarters; third, SI Isidoro then personally brought the specimens to Forensic Chemist Felicisima Francisco, who found the items positive
for shabu; and fourth, the same specimens were presented during trial as Exhibit "C."

Moreover, the presumption of regularity works against accused-appellant. The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is
a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant in this case has the burden to show that the
evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption
that public officers properly discharge their duties.23 Having failed to discharge this burden, his conviction must be affirmed.

Penalty Imposed

The penalty prescribed under Sec. 15, Article III of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, for unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride, is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from PhP 500,000 to PhP 10 million.24

Accused-appellant was found guilty of selling 992.9835 grams of shabu. We, thus, affirm the RTC and CA’s imposition of reclusion perpetua and a
fine of PhP 1,000,000.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02399 finding accused-appellant Manuel Resurreccion guilty of violation
of Sec. 15, Art. III of RA 6425, as amended, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 185164 June 22, 2009
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
FREDERICK RICHIE TEODORO Y DELA CRUZ, Accused- Appellant.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

On appeal is the May 27, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02549 which affirmed the joint decision2 rendered by
Branch 214 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, finding appellant Frederick Richie Teodoro y Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

On June 3, 2004, in the RTC of Mandaluyong City, two (2) separate informations were filed against appellant charging him, in the first, with violation
of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Docketed as Criminal Case No. MC-04-8227-D, the first Information3 alleges, as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of May 2004 in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not having been lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly
have in his possession and under his custody and control One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.06 gram of white crystalline
substance, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "Shabu", a dangerous drug without the
corresponding license and prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.

The other Information4 docketed as Criminal Case No. MC-04-8228-D, charges appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II, also of R.A. No. 9165,
allegedly committed in the following manner:

That on or about the 28th day of May 2004 in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without having been lawfully authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, deliver and
distribute to PO1 MARLON CLIMACOSA, a poseur-buyer, One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline
substance, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "Shabu", a dangerous drug, for the
amount of Two (2) pieces of ₱100.00 bills with Serial Nos. RF390501 and NS581977, Philippine Currency, without the corresponding license or
prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.

On arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded "Not Guilty" to both charges. Thereafter, a joint trial ensued.

The People’s version of the facts shows that on May 23, 2004, Police Senior Inspector Rodrigo Flores Gadiano (PSI Gadiano), Chief of the Intelligence
Unit of Mandaluyong City Police, received information from a confidential asset that a man named Richie was conducting illegal activities at
Matamis Street, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City. Acting on the information, PSI Gadiano instructed Police Officer 2 Robert Posadas (PO2 Posadas),
PO1 Edgar Antipasado (PO1 Antipasado), and PO1 Marlon Climacosa (PO1 Climacosa) to conduct surveillance. During the surveillance conducted
from May 23-27, 2004, the group confirmed that appellant was involved in selling illegal drugs at his home in 741 Matamis Street, Barangay Hulo,
Mandaluyong City.5

On May 28, 2003, a team, composed of SPO1 Ronaldo de Castro (SPO1 de Castro), SPO1 Romeo Rico (SPO1 Rico), PO1 Climacosa, PO1 Antipasado,
PO2 Arsenio Calilong (PO2 Calilong), PO1 Edwin Gonocruz (PO1 Gonocruz), and PO2 Posadas, was organized to conduct a buy-bust operation at the
target site. PO1 Climacosa was designated as poseur-buyer while the remaining members of the team served as back up. At the same time, PSI
Gadiano coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on the conduct of the buy-bust operation.6

Two (2) marked ₱100.00 bills with serial numbers RF390501 and NS581977 were handed to PO1 Climacosa.7

Around 5:30 o’ clock in the afternoon of the same day, the team proceeded to the area.8

PO1 Climacosa approached appellant who was then standing by the gate of 741 Matamis Street, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City and said, "Pre,
iskor ako ng dalawang piso pang gamit lang." Appellant replied "sandali lang." PO1 Climacosa gave appellant the two marked ₱100.00 bills.
Appellant, in turn, handed to PO1 Climacosa a sachet containing a white crystalline substance. PO1 Climacosa removed his cap to signal the
consummation of the sale transaction to the other team members who were positioned some 10 meters away.9

Thereafter, PO1 Climacosa introduced himself and informed appellant that he was under arrest. Appellant resisted and ran away, but he was
eventually accosted by PO1 Climacosa and the other members of the team.10 PO1 Antipasado then frisked appellant and found the marked money
and another sachet of white crystalline substance in appellant’s pocket.11

Immediately, the team apprised appellant of his constitutional rights. Appellant was, thereafter, brought to the Mandaluyong Medical Center for
medical check-up. From the hospital, appellant was turned over to the Criminal Investigation Division of the Mandaluyong City Police Station. In the
said office, the confiscated sachets were marked as "MC" and "MC-1" by PO1 Climacosa and PO1 Antipasado, respectively. The marked two (2)
₱100.00 bills were turned over to the evidence custodian, while the two (2) confiscated sachets were immediately brought to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Eastern Police District (EPD) for laboratory examination. PSI Lourdeliza Cejes, Forensic Chemist, found the
two (2) sachets of white crystalline substance to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu12

Accordingly, appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with the RTC of Mandaluyong City.

Denial, frame up and extortion were accused-appellant’s main exculpating line. In his Brief,13 appellant summarized the version of the defense as
follows:

On May 28, 2004, at around two o’clock (2:00) in the afternoon, FREDERICK RICHIE TEODORO was at his house in Pantaleon Street washing the
dishes, when three (3) male persons entered the place and introduced themselves as police officers. He was told not to move and PO1 Climacosa
told him that "at last, we were able to get you Jimmy". The accused was quick to tell the policemen that he was not "Jimmy", and the person they
were looking for lives in the other house. One of the policemen went to the house of certa[i]n "Jimmy". Meanwhile, PO1 Climacosa handcuffed the
accused, while the other policeman searched the house. Unable to find anything, the policemen brought him to Mandaluyong Medical Hospital.
Afterwards, he was brought to the Mandaluyong City Hall, where he met PO1 Posadas who asked him the whereabouts of the Muslims. He replied
that he does not know any Muslim, and he was told to produce thirty thousand (₱30,000.00) pesos. He told PO1 Posadas that he does not have
money. Irked by the accused’s answer, PO1 Posadas pulled out from his drawer a small plastic sachet and lighter and was told that those are
evidence against him.14

The trial court, however, disbelieved appellant’s defenses and rendered a judgment of conviction, viz.:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
following: (1) In Criminal Case No. 04-8227-D the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY and to pay a fine of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00) and, (2) In Criminal Case No. 04-8228-D accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).

Accused is credited in full of the preventive imprisonment he has already served in confinement.

Let the physical evidence subject matter of this case be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State and referred to PDEA for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.15

The appellant filed an appeal before the CA, claiming that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the
prosecution witnesses had no personal knowledge of his alleged illegal activities. They merely relied on the information given by the confidential
asset that he was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. The prosecution, however, did not present their informant to establish that he is a drug
peddler. The appellant, thus, contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him. Appellant added that the chain of custody of
the confiscated items had not been established, as the buy-bust team did not comply with Section 2 of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1.16

On May 27, 2008, the CA rendered the assailed Decision17 affirming appellant’s conviction. Rejecting appellant’s arguments, the CA held that the
police officers acquired personal knowledge of appellant’s illegal activities after they conducted the surveillance. Thus, the informant’s testimony
was no longer necessary to establish the fact that appellant was indeed engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. The CA, likewise, brushed aside
appellant’s argument that the evidence’s chain of custody was not established.

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The joint decision of the Regional Trial Court Mandaluyong City, Branch 214,
in Criminal Case Nos. MC-04-8227-D and MC-04-8228-D is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.18

Appellant is now before this Court submitting for resolution the same matters argued before the CA. Through his Manifestation and Motion in Lieu
of Supplemental Brief,19 appellant stated that he will not file a Supplemental Brief and, in lieu thereof, he will adopt the Appellant’s Brief he had
filed before the appellate court. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) likewise manifested that it is no longer filing a supplemental brief.20

Appellant primarily assails the non-presentation of the confidential asset to establish that he was indeed peddling drugs. Thus, he insists that the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

After examining the records, we find no reason to overrule the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the illegal sale of shabu is established by the clear testimony of PO1 Climacosa who acted as the poseur-buyer
during the buy-bust operation. He testified as to his own personal knowledge of the sale that had taken place. Senior Police Officer 1 Rico and PO1
Antipasado corroborated PO1 Climacosa’s testimony.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established that appellant was caught in the act of selling a sachet containing substances which turned
out to be positive for shabu to PO1 Climacosa. And as soon he was arrested, he was frisked by the arresting officers, in the course of which a sachet
also containing a substance which likewise turned out to be positive for shabu was found in his pocket.

That the informant was not presented by the prosecution does not prejudice the State's case, as all the elements of illegal sale and possession of
shabu by appellant were satisfactorily proved by testimonial, documentary and object evidence. At best, the testimony of the informant would only
have been corroborative of the testimonies of PO1 Climacosa, SPO1 Rico and PO1 Antipasado. It is not indispensable.

As held by this Court in People v. Lopez:21

In general, the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution
because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. In a case involving the sale of illegal drugs, what should be proven beyond
reasonable doubt is the fact of the sale itself. Hence, like the non-presentation of the marked money used in buying the contraband, the non-
presentation of the informer would not necessarily create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence22

Thus, in People v. Marilyn Naquita,23 we rejected a similar contention, holding that:

The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases. The failure of the prosecution to present the informant does not
vitiate its cause as the latter's testimony is not indispensable to a successful prosecution for drug-pushing, since his testimony would be merely
corroborative of and cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer who was presented in court and who testified on the facts and circumstances of the
sale and delivery of the prohibited drug. Failure of the prosecution to produce the informant in court is of no moment, especially when he is not
even the best witness to establish the fact that a buy-bust operation has indeed been conducted. Informants are usually not presented in court
because of the need to hide their identities and preserve their invaluable services to the police. It is well-settled that except when the accused
vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to
believe that the arresting officers had motives to falsely testify against the accused, or that only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually
witnessed the entire transaction, the testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely be corroborative of the apprehending
officers' eyewitness accounts.
In the case under consideration, none of the exceptions are present that would make the testimony of the confidential informant indispensable. As
admitted by appellant, the police officers who testified against her were not known to her before her arrest. We likewise do not find material
inconsistencies in their testimonies. Further, the informant is a person different from the poseur-buyer. What we find vital is appellant's
apprehension while peddling and possessing dangerous drugs by PO1 Cosme and PO1 Llanderal.

Appellant further claims that the prosecution failed to establish the evidence’s chain of custody because the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply
with Section 2124 of RA 9165 and Section 2 of Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No. 1.25 He adds that the policemen’s failure to abide by these
provisions casts doubt on the admissibility of the evidence adduced against him.

We disagree.

Contrary to what appellant wants to portray, the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was shown not to have been broken. After the
seizure of the drugs from appellant’s possession, PO1 Climacosa and PO1 Antipasado marked the two (2) plastic sachets. The plastic sachet that was
sold to PO1 Climacosa was marked MC, while the plastic sachet that was recovered by PO1 Antipasado was marked MC-1. These plastic sachets
containing a white crystalline substance were immediately forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory in EPD for examination to determine the
presence of dangerous drugs. After a qualitative examination conducted on the specimens, PSI Cejes concluded that the white crystalline substance
was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. There can be no doubt that the drugs seized from appellant were
the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. Plainly, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized shabu
from the time they were first discovered until they were brought for examination.

Besides, appellant never questioned the custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from him in the proceedings before the RTC. In fact, he
stipulated that the drugs subject matter of this case were examined by PSI Lourdeliza Cejes, and the examination yielded a positive result for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from
appellant not to have been compromised.

Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements26 that non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or
confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items,
as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In this case, it has been shown that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Thus, appellant’s claim must fail.

This Court finds, as did the trial court and the CA, the accounts of the arresting/entrapping police officers, as to what occurred in the evening of May
28, 2004, credible. For, aside from the presumption that they – the police operatives – regularly performed their duties, we note that these
operatives, as prosecution witnesses, gave consistent and straightforward narrations of what transpired on May 28, 2004. As things stand, the police
officers uniformly testified to having apprehended the appellant in a buy-bust operation, and that upon being frisked, appellant was also found to be
in possession of another sachet containing a white crystalline substance later on found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly
known as shabu.

Apart from his defense that he is a victim of a frame-up and extortion by the police officers, accused-appellant could not present any other viable
defense. While the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the
presumption of innocence, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome
this presumption of regularity.27 This, appellant failed to do.

All told, in Criminal Case No. MC-04-8227-D, the Court is convinced that the prosecution’s evidence more than proved beyond reasonable doubt the
charge for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession of shabu), appellant having knowingly carried with him the plastic
sachet of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation.

Likewise proven by the same quantum of evidence is the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. MC-04-8228-
D. The prosecution has established all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (i) identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (ii) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.1avvphi1

We now go to the penalties imposed on appellant for possession and sale of shabu.

The possession of dangerous drugs is punished under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Paragraph 2, No. 3 thereof, reads:

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to
Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of . . . methamphetamine
hydrochloride . . . .

For possessing shabu weighing .06 gram, the trial court imposed on appellant the straight penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, and a fine of
₱300,000.00.

In People v. Mateo28 and People v. Larry Lopez,29 the Court held that the period of imprisonment imposed on the accused should not be a straight
penalty, but should be an indeterminate penalty. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing, and the CA in affirming, the straight penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day.

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law30 provides that when the offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, "the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same." 1awphi1

Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. MC-04-8227-D this Court imposes on appellant an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum,
to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000.00.

As regards Criminal Case No. MC-04-8228-D, the trial court correctly imposed on appellant the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
₱500,000.00 for the sale of dangerous drugs, pursuant to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.31

In closing, we reiterate that "drug addiction is one of the most pernicious evils that has ever crept into our society." More often than not, it is the
young who are the victims. On the other hand, equally reprehensible is the police practice of using the law as a tool for extorting money from
hapless victims. Courts must be vigilant in trying drug charges, lest an innocent person be made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
offenses.32 In this case, however, appellant failed to prove his theory of extortion and frame-up, and we entertain no doubt as to his guilt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DIMISSED. The Court AFFIRMS the May 27, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02549 with the
MODIFICATION that the penalty in Criminal Case No. MC-04-8227-D shall be imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 182231 April 16, 2009
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,
vs.
EDDIE GUM-OYEN y SACPA, Appellee.

DECISION

TINGA, J.:

Two separate informations1 for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, were filed against appellant Eddie Gum-Oyen y Sacpa. He pleaded not guilty to both charges at the arraignment.2

During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the existence of Chemistry Report Nos. D-049-03 and P1-002-03, as
well as the existence of the request for the ultraviolet fluorescent dusting addressed to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory,
Regional Office No. 1; the identity of the accused, and the date indicated in the information as the alleged date of the incident. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented, as witnesses, Police Officer (PO)3 Allan Bañana, Police Inspector and Forensic Chemist Imelda Roderos, Senior Police
Inspector and Forensic Chemist Valeriano P. Laya II, and Senior Police Officer (SPO)1 Wilfredo Montero. On the other hand, the defense called to the
witness stand the accused himself Marilou Panit and Balloguing Gum-Oyen.

According to the prosecution, the facts are as follows:

On 5 February 2003, PO3 Allan Bañana and SPO1 Wilfredo Montero of the Drug Enforcement Unit, Naguilian, La Union received a report from a
police asset that a certain Eddie would deliver marijuana to Barangay Cabaritan, Naguilian, La Union. PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero immediately
relayed this information to their station commander, Police Superintendent Rolando Nana, who directed them to conduct a buy-bust operation
together with PO3 Mendoza and PO1 Mendoza.3

With the police asset acting as the poseur-buyer and ₱1,120.00 as buy-bust money,4 PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero proceeded to the target place.
PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero positioned themselves at a waiting shed while the rest of the buy-bust team who followed stood by the houses
opposite the shed. The police asset waited for the arrival of the appellant by the road close to the houses.5

Around 11:30 a.m, appellant arrived at the place on board a tricycle. Carrying a blue bag, he alighted therefrom and talked to the police asset. Then
appellant put down his bag, opened it and took out a square-shaped object wrapped in a brown-colored plastic. Appellant partially opened it and
gave it to the police asset. After smelling the object, the police asset handed the buy-bust money to appellant. While appellant was counting the
money, the buy-bust team identified themselves as policemen, arrested him, apprised him of his rights and frisked him for dangerous weapons.6

PO3 Bañana searched appellant’s bag and recovered three (3) more bricks of marijuana. Thereafter, they brought appellant to the police station and
to the hospital for medical examination.7

At the police station, the buy-bust money was recovered from appellant, together with the four (4) bricks of marijuana, and turned over to the
investigator on duty, SPO1 Valentin Abenoja, who marked the items. The police next presented appellant to the Municipal Mayor, and photographs
of them with several police officers and the seized items were taken.8

Afterward, PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Abenoja, with appellant in tow, brought the marijuana, seven (7) of the ₱10.00 bills and one (1) P50.00 bill with
two (2) requests for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory. When the initial and the final laboratory reports confirmed the positive
existence of marijuana, PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero executed a joint affidavit against appellant and a request for his inquest. 9

Police Inspector Imelda Roderos, a forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory testified that she had received a request to conduct an ultraviolet
examination of several money bills and of the person of the appellant. Both hands of appellant and the money bills were found positive for the
presence of ultraviolet powder. Her findings are embodied in Chemistry Report No. PI-002-03.10

Senior Police Inspector Valeriano P. Laya II, also a forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, stated that he had
received a letter-request from the Naguilian Police Station for the laboratory examination of four (4) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops. The
specimen tested positive for marijuana, and the findings were recorded in Chemistry Report No. D-049-03.11

In his defense, appellant maintained that he had only been instigated to commit the offenses charged. He testified that on 12 January 2003, a
certain Roger Fundanera, a former co-worker at a construction firm in Irisan, Baguio City and a police asset, had gone to his house and asked him to
go buy marijuana from someone in San Gabriel. Roger returned a couple more times and, on the last date, 4 February 2003, gave him ₱2,500.00 and
a letter and instructed him to give them to the person from whom he was going to buy marijuana. On even date, appellant left for Sacdaan, San
Gabriel.12

Appellant reached the place at 2:00 p.m. and thereat handed the letter and the money, in the amount of ₱2,200.00, to Ponsing. Appellant used the
remaining ₱300.00 for his fare. Ponsing then told him to meet him at Lon-oy, San Gabriel the following day at 6:30 a.m. Subsequently, appellant
went home to his parents’ house in Bayabas, San Gabriel.13

In the morning of the next day, appellant met with Ponsing in Lon-oy. Appellant handed to him his handbag, and the latter placed inside it
something wrapped in plastic. Thereafter, appellant traveled to Bauang to meet with Roger. At the meeting place, after appellant had given Roger
the handbag, the latter placed it inside a tricycle, boarded the same and asked appellant to ride with him to Naguilian. En route, three (3) men in
civilian clothes boarded the tricycle. Roger asked appellant to give one (1) bundle from inside the bag to one of the three (3) persons. Following this,
the three (3) persons, whom he later found out to be police officers, arrested him and brought him to the Municipal Hall of Naguilian.14

Appellant denied having ₱1,120.00 in his pocket at the time of his arrest but he confirmed that his hands were found positive for the presence of
ultraviolet powder.15 Appellant also testified that he had gone to San Gabriel upon Roger’s request to help the latter procure marijuana, without
any intent to gain on his part and despite the fact that he knew it was prohibited for anybody to have in his possession any amount of marijuana.16
Marilou Panit, appellant’s live-in partner, testified that Roger Fundanera, a police asset, had been to their house on 12 and 20 January 2003, and on
4 February 2004. Marilou stated that appellant had merely gone to San Gabriel to purchase marijuana for Roger upon the insistence of and as an
accommodation to Roger in order for the policemen to believe appellant’s story about its real source. After appellant left for San Gabriel, Marilou
next saw him when he was already behind bars.17

Balloguing Gum-Oyen, appellant’s father, testified that in the evening of 4 February 2003, he was roused from sleep by the knocking at the door.
When he opened it, he saw appellant. Asked about the purpose for his visit, appellant replied that somebody had ordered him to get something.
Appellant left at dawn the next day without telling him where he was going. 18

In a Decision promulgated on 5 May 1995, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67 found appellant guilty of illegal possession
of marijuana. Appellant, however, was acquitted of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana. The dispositive portion of the decision reads, as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered:

In Criminal Case No. 2808 ACQUITTING the accused Eddie Gum-oyen y Sacpa on reasonable doubt of the charge;

In Criminal Case No. 2809, finding the accused Eddie Gum-oyen y Sacpa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of
Marijuna defined and penalized under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection and to pay a fine of Ten Million (₱10,000,000.00) Pesos, and the cost.

The confiscated and/or seized items were already destroyed in accordance with Section 21, par. 4 of Republic Act 9165 on October 29, 2004 at 9:30
A.M. in front of the Justice Hall, Municipality of Bauang, Province of La Union.

SO ORDERED.19

Before the Court of Appeals, appellant raised a lone assignment of error—"the trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant of the crime
charged despite the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti."

On 19 November 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision20 affirming the judgment of the trial court but modifying the penalty to
life imprisonment conformably to R.A. No. 934621 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty. The pertinent portions of the decision follow:

The prosecution successfully proved the existence of all elements necessary to convict accused-appellant of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. PO3 Bañana, SPO1 Montero and the other police operatives caught accused-appellant in
unauthorized possession of the three (3) bricks of marijuana at the time of his arrest. Accused-appellant was not authorized to possess marijuana.
He knew that the unauthorized possession of marijuana is penalized by law. He freely and consciously possessed the bricks of marijuana
notwithstanding his knowledge that such possession is illegal.

Likewise, the prosecution established the corpus delicti of the offense with moral certainty. PO3 Bañana and the other members of the buy-bust
team immediately turned over the three bricks of marijuana to the police investigator on duty, SPO1 Abenoja. The latter, PO3 Bañana and SPO1
Montero marked the three bricks of marijuana with their respective initials at the police station after accused-appellant’s arrest. PO3 Bañana also
recorded in the police blotter the items seized from accused-appellant including the three bricks of marijuana subject of this case. PO3 Bañana and
SPO1 Abenoja turned over the three bricks of marijuana to the crime laboratory for examination. Chemistry Report No. D-049-03 shows that the
three bricks tested positive to the laboratory examination for the presence of marijuana. The three marijuana bricks were properly identified,
marked and offered in evidence during the trial. The testimony of PO3 Bañana sufficiently proves that the three bricks of marijuana seized from
accused-appellant are the same items presented as evidence against him before the court a quo.

xxx

The defense of instigation put up by accused-appellant does not inspire belief. Accused-appellant’s testimony in this regard is inconsistent and not
credible. He initially testified that he worked with Roger Fundanera in a construction work, and that Roger asked him to buy marijuana for him.
Despite the incredulity of Roger’s request, accused-appellant gave in and traveled to Sacdaan, San Gabriel to buy marijuana from the person whom
Roger mentioned. It was, however, only during the next hearing that accused-appellant testified that Roger was a police asset. Significantly, Roger
never testified for the prosecution and for the defense. His identity remains questionable to this Court. Clearly, what the records reveal is that
accused-appellant merely weaved a flimsy tale of instigation in a futile attempt to secure his acquittal.

It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for
they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of
the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. The records do not show that prosecution witnesses PO3 Bañana and
SPO1 Montero were moved by an improper motive in testifying against accused-appellant. Neither is there any evidence showing that the two
police officers failed to perform their duties in a regular manner when they seized the three (3) bricks of marijuana from accused-appellant’s
possession immediately after his apprehension.1avvphi1

All elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165 being present in the case at bar, and the corpus delicit of
the said offense having been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, this Court sees no convincing reason to overturn the
conviction of accused-appellant.22

The Court sustains the verdict of conviction.

There is no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the lower courts. Well-entrenched is the rule that an appellate court will generally not disturb
the assessment of the trial court on factual matters considering that the latter, as a trier of facts, is in a better position to appreciate the same. The
only exceptions allowed are when the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance which, if considered, may affect the result of the
case; or in instances where the evidence fails to support or substantiate the lower court’s findings and conclusions, or where the disputed decision is
based on a misapprehension of facts.23 This case does not fall under any of the exceptions. Hence, there is no reason for us to modify the factual
findings of the lower courts.

Moreover, the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs beginning from the entrapment
team, to the investigating officer, to the forensic chemist whose laboratory tests were well-documented, up to the time there were offered in
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.24

The Court also finds that the arresting officers strictly complied with the guidelines prescribed by law regarding the custody and control of the seized
drugs.25 There was testimony regarding the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of appellant. Likewise there was
mention that an elected official was present during the inventory. In addition, it appears on record that the team photographed the contraband in
accordance with law.26 Absent any indication that the police officers were ill-motivated in testifying against appellant, full credence should be given
to their testimonies. In sum, contrary to appellant’s lone argument, the prosecution established the corpus delicti with moral certainty.

In contrast, appellant’s defense of instigation is unsubstantiated. Not only was his testimony in this regard inconsistent, he was also unable to
support his assertions with any other evidence. Significantly, the person named Roger whom he referred to as his instigator was never presented in
court, raising questions as regards his identity and existence. As correctly quipped by the appellate court, appellant’s tale of instigation was a futile
attempt to secure his acquittal.

Finally, it bears underscoring that appellant himself admitted that he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest and even though he knew it
was against the law to so possess it in any amount.27 Hence, the lower courts aptly held him liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 185278 March 13, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
ROLANDO LLAMADO y CRUZ, Appellant.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This is an appeal from the May 6, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02799, which affirmed the May 21, 2007 Decision2 of
the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 192, finding appellant Rolando Llamado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

In an Information3 filed on February 21, 2005, appellant was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the accusatory portion of
which reads as follows:

That on or about the 12th day of February 2005, in the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to poseur buyer PO2 Ferdinand Brubio
for and in consideration of Php200.00, 0.02 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the
above-cited law.

Contrary to law.

Appellant pleaded "not guilty" when arraigned on March 14, 2005.

After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued.

The facts as narrated by the prosecution are as follows:

Around 6:50 in the evening of February 12, 2005, PO2 Ferdinand Brubio, PO2 Ramiel Soriano, PO1 Christopher Anos and P/Supt. Romeo Abaring
were on duty at the Station of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force located in Sta. Elena Marikina City, when a police informant came
to the station, informing them of the rampant selling of shabu by appellant Rolando Llamado alias "Pusa" in E. Dela Paz St., Sto. Niño, Marikina City.

Upon learning of the information, P/Supt. Abaring formed a buy-bust team and designated PO2 Brubio as the poseur-buyer. After PO2 Brubio
coordinated their plan with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), P/Supt. Abaring gave two (2) one hundred peso bills, dusted with
fluorescent powder, to PO2 Brubio to be used as buy-bust money.

PO2 Brubio went with the confidential informant to the pinpointed place of operation. PO3 Soriano and PO1 Anos were assigned as "back-up." Upon
reaching the area, the police informant saw appellant, who was then wearing a basketball uniform, and pointed him to PO2 Brubio. When PO2
Brubio and the informant approached him, the informant introduced PO2 Brubio as the "scorer." Appellant asked PO2 Brubio how much he would
buy and the latter answered "dos lang", meaning two hundred pesos. Appellant gave a sachet of shabu to PO2 Brubio who, in turn, gave the buy-
bust money to appellant. Amid their transaction, another blonde-haired male arrived and also bought shabu from appellant.1avvphi1.zw+

PO2 Brubio held the shoulder of the police informant, the pre-arranged signal to their back-up police officers that the drug sale transaction had been
consummated. PO2 Brubio introduced himself as a police officer and arrested appellant and the blonde-haired male who, unfortunately, was able to
escape later on. PO2 Brubio placed the markings "RCL-FB BUYBUST 02-12-05" on the sachet of shabu bought from appellant and the buy-bust
money. "RCL" and "FB" markings are appellant’s and PO2 Brubio’s initials, respectively.

Appellant was taken to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force where the affidavit of arrest and request for laboratory examination and
urine test were prepared. Thereafter, PO2 Brubio personally brought appellant to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, together
with the confiscated shabu and the request for laboratory examination.

P/Sr. Insp. Maridel Rodis, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory based in Camp Crame, Quezon City, personally received the request for
laboratory examination and the attached specimen from PO2 Brubio. She conducted a physical, chemical and confirmatory examination on the
specimen recovered from appellant. In Chemistry Report No. D-115-05 prepared by P/Sr. Insp. Rodis, the specimen recovered from appellant was
positive for methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, thus:

"FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on specimen A and B gave positive result to the tests for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs.

xxxxxxxxx

CONCLUSION:

Specimen A and B contain Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs.4

Appellant admitted that his alias is "Pusa"; however, he denied having sold shabu to a poseur-buyer and having held the buy-bust money. He
claimed that the police officers were the ones in possession of the buy-bust money when they arrested him.

Luningning Llamado, mother of the appellant, substantially corroborated the testimony of her son. She claimed that four persons suddenly barged
into their house while they were having dinner; that they invited her son "Jun" to go with them but appellant refused claiming that he did not do
anything wrong; that the men started frisking her son; that the policemen did not have any warrant but justified the intrusion as buy-bust operation;
that the officers did not recover anything from appellant except money amounting to P140.00 and his cellphone.
The trial court found the prosecution’s version more credible and accordingly found appellant guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, ROLANDO LLAMADO y CRUZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act 9165. Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending the
commission of the crime, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.

The shabu subject matter of this case is hereby confiscated in favor of the Government and to be turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for
proper disposition, without delay.

SO ORDERED.5

On appeal, appellant alleged that the evidence seized from him was a product of illegal search; hence, inadmissible; that the acts of the policemen
could not be accorded the presumption of regularity because they failed to secure either a search warrant or warrant of arrest; that the police
officers failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 when they failed to make an inventory and take photographs of the paraphernalia seized
during the buy-bust operation.

On May 6, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision6 denying the appeal and affirming the decision of the court a quo. The
appellate court held that the failure of the police officers to coordinate with the local barangay officials prior to the conduct of the buy-bust
operation did not invalidate the undertaking of the police officers; that the prosecution has established the authenticity of the buy-bust operation;
that non-compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 did not render void and invalid the seizure of and custody over
the confiscated items considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the apprehending team.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides in part:

SEC 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals.- The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

In this case, appellant is charged with selling "shabu," which is a dangerous drug. Section 3 (ii), Article I of R.A. No. 9165 defines "selling" as "any act
of giving away any dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals whether for money or any other consideration." For the
prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.7

In the instant case, the prosecution positively identified appellant as the seller of the substance which was found to be Methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Appellant sold the drug to PO2 Brubio, a police officer who acted as poseur-buyer for a sum of P200.00. The
prosecution positively and categorically testified that the transaction or sale actually took place. The subject shabu8 weighing 0.02 grams and the
money amounting to P200.009 pesos were likewise identified by the prosecution witnesses when presented in court.

It has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation from initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the
delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust
money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense.101avvphi1

Appellant’s defense of denial is unavailing. There was no evidence that PO2 Brubio was motivated by reasons other than his duty to enforce the law.
In fact, appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation and was positively identified by the police officers who
conducted the operation. As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is
generally held to prevail.11

Moreover, the failure on the part of the police officers to take photographs and make an inventory of the drugs seized from the appellant was not
fatal because the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. What determines if there was,
indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale
of dangerous drugs and presented in court evidence of corpus delicti.12 PO2 Brubio was able to put the necessary markings on the sachet of shabu
bought from appellant, for identification purposes, immediately after the consummation of the drug sale. He personally delivered the same
specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis on the same day the entrapment was conducted. Lastly, PO2 Brubio was able to identify
the said markings in court.

In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses
especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the
contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving and
uncorroborated denial.13

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The May 6, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 02799, affirming the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 192, finding appellant Rolando Llamado guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 181037 January 19, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG y NAMRI alias SAI, Appellant.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01487, which affirmed in toto the June 16, 2005 Decision2 of the Regional
Trial Court of San Pablo, Laguna, Branch 32 in Criminal Case No. 14730-SP(04), finding appellant Saidamen Macatingag y Namri guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002."

In its Brief for the Appellee,3 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution’s version of the facts as follows:

On January 17, 2004, about 8:00 o’clock in the morning, the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp Vicente Lim in Canlubang,
Calamba City formed a buy-bust team because of a report from a confidential informant about the drug pushing activities of a certain "Sai," who
later turned out to be appellant. The team was composed of P/Sr. Insp. Julius Cesar V. Ablan, as leader, and PO3 Marino A. Garcia as the poseur-
buyer and PO3 Danilo Leona as the arresting officer, as well as two police officers. After discussing the buy-bust procedure including the pre-
arranged signal which is the removal of PO3 Garcia’s cap, and the preparation of two P500.00 bills initialed with "MAG," the police authorities
immediately proceeded to the target area at the vicinity of Phase I, Villa Antonio, San Pablo City.

Upon arriving thereat about 11:30 o’clock in the morning of that day, PO3 Garcia and the confidential informant waited for appellant at the entrance
gate of Villa Antonio Subdivision in San Pablo City. Some twenty (20) minutes later, appellant arrived sporting black pants and dark gray t-shirt. PO3
Garcia was introduced to appellant as the prospective buyer. Appellant, on the other hand, asked PO3 Garcia about the money amounting to
P52,500.00. PO3 Garcia then pulled out an envelope containing the two P500.00 bills with the boodle money from his pocket, and demanded the
drugs. Appellant thereafter pulled out from his pocket one plastic sachet and handed it to PO3 Garcia. Immediately upon giving appellant the
marked money, PO3 Garcia lost no time in giving the pre-arranged signal to PO3 Leona. PO3 Leona thereupon hurriedly seized from appellant the
marked money, while PO3 Garcia recovered the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from appellant. The policemen thereafter brought
appellant to their station in Canlubang, Calamba City. PO3 Garcia marked the seized plastic sachet with markings "A" and "MAG" representing his
initials, and the date and time of arrest. After making an inventory on the seized suspected shabu, the police authorities requested for the
laboratory examination thereof with the PNP Crime Laboratory.

The seized suspected sachet of shabu was shown positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 25.23 grams per Chemistry Report No. D-
54-04 issued by P/Insp. Lorna R. Tria, Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime Laboratory.4

On January 19, 2004, appellant was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,5 in an Information6 that reads:

That on or about January 17, 2004, in the City of San Pablo, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused above-named, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell 25.23 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug, without being authorized by law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.7

Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.8 He maintained that he was at home with his wife on January 17, 2004 when four armed men
suddenly entered their house, seized his money, placed handcuffs on his wrists, and forcibly brought him to the police headquarters in Bgy.
Canlubang. He averred that he was not allowed to talk with anybody when he was incarcerated for two days and that he was alone during the
preliminary investigation. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in San Pablo City, where he was
formally charged with selling shabu.

On June 16, 2005, the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive portion
of which reads:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, accused SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG Y NAMRI alias "SAI" is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 also known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002", and there being no mitigating circumstance, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), and to pay the costs.

The effects of the crime are ordered confiscated in favor of the government. The custodian of the shabu subject of the case is hereby ordered to
submit the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition within 48 hours from receipt of a copy of this judgment and the latter is given
48 hours from receipt of the same to submit an acknowledgment receipt to this Court to form part of the records of this case.

SO ORDERED.9

The trial court found that all the elements of the crime charged were present and proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the
prosecution and the testimonies of the poseur-buyer and the arresting officer who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. It
disregarded the allegations of the defense that appellant was a victim of a frame-up and that he was not arrested pursuant to a valid buy-bust
operation.

On July 31, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision which affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court. The appellate court held
that the constitutional right of appellant against warrantless arrest and search was not violated; that appellant failed to assail the legality of the
arrest and the seizure of the sachet of shabu prior to his arraignment or at any stage in the proceedings of the trial court; that the arrest was
pursuant to a buy-bust operation which is a valid form of entrapment of felons in the execution of their criminal plan; and that the search conducted
on appellant was incidental to a lawful arrest.10 The appellate court also gave more weight and credence to the testimonies of the members of the
buy-bust team because they were not shown to have been impelled by ill-motives in testifying against appellant.

Hence, this petition.11

Appellant avers that the trial court and the Court of Appeals gravely erred in giving undue credence to the testimonies of the police officers and in
upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions. He also assails the validity of his arrest because the police
officers were not armed with any warrant when he was arrested. Finally, he assails the propriety of the chain of custody of the shabu allegedly
seized from him due to the non-observation of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.12

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti.13

These elements have been proven to be present in the instant case. PO3 Garcia who acted as the poseur-buyer, categorically testified about the
buy-bust operation – from the time he was introduced by the informant to appellant as the buyer of the shabu; to the time when appellant agreed
to the sale; to the actual exchange of the marked money and the heat-sealed sachet containing a white crystalline substance; and until the
apprehension of appellant, to wit:

A I myself together with confidential informant just walked, as well as the area and waited the poseur at the agreed place situated at the vicinity of
entrance of Villa Antonio, San Pablo City.
Q You were waiting for the suspects at the entrance of Villa San Antonio and then what else transpired next?
A After more or less 20 minutes of waiting ma’am we saw a man wearing a black pants and dark gray t-shirts arrived in our position, it was
introduced our confidential informant, he was introduced our confidential that as the poseur, likewise I was also introduced as the seller, [sic] I was
also introduced by the confidential informant as the buyer.

Q Who are the supposed to be the buyer, you were introduced as a buyer?
A Yes, ma’am.

FISCAL LAGMAN
Q And this suspect who was the seller, is he present in Court today?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q Would you kindly point to him?
A The 6th man from the Steel Cabinet.

INTERPRETER
Makikitayo, anong pangalan mo?

ACCUSED
Saidamen Macatingag po.

xxxx

FISCAL LAGMAN
Q So, after the introductions were made what happened?
A The seller identified the money, ma’am, which is amounting to P52,500.00.

FISCAL LAGMAN
Q What did you do?
A I immediately pull out from my pocket the envelope which is contained the 2 pieces of P500 bills and the bodol money as agreed amount of
P52,500. Likewise as also the seller if it has a dangerous drugs, ma’am.
Q And then what happened?
A I immediately pulled out 1 plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it over to me ma’am.
Q One (1) plastic sachet was handed to you?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q After you handed that money?
A No, ma’am we handed first to me the sachet and he demanded the payment of sachet, ma’am.

xxxx

FISCAL LAGMAN
Q What happened after the exchanged of the money and plastic sachet?
A After I gave him the buy bust money as agreed upon before we discovered as the bodol money, I immediately executed the pre-arranged signal
which is remove my cap, ma’am.
Q After you removed your cap, what happened?
A I saw PO3 Leona arrived and assisted me, after the arresting.
Q While you were arresting this Saidamen, this accused, what did you do as a matter of procedure, what did you tell him?
A We informed him the constitutional rights, ma’am. PO2 Leona was able to recovered this custody control of bodol money.

xxxx

Q So, after that, where did you bring Saidamen?

A We immediately brought him at our office at Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna together with confiscated pieces of evidence for proper
disposition.
Q You said that you were able to buy 1 plastic sachet of shabu that was supposed to be worth of P52,500, would you be able to identify the plastic
sachet if you will be shown to you?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q What markings did you place if any?
A I put my exhibit A, my initials, the date and time of arrest included the month and year, ma’am.
Q I am showing to you exhibit F, would you kindly tell us if this is the one that you brought from Saidamen Macatingag?
A Yes, ma’am.14

PO3 Leona, the back-up arresting officer during the buy-bust operation corroborated PO3 Garcia’s testimony, thus:

Q After you placed yourself 10 meters a way from the house, from the site and likewise Marino Garcia and the informant and the fence near the
site, what happened thereafter?
A I saw a person came out from that way near the hollow blocks fence wearing black pants and green t-shirt and I saw they were talking with our
confidential informant.

FISCAL COMILANG
Q Could you see the person who just arrived and talked with your confidential informant on said occasion, is he in Court?
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you please point to him if he is present?

INTERPRETER

Witness pointed to a person who gave us his name as Saidamen Macatingag.

FISCAL COMILANG
Q Now, Mr. Witness after the confidential informant and the accused had a conversation what did if any transpired after this conversation?
A After 30 minutes I saw the pre-arranged signal that this PO3 Marino Garcia will remove his cap.
Q You mean to say or to impress this court that Mr. Witness that the informant and Mr. Garcia were together when they had a transaction with the
accused?
A Yes, sir because the confidential informant introduced Mr. Marino Garcia to the accused.

xxxx

FISCAL COMILANG
Q After you saw PO3 Marino Garcia removed his cap, what did you do after that?
A I went to the area to help PO3 Garcia.
Q What if any did you find out after helping PO3 Marino Garcia?
A I arrested Saidamen and I removed from him the 2 pieces of P500 the bodol money.

xxxx

Q Now after recovering that 2 P500 bills from the accused what will be, were you able to recover?
A I recovered from the accused the money and it was SPO3 Marino Garcia who recovered the 25 grams of shabu conducted.15

Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.16 It is a
fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring
errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for
this 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 said findings are sustained by the Court of
Appeals.17

The testimonies of police officers Garcia and Leona, and the sachet of shabu sold by appellant sufficiently proved the crime charged. Moreover, the
prosecution was able to establish that the substance recovered from appellant was indeed shabu.18

In view of these testimonies and evidence of the prosecution, appellant’s denial must fail. The Court has consistently stressed that denial, like alibi,
is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses.19 Moreover, appellant
failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. It was not
shown, by any satisfactory degree of proof, that said policemen were impelled by ill-motives to testify against him. There is, therefore, no basis to
suspect the veracity of their testimonies.

With regard to the validity of his arrest, evidence shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation. In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a
buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been
proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.20 It catches the violator in flagrante
delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for
anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.21

Finally, this Court likewise finds no merit in appellant’s contention that the police officers failed to comply with the guidelines on the chain of
custody and disposition of the seized sachet of shabu as provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses
convincingly state that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item was properly preserved by the apprehending officers. P03 Garcia
testified that he marked the sachet of shabu with his initials, and the date and time of appellant’s arrest.22 PO3 Leona confirmed that he had seen
PO3 Garcia mark the same sachet of shabu sold by appellant; that a letter of request for the examination of said sachet was made; and such request
was received by the regional crime laboratory office. Thus:

Q Were you able to see that the shabu was actually was you said that recovered PO3 Marino Garcia from the accused?
A Yes, sir.

COURT
Q Did you put your initial in the specimen?
A I was only accompanied Marino Garcia in bringing to the crime lab.

FISCAL COMILANG
Q Since you have seen Mr. Witness the actual shabu was taken from the accused, do you know if Mr. Garcia placed any reference on the said article,
if any?
A Yes, sir, the initial of Marino Garcia.
Q What is that initial?
A MAG.
Q Mr. Witness, why do you know that police officer Marino Garcia actually placed his initial on the said specimen or item?
A Everytime that we conducted the buy bust, it is our SOP to place the marking.
Q Mr. Witness I will show you that item confiscated Marino Garcia from the accused on the alleged of the item, could you identify it?
A Yes, sir.
Q I will show to you now the plastic sachet big plastic sachet which contained white crystalline substance, could you please tell us what is the
relationship of this item from that item allegedly taken by Marino Garcia from the accused on which marking was placed?
A This is the item which is recovered from the accused. Mr. Garcia placed his initial.
Q What is MAG?
A MAG referred to Marino A. Garcia.

xxxx

Q After the specimen and the accused were transferred to the investigator of Regional director what happened to the accused and the specimen?
A The investigator prepared a paper for the filing of the…and prepared a letter request for the examination.
Q Would you specify what are those documents prepared by the investigator as pre-requisite of filing of this case?
A We prepared the letter request for the crime lab request for the accused we first report to the effect…did not suffer physical injury.

xxxx

Q Do you know if this document was actually received by the addressee?

A Yes, sir, because I was with them.
Q What proof that this document was actually received by the addressee?
A There was a stamp marked of receipt, sir.23

As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the seized sachet of shabu was immediately marked for proper identification and, thereafter, forwarded to
the Crime Laboratory for examination. The Chemistry Report of the Regional Crime Laboratory Office stated that the specimen submitted by the
apprehending officers indeed bore the marking "Exh A MAG 171200-01-14" and that the same gave positive result to the tests for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Forensic Chemical Officer Tria confirmed on the witness stand that she examined the specimen submitted by the
PDEA and that she was the one who prepared the Chemistry Report No. D-54-04.24

It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been properly preserved and established by the prosecution. Besides, the integrity of the
evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The
appellant in this case has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the
handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.25 Appellant failed to discharge such
burden.

This Court has held that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.26

In People of the Philippines v. Del Monte,27 it was held that:

Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these
rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. One example is that provided in Section 31 of Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court wherein a party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to be altered after its execution, in a part
material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. His failure to do so shall make the document inadmissible in evidence. This is
clearly provided for in the rules.

We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs
due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of
admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary merit or probative value — to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said
evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.28

All told, We see no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of a dangerous
drug, as defined and penalized in Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Under said provision, the illegal sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its
quantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00.

For illegally selling 25.23 grams of shabu, and there being no modifying circumstance alleged in the Information, the trial court, as sustained by the
Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment in accordance with Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code29 and a fine of
P500,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01487 dated July 31, 2007, sustaining the
conviction of appellant Saidamen Macatingag y Namri for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing upon him the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 179940 April 23, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NORBERTO DEL MONTE y GAPAY @ OBET, accused-appellant.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Assailed before Us is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02070 dated 28 May 2007 which affirmed with modification the
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, in Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02, finding accused-appellant Norberto del
Monte, a.k.a. Obet, guilty of violation of Section 5,3 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002."

On 11 December 2002, accused-appellant was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portion of the information reads:

That on or about the 10th day of December 2002, in the municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.290 gram.4

The case was raffled to Branch 78 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan and docketed as Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02.

When arraigned on 20 January 2003, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge.5 On 17 February 2003, the pre-trial
conference was concluded.6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented as its lone witness PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr., the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against
appellant, and a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office
3/Special Enforcement Unit (SEU) stationed at the Field Office, Barangay Tarcan, Baliuag, Bulacan.

The version of the prosecution is as follows:

On 10 December 2002, at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant went to the office of the PDEA SEU in Barangay Tarcan,
Baliuag, Bulacan and reported that appellant was selling shabu. Upon receipt of said information, a briefing on a buy-bust operation against
appellant was conducted. The team was composed of SPO2 Hashim S. Maung, as team leader, PO1 Gaudencio Tolentino, Jr. as the poseur-buyer,
and PO1 Antonio Barreras as back-up operative. After the briefing, the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to Poblacion Dike
for the execution of the buy-bust operation.

When the team arrived at appellant’s place, they saw the appellant standing alone in front of the gate. The informant and PO1 Tolentino
approached appellant. The informant introduced PO1 Tolentino to appellant as his friend, saying "Barkada ko, user." PO1 Tolentino gave appellant
P300.00 consisting of three marked P100 bills.7 The bills were marked with "GT JR," PO1 Tolentino’s initials. Upon receiving the P300.00, appellant
took out a plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it over to PO1 Tolentino. As a pre-arranged signal, PO1 Tolentino lit a cigarette signifying that
the sale had been consummated. PO1 Barreras arrived, arrested appellant and recovered from the latter the marked money.

The white crystalline substance8 in the plastic sachet which was sold to PO1 Tolentino was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3,
Malolos, Bulacan, for laboratory examination to determine the presence of the any dangerous drug. The request for laboratory examination was
signed by SPO2 Maung.9 Per Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002,10 the substance bought from appellant was positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

The testimony of Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, Forensic Chemical Officer who examined the substance bought from appellant, was dispensed after both
prosecution and defense stipulated that the witness will merely testify on the fact that the drugs subject matter of this case was forwarded to their
office for laboratory examination and that laboratory examination was indeed conducted and the result was positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.11

For the defense, the appellant took the witness stand, together with his common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza; and nephew, Alejandro Lim.

From their collective testimonies, the defense version goes like this:

On 10 December 2002, appellant was sleeping in his sister’s house in Poblacion Dike when a commotion woke him up. His nephew, Alejandro Lim,
was shouting because the latter, together with appellant’s common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza, and a niece, was being punched and kicked by
several police officers. When appellant tried to pacify the policemen and ask them why they were beating up his common-law wife and other
relatives, the policemen arrested him, mauled him, punched him on the chest, slapped him and hit him with a palo-palo. He sustained swollen face,
lips and tooth. His common-law wife was likewise hit on the chest with the palo-palo.

The policemen then took appellant and his common-law wife to a house located in the middle of a field where the former demanded P15,000.00 for
their liberty. The next day, appellant was brought to the police station.

Amelia Mendoza identified PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Barreras as the police officers who manhandled them and who demanded P15,000.00 so that she
and appellant could go home. The following day at 6:00 a.m., she said her child and cousin arrived with the P15,000.00. She was released but
appellant was detained. She does not know why the police officers filed this case against appellant. What she knows is that they were asking money
from them.

Alejandro Lim merely corroborated the testimonies of appellant and Amelia Mendoza.
On 8 March 2004, the trial court rendered its decision convicting appellant of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and
sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00. The dispostive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused Norberto del Monte y Gapay @ Obet GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the offense of Violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of P5,000,000.00.
With cost.

The drugs subject matter of this case is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. The Branch of this Court is directed to turn over the
same to the Dangerous Drugs Board within ten (10) days from receipt hereof for proper disposal thereof.12

The trial court found the lone testimony of PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr. to be credible and straightforward. It established the fact that appellant
was caught selling shabu during an entrapment operation conducted on 10 December 2002. Appellant was identified as the person from whom PO1
Tolentino bought P300.00 worth of shabu as confirmed by Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002. On the other hand, the trial court was not convinced
by appellant’s defense of frame-up and denial. Appellant failed to substantiate his claims that he was merely sleeping and was awakened by the
screams of his relatives who were being mauled by the police officers.

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 10 March 2004.13 With the filing thereof, the trial court directed the immediate transmittal of the entire
records of the case to us.14 However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,15 the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate
action and disposition.16

On 28 May 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but reduced the fine imposed on appellant to P500,000.00. It disposed of
the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision dated March 8, 2004 of the RTC, Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 3437-M-
02, finding accused-appellant Norberto del Monte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amount of fine imposed upon him is
reduced from P5,000,000.00 to P500,000.00.17

A Notice of Appeal having been timely filed by appellant, the Court of Appeals forwarded the records of the case to us for further review.18

In our Resolution19 dated 10 December 2007, the parties were notified that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired,
within 30 days from notice. Both appellant and appellee opted not to file a supplemental brief on the ground they had exhaustively argued all the
relevant issues in their respective briefs and the filing of a supplemental brief would only contain a repetition of the arguments already discussed
therein.

Appellant makes a lone assignment of error:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM FOR FAILURE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 21 OF R.A. 9165.20

Appellant anchors his appeal on the arresting policemen’s failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. He claims that pictures
of him together with the alleged confiscated shabu were not taken immediately upon his arrest as shown by the testimony of the lone prosecution
witness. He adds that PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Antonio Barreras, the police officers who had initial custody of the drug allegedly seized and
confiscated, did not conduct a physical inventory of the same in his presence as shown by their joint affidavit of arrest. Their failure to abide by said
section casts doubt on both his arrest and the admissibility of the evidence adduced against him.

At the outset, it must be stated that appellant raised the police officers’ alleged non-compliance with Section 2121 of Republic Act No. 9165 for the
first time on appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. In People v. Sta. Maria22 in which the very same issue was raised,
we ruled:

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the
buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the
safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers’ alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not
raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that
there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such
objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. (Emphases supplied.)

In People v. Pringas,23 we explained that non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated
from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the custody and
disposition of the drug that was taken from him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory examination which examination gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from appellant not to have been compromised.

We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs
confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or
rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will
accorded it by the courts. One example is that provided in Section 31 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court wherein a party producing a document as
genuine which has been altered and appears to be altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the
alteration. His failure to do so shall make the document inadmissible in evidence. This is clearly provided for in the rules.

We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs
due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of
admissibility, but of weight – evidentiary merit or probative value – to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence
depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.24 What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti.25

All these elements have been shown in the instant case. The prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the
shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. The poseur buyer positively identified appellant as the seller of the shabu. Per
Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002 of Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, the substance, weighing 0.290 gram, which was bought by
PO1 Tolentino from appellant in consideration of P300.00, was examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

In the case before us, we find the testimony of the poseur-buyer, together with the dangerous drug taken from appellant, more than sufficient to
prove the crime charged. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon
the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial. It is a
fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring
errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for
this 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.26

The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.27 Finding no compelling reason to
depart from the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we affirm their findings.

Appellant denies selling shabu to the poseur-buyer insisting that he was framed, the evidence against him being "planted," and that the police
officers were exacting P15,000.00 from him.

In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, his
identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant’s plain denial of
the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.28 Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with
caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions
of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.29 For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.30 This, appellant failed to do. The presumption
remained unrebutted because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their
duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.

The presentation of his common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza, and his nephew, Alejandro Lim, to support his claims fails to sway. We find both
witnesses not to be credible. Their testimonies are suspect and cannot be given credence without clear and convincing evidence. Their claims, as
well as that of appellant, that they were maltreated and suffered injuries remain unsubstantiated. As found by the trial court:

The accused, on the other hand, in an effort to exculpate himself from liability raised the defense of frame-up. He alleged that at the time of the
alleged buy bust he was merely sleeping at the house of his sister. That he was awakened by the yells and screams of his relatives as they were being
mauled by the police officers. However, this Court is not convinced. Accused failed to substantiate these claims of maltreatment even in the face of
his wife’s and nephew’s testimony. No evidence was presented to prove the same other than their self-serving claims.31

Moreover, we agree with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that the witnesses for the defense cannot even agree on what time
the arresting policemen allegedly arrived in their house. It explained:

To elaborate, appellant testified that it was 3 o’clock in the afternoon of December 10, 2002 when he was roused from his sleep by the policemen
who barged into the house of his sister (TSN, July 7, 2003, p. 2). His common-law wife, however, testified that it was 10-11 o’clock in the morning
when the policemen came to the house (TSN, Oct. 13, 2003, p. 6). On the other hand, Alejandro Lim testified that he went to sleep at 11 o’clock in
the morning and it was 10 o’clock in the morning when the policemen arrived (TSN, Feb.2, 2004, p. 6). He thus tried to depict an absurd situation
that the policemen arrived first before he went to sleep with appellant.32

Having established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements constituting the illegal sale of drugs, we are constrained to uphold appellant’s
conviction.

The sale of shabu is penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Said section reads:

SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

Under said law, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of
P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. For selling 0.290 gram of shabu to PO1 Tolentino, and there being no modifying circumstance alleged in the
information, the trial court, as sustained by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment in accordance with Article
63(2)33 of the Revised Penal Code.

As regards the fine to be imposed on appellant, the trial court pegged the fine at P5,000,000.00 which the Court of Appeals reduced to P500,000.00.
Both amounts are within the range provided for by law but the amount imposed by the Court of Appeals, considering the quantity of the drugs
involved, is more appropriate.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02070 dated 28 May
2007, sustaining the conviction of appellant Norberto Del Monte, a.k.a. Obet, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby
AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 173794 January 18, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DARWIN RELATO y AJERO, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items are designed to ensure the integrity and
reliability of the evidence to be presented against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal possession or
illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

Darwin Relato y Ajero is now before the Court in a final plea for exoneration from his conviction for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Policemen had arrested him on August 29, 2002 during a buy-bust operation and the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon had forthwith charged him with the offense on August 30, 2002 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, in
Bulan, Sorsogon as follows:

That on or about the 29th day of August, 2002 at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, in Barangay Aquino, Municipality of Bulan, Province of
Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
sell, dispense and deliver to a PNP asset disguised as poseur-buyer, two (2) plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride "shabu" weighing
0.0991 gram, for and in consideration of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), the serial number of which was previously noted, without
having been previously authorized by law to sell or deliver the same.

CONTRARY TO LAW.1

Upon pleading not guilty to the information on November 19, 2002,2 Relato was tried.

Version of the Prosecution

At 6:00 pm of August 29, 2002, PO3 Sonny Evasco of the Bulan Police Station received a tip from his asset to the effect that Relato would be
peddling illegal drugs around midnight in Barangay Aquino, Zone 7, Bulan, Sorsogon. PO3 Evasco immediately reported the tip to SPO1 Elmer
Masujer, the chief of the Intelligence Department of the police station. In turn, SPO1 Masujer formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation
against Relato consisting of himself, PO3 Evasco, PO1 Wilfredo Lobrin and SPO2 Adolfo Villaroza. SPO1 Masujer prepared a ₱500.00 bill to be the
buy-bust money by marking the bill with his initials.3

The team waited for the informant to call again. At 10:00 pm, PO3 Evasco finally received the call from his asset, who confirmed that the proposed
transaction would take place beside the lamp post near the ice plant in Barangay Aquino. With that, the team hastened to the site. PO3 Evasco and
SPO2 Villaroya concealed themselves about seven to 10 meters from the lamp post, while SPO1 Masujer and PO1 Lobrin provided area security from
about 10 to 15 meters away from where PO3 Evasco and SPO2 Villaroya were.

A few minutes later, Relato and a companion (later identified as Pido Paredes) arrived together on board a motorcycle. Relato alighted to confer
with the asset who was the poseur buyer. After the transaction was completed, PO3 Evasco signaled to the rest of the team, who drew near and
apprehended Relato. Seized from Relato was the marked ₱500.00 buy-bust bill. The poseur buyer turned over to PO3 Evasco the two transparent
sachets containing crystalline substances that Relato sold to the poseur buyer. Paredes escaped.4

SPO1 Masujer marked the two transparent sachets with his own initials "EM" upon returning to the police station.5

Forensic Chemical Officer Josephine Clemen of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Region V conducted the laboratory examination on the contents of the
two transparent sachets and found the contents to have a total weight of 0.991 gram. She certified that the contents were positive for the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride.6

Version of the Accused

Relato denied the accusation, and claimed that he had been framed up. His version follows.

At about 11:00 pm of August 29, 2002, Relato and Paredes were proceeding to his grandfather’s wake in Magallanes, Sorsogon on board his
motorcycle, with Paredes driving. They stopped upon reaching Barangay Aquino to allow Relato to adjust the fuel cock of the motorcycle. SPO1
Masujer suddenly appeared and put handcuffs on Relato, who resisted. The three other officers came to SPO1 Masujer’s assistance and subdued
Relato.1awphil SPO1 Masujer then seized Relato’s 3310 Nokia cellphone, its charger, and his personal money of ₱3,500.00 in ₱500.00 bills. Relato
claimed that the cellphone belonged to Paredes while the cash was a gift from an in-law. The officers boarded Relato in their jeep and haled him to
the police station of Bulan.

In the station, SPO1 Masujer and PO2 Villaroya required him to remove his pants. He complied. They then searched his person but did not find
anything on him. He then saw SPO1 Masujer take two sachets from his own wallet and placed them on top of a table. SPO1 Masujer then told Relato
to point to the sachets, and a picture was then taken of him in that pose. In the meanwhile, Paredes notified his family about his arrest.7

Ruling of the RTC

On August 9, 2004, the RTC convicted Relato, 8 viz:

Prosecution having established by the required quantum of proof and with moral certainty the CULPABALITY of the herein accused to the crime as
charged- HIS CONVICTION HAS BECOME INEVITABLE.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Darwin Ajero y Relato having been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Repealing R.A. No. 6425 and amending R.A. 7659), is hereby sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance (Art. 63(2), R.P.C.), with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay
the fine of ₱500,000.00.

All the proceeds of the crime shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165.

The period of the preventive imprisonment already served by the herein accused shall be credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to the
provision of Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

SO ORDERED.9

Ruling of the CA

Relato appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), submitting that:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES

II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE
HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

On May 24, 2006, however, the CA affirmed the conviction,10 stating:

In closing, there being no misappreciation of facts, distortion of evidence, and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions drawn by the
court a quo in support of its judgment of conviction, We defer to such findings and conclusion. Thus, well- settled is the rule that the findings of facts
and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts (Lim, Jr.
vs. San, 438 SCRA 102).

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the court a quo’s assailed decision dated 09 August is perforce affirmed in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Issues

Relato argues that the CA should have reversed his conviction for being contrary to the established facts, and to the pertinent law and
jurisprudence.

Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. ̶ The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

xxx

The provisions of Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 provide:

xxx

(a) The apprehending office/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;

xxx

A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR was not followed. Several lapses
on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. To start with, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did
not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony
about the marking of the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of
Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended
the taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory.

Under the foregoing rules, the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the
prohibited drugs or related items will use the markings as reference. It further serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar and related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.11 It is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody, which is defined in
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,12 thus:

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 use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition;

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance irreversibly
prejudices the State’s evidence, it is significant to note that the application of the saving mechanism to a situation is expressly conditioned upon the
State rendering an explanation of the lapse or lapses in the compliance with the procedures.13 Here, however, the Prosecution tendered no
explanation why the buy-bust team had failed to mark the seized shabu immediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming that marking the
shabu at the scene of the crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible for the buy-bust team to do, the saving mechanism would
still not be applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any effort undertaken by the buy-bust team to keep the shabu intact while in transit to
the police station.

The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty about the identity and integrity of the shabu admitted as
evidence against the accused.14 They highlighted the failure of the Prosecution to establish the chain of custody, by which the incriminating
evidence would have been authenticated. An unavoidable consequence of the non-establishment of the chain of custody was the serious doubt on
whether the shabu presented as evidence was really the shabu supposedly seized from Relato.

In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165,15 the State not only
carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the
State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the
corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited
substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court.16 Any gap renders the case for the
State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.17 Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as
we recall that his defense of frame-up became plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecution’s evidence of guilt.

WHEREFORE, we REVERSE the decision promulgated on May 24, 2006 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulan, Sorsogon, Branch
65; and ACQUIT accused DARWIN RELATO y AJERO due to the failure of the State to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ACCORDINGLY, we DIRECT the immediate release from detention of DARWIN RELATO y AJERO, unless he is detained for some other lawful cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to implement this Decision, and to report his action hereon to this Court within 10 days from
receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 190749 April 25, 2012
VALENTIN ZAFRA y DECHOSA and EROLL MARCELINO y REYES, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

For review before this Court is the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31713 dated 30 October 2009,1 affirming the decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan,2 which found petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa (Zafra) and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes
(Marcelino) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Possession of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and imposing on each of them the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as
the minimum term, to thirteen (13) years as maximum, and of fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).

The Facts

The prosecution charged Zafra and Marcelino with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 91653 before the RTC of Bulacan under the
Information below:

That on or about the 12th day of June, 2003, in the municipality of Balagtas, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in their possession and control dangerous drug consisting of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.0614 gram, in conspiracy with one another.5

The prosecution’s lone witness, SPO46 Apolinario Mendoza (SPO4 Mendoza), Chief of the Investigation and Drug Enforcement Unit of the Philippine
National Police of Balagtas, Bulacan, testified that on 12 January 2003, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, he conducted surveillance in front of a sari-
sari store at the corner of Miraflor Subdivision and P. Castro Street in Balagtas, Bulacan, due to reported drug trafficking in the area. SPO4 Mendoza
found there the group of Zafra, Marcelino, and a certain Marlon Daluz (Daluz) standing and facing each other.7 In that position, he saw Zafra and
Marcelino holding shabu, while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter.8 Seeing this illegal activity, SPO4 Mendoza single-
handedly apprehended them. He grabbed the shabu from the hands of Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug paraphernalia from Daluz.
Then, he ordered the three to lie down; he frisked them. Boarding a tricycle, he brought them to the Balagtas Police Station,9 where he personally
marked the confiscated two (2) sachets of shabu, one with VSD, the initials of Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and the other with EMR, the initials of Eroll
Marcelino y Reyes.10

On the following day, 13 June 2003, SPO4 Mendoza brought the accused and the items to the crime laboratory for urine sampling and laboratory
examination, respectively.11 The test of the items resulted to positive presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.12

The RTC, Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan, in a decision dated 11 June 2008, convicted Zafra and Marcelino for the crime of possession of shabu:

WHEREFORE, finding guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2297-M-2003, accused VALENTIN ZAFRA y DECHOSA and
accused EROLL MARCELINO y REYES are hereby CONVICTED for possession of sachets of methylamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as
shabu, with a weight of 0.31 gram and 0.30 gram, respectively, which are classified as dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" and are each SENTENCED to suffer the
IMPRISONMENT of, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE DAY, AS THE MINIMUM TERM, TO THIRTEEN (13)
YEARS, AS THE MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱300,000.00).13

Daluz, on the other hand, who was charged of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 12 of RA No. 9165 pleaded guilty to the
charge and was released after serving his sentence of eight (8) months.14

Zafra and Marcelino appealed; but the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed 11 June 2008 Decision of the Court a quo
STANDS.15

Hence, this appeal on the following grounds: first, the arrest was unlawful; second, the prohibited drugs are inadmissible in evidence; third, Section
21 of RA No. 9165 was not complied with; and, finally, the prosecution failed to prove petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court’s Ruling

We resolve to ACQUIT petitioners Zafra and Marcelino on the following grounds:

First, the prosecution’s lone witness, SPO4 Mendoza,16 testified that, from a distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu by their bare
hands, respectively, while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter.17 Seeing this illegal activity, he single-handedly apprehended
them.18 He grabbed the shabu from the hands of Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug paraphernalia from Daluz.

In his affidavit, however, SPO4 Mendoza stated, that:

Na, nitong nakaraang Hunyo 12, 2003 ng 4:30 ng hapon humigit kumulang, sa P. Casto St., Barangay Borol-1, Balagtas Bulacan, habang ako ay
nagsasagawa ng surveillance sa Suspected Drug Pusher sa nasabing lugar ay aking nakita ang tatlo (3) kalalakihan na nakatalikod sa isang corner ng
tindahan sa P. Castro St., na nakilala ko na sina Valentine D. Zafra @ Val, Eroll R. Marcelino @ Eroll, at Marlon B. Daluz @ Marlon na pawang mga
residente ng Borol-1, Balagtas, Bulacan.
Na, ako ay lumapit na naglalakad kina Valentine Zafra, Errol Marcelino at Marlon Daluz at sa aking paglapit sa kanilang tatlo ay aking nakita at
naaktuhang inabot ni Valentine Zafra kay Eroll Marcelino ang isang (1) plastic sachet ng shabu may timbang na 0.30 grams, at isa pang plastic sachet
ng shabu na si Marlon Daluz ay hawak ang isang disposable lighter at 2 piraso ng aluminum foil na inaayos na nilalagyan ng lupi at 7 piraso ng empty
plastic sachet. (Emphasis supplied)19

xxxx

On cross examination, SPO4 Mendoza testified that it was Zafra and not Daluz, who was holding the aluminum foil (contrary to his earlier testimony
that Zafra was holding shabu);20 that Daluz (whom he claimed during the direct examination to be holding the aluminum foil) and Marcelino were
holding handkerchiefs and on top of them were shabu;21 When the defense confronted SPO4 Mendoza about the inconsistency, he told the court
that his version during his direct testimony was the correct one.22

While, it is hornbook doctrine that the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of the witness and the testimony is entitled to great weight and
is generally not disturbed upon appeal,23 such rule does not apply when the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of
weight or substance.24 In the instant case, these circumstances are present, that, when properly appreciated, would warrant the acquittal of
petitioners.

Certainly, SPO4 Mendoza’s credibility has to be thoroughly looked into, being the only witness in this case. While in his affidavit, SPO4 Mendoza
claimed that he saw the sachet of shabu (0.30 gram) because Zafra was in the act of handing it to Marcelino, his testimony during the direct
examination reveals another version, that is, from a distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu, respectively, hence, he approached them
from behind and confiscated the shabu from both of them and the paraphernalia from Daluz. How he saw a 0.30 gram of shabu from a distance in a
busy street, baffles this Court. Asked, however, on cross examination, who among the three were holding the shabu and drug paraphernalia, SPO4
Mendoza failed to be consistent with his earlier testimony and pointed to Daluz as the one holding shabu with a handkerchief in his hand and Zafra
as the one in possession of drug paraphernalia. These inconsistencies are not minor ones, and, certainly, not among those which strengthens the
credibility of a witness. Possession of drug paraphernalia vis-à-vis shabu, are two different offenses under RA No. 9165. That Zafra was holding drug
paraphernalia and not shabu is material to this case, to the accusation against him, and to his defense.

Second, a reading of the RTC decision on this matter reveals that the conviction was arrived at upon reliance on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of Mendoza’s official duty.25

It is noteworthy, however, that presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence.26 Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of guiltlessness.
And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability.27

Third, SPO4 Mendoza was the lone arresting officer, who brought the petitioners to the police station,28 who himself marked the confiscated pieces
of evidence sans witnesses, photographs, media, and in the absence of the petitioners. His colleagues were nowhere.29 And, worse, he was the
same person who took custody of the same pieces of evidence, then, brought them on his own to the crime laboratory for testing.30 No inventory
was ever done;31 no inventory was presented in court.

The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the acts necessary for the prosecution of the offense is unexplained and puts the proof of corpus
delicti, which is the illegal object itself in serious doubt. No definite answer can be established regarding the question as to who possessed what at
the time of the alleged apprehension. More significantly, we are left in doubt whether not the two sachets of shabu allegedly seized from the
petitioners were the very same objects offered in court as the corpus delicti.

Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established
with moral certainty.32 The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment
of conviction.33 Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.34 Be that as it may, the
mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt.35
More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as
exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.36 The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.37

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 reads:

(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.

Section 21(a) Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 reads:

(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.

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.38 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.39 These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure
that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.40

The records readily raise significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from Zafra and Marcelino. SPO4 Mendoza’s
claim that the two sachets of shabu presented in court were the same ones confiscated from the petitioners, cannot be taken at its face value, solely
on the presumption of regularity of one’s performance of duty. SPO4 Mendoza blatantly broke all the rules established by law to safeguard the
identity of a corpus delicti. There was even no mention about the details of the laboratory examination of the allegedly seized drugs. To allow this to
happen is to abandon everything that has been said about the necessity of proving an unbroken chain of custody. SPO4 Mendoza cannot alone
satisfy the requirements in RA No. 9165 which is anchored on, expressly, the participation of several personalities and the execution of specified
documents.

And, while jurisprudence has refined the enumerated duties of an apprehending officer in a drug case and has thus described the equivalent
requirements for a proper chain of custody of the corpus delicti, still, the case at bar cannot pass the constitutional requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In
People v. Salonga,41 we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a
conviction in People v. Gutierrez,42 for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds.
People v. Cantalejo43 also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.

We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno,44 People v. Lorena,45 and People v. Martinez.46

The present petition is the sum total of all the violations committed in the cases cited above.

Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we reiterate that non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does not
necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable
ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved.47 These
conditions, however, were not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for the failure of SPO4
Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items.1âwphi1 As we held in People v. De Guzman,48 the failure to
follow the procedure mandated under RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations must be adequately explained. The justifiable
ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution
which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.49 The rule is invariable whatever may be the
reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.50 In dubio pro reo.51 When moral certainty
as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.52

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 October 2009 in CA-G.R. CR No. 31713.
Petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes are hereby ACQUITTED for the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to 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 the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 186392 January 18, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO @ "Bong Pango," Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This is an appeal assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02690 dated July 31, 2008, which affirmed the Decision2 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati convicting accused-appellant Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso of violation of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

On September 22, 2006, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-1837:

The undersigned Prosecutor accuses MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO @ "BONG PANGO" of the crime of Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165,
committed as follows:

That on or about the 21st day of September, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and transport
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, weighing zero point zero two (0.02) gram, which is a dangerous drug, in consideration of five hundred [sic]
(Php300.00) pesos, in violation of the above-cited law.3

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-1838:

The undersigned Prosecutor accuses MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO @ "BONG PANGO" of the crime of Violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165,
committed as follows:

That on or about the 21st day of September, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or
prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing zero point zero two (0.02) gram, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.4

Trial ensued, during which the prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 3 Eusebio Lowaton, Jr. (PO3 Lowaton) and Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council
(MADAC) Operative Miguel Castillo (MADAC Castillo).

PO3 Lowaton, a police officer in the Makati Central Police Station assigned to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Force (SAID-
SOTF), testified that at around 9:00 a.m. on September 21, 2006, an informant came to their office, together with operatives from the MADAC. The
informant and the operatives reported that a certain "Bong" was engaged in delivering and selling shabu. The informant told PO3 Lowaton that he
personally bought shabu from said "Bong." The SAID-SOTF officers went through their records and learned that said "Bong" had a previous record
related to illegal drug activities. SAID-SOTF coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) through fax by sending a Pre-
operational Report/Coordination Sheet, stating that it received information that one "Narciso Sabadlab" is engaged in illegal drug trade.5 PDEA, in
turn, sent SAID-SOTF a Certificate of Coordination6 for an operation in Dapitan Street, Bgy. Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, with one "Narciso
Sabadlab" as target. 7 A team composed of PO3 Lowaton and three other police officers, some MADAC operatives, and the informant, was formed
to conduct a buy-bust operation. In preparation, the team leader marked three one hundred-peso bills to be used in the operation with the initials
"ATS," standing for "Angel T. Sumulong."8

Before alighting at the area of the operation at Dapitan Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, the informant told PO3 Lowaton that the person
standing at the corner was their subject. The informant introduced PO3 Lowaton to accused-appellant as the buyer. The accused-appellant, who was
carrying his son at the time,9 asked PO3 Lowaton how much he was going to buy. PO3 Lowaton replied that he will buy ₱300.00 worth. The accused-
appellant took a plastic sachet from his pocket and gave it to PO3 Lowaton. PO3 Lowaton handed ₱300.00 to accused-appellant. PO3 Lowaton
reversed his cap to signal the completion of the transaction. He thereafter introduced himself as a police officer, arrested the accused-appellant, and
informed him of his constitutional rights and nature of his arrest.10

PO3 Lowaton instructed his back-up MADAC personnel to conduct a body search on the accused-appellant. The ₱300 in marked money and another
plastic sachet was recovered from the accused-appellant. PO3 Lowaton marked the sachet sold to him and the one recovered from the accused-
appellant with "EBL-1" and "EBL-2," respectively.11

The accused-appellant was then brought to SAID-SOTF, while the two plastic sachets were turned over to the Scene of the Crime Operation (SOCO)
for laboratory examination. PO3 Lowaton prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt12 turning over the two plastic sachets, the marked money and
another ₱60 recovered from accused-appellant to a certain PO2 Castillo.13 The sachets marked EBL-1 and EBL-2 were forwarded to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for laboratory examination.14 Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Abraham Verde Tecson prepared Physical Science Report No.
D0649-06S reporting his finding that EBL-1 and EBL-2, each weighing 0.02 grams, gave positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.15 This
report was admitted with no objection from the defense.16

MADAC Castillo, another member of the team that conducted the buy-bust operation, corroborated the testimony of PO3 Lowaton. MADAC Castillo
testified that he, together with certain persons named PO3 Ruiz, PO2 Julius Lique, MADAC Dezer, MADAC Balote and MADAC Ruben Salandanan,
acted as back-ups of PO3 Lowaton in the operation, which was led by a certain female police officer called Waje.17 PO3 Lowaton acted as the
poseur-buyer. While he was still around 20-25 meters away from the scene of the crime, MADAC Castillo observed that there was an "exchange of
something." MADAC Castillo then saw PO3 Lowaton reversing his cap, so he went near the place of transaction, where he was ordered by PO3
Lowaton to conduct a body search on the accused-appellant. MADAC Castillo told accused-appellant to empty his pocket. When the accused-
appellant refused to do so, MADAC Castillo frisked him and recovered a plastic sachet, the marked money worth ₱300.00 (three ₱100 bills), and
another ₱60.00 (three ₱20 bills) in his front right pocket.18

Only the accused-appellant testified for the defense. According to the accused-appellant, he was arrested on September 21, 2006 by PO3 Lowaton
and his men in front of his house in Dapitan Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City. He was with his three children at this time, the eldest of which
was five years old. Eight to ten men in civilian clothes alighted from their vehicle and were looking for a certain "Minyong." When he told them that
he does not know said person, they started to force him to go with them. He asked them why they were taking him, but they did not reply and
instead brought him to the SAID-SOTF office. In said office, he learned that he was being charged for drug peddling. He was forced to give a urine
sample and was thereafter brought to the Ospital ng Makati.19

The accused-appellant testified that PO3 Lowaton had already previously arrested him and three others for playing cara y cruz on September 16,
2006 and was released when he paid PO3 Lowaton a total of ₱2,000.00. The accused-appellant denied the charges against him. His brother,
Reymundo Sabadlab, his sister, Myrna Capco, and his wife, Edna Militar, are all undergoing trial for drug-related offenses.20

On December 8, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision finding accused-appellant guilty. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, it appearing that the guilt of accused MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, with no
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, for violation [of] Section[s] 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, he is hereby sentenced:

1. In Criminal Case No. 06-1837, to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00;

2. In Criminal Case No. 06-1838, to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate 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; and

3. To pay the costs.

Let the two [2] plastic sachets each containing 0.02 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride be turned over to the PDEA for proper
disposition.21

Accused-appellant appealed. The case was raffled to the Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals and was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
02690.

On July 31, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming that of the RTC. Hence, the present recourse, where accused-appellant assigns
the following errors:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND
11, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165.22

Whether accused-appellant’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt

The accused-appellant denied ownership of the methylamphetamine hydrochloride allegedly recovered by the police officers in the operation. He
claimed that there was no legitimate buy-bust operation since the pre-operation report from the Makati Police Station and the Certificate of
Coordination from the PDEA did not carry his name and instead mentions a certain "Narciso Sabadlab." The accused-appellant argued that the
prosecution was not able to establish that he and this Narciso Sabadlab were the same person. The accused-appellant added that the absence of a
prior surveillance rendered suspect the genuineness of the alleged buy-bust operation. Finally, accused-appellant asserted that it was contrary to
human nature and experience for him to have carried his child while engaged in such nefarious activity.23

In the recent case of People v. Tion, 24 this Court had the opportunity to discuss the weight given to testimonies of members of buy-bust teams in
drug-related cases:

Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly
performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations
of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the
regular performance of their duties. x x x.25

Similarly, in another case, "[w]e have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up for such defenses can easily be fabricated
and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with
strong and convincing evidence."26

In the case at bar, accused-appellant failed to prove his allegation of denial and frame-up by strong and convincing evidence. He, in fact, presented
no evidence to prove the same, and instead relied on the alleged irregularity in the buy-bust operation brought about by the inexact name
mentioned in the Pre-operation Report from the Makati Police Station and the Certificate of Coordination from the PDEA. On this matter, the
accused-appellant argued that the buy-bust operation was illegal as it was made without a close coordination with PDEA. The accused-appellant was
apparently referring to Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165, which provides:

Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. — The Narcotics
Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue
with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational structure of the
Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel
who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter,
be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the
PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions
in their original mother agencies.

The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months
from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the
PDEA.

Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective
organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a
violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the
same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug
related matters. (Emphasis supplied.)

As this Court held in People v. Berdadero,27 the foregoing provision, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, "is silent
as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation x x
x. [T]his silence cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained
pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible."28 In the case at bar, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Narciso Sabadlab and accused-
appellant Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso alias Bong Pango could have been different persons, the established fact remains that it was accused-appellant
who was caught in flagrante delicto by the buy-bust team. Following the aforementioned jurisprudence, even the lack of participation of PDEA
would not make accused-appellant’s arrest illegal or the evidence obtained pursuant thereto inadmissible.

Neither is prior surveillance a necessity for the validity of the buy-bust operation. Thus, in People v. Padua,29 this Court held:

A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook
method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused
have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and
dispense with the need for prior surveillance.30

As regards accused-appellant’s allegation that he would not knowingly expose his son to peril by having him around while he is engaged in his drug
peddling activity, suffice it to say that accused-appellant’s testimony as to his own good moral character was self-serving and cannot be given
credence.

In People v. Doria,31 this Court laid down the objective test in evaluating buy-bust operations:

We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and
adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment
of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact
was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the
illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens
are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of
the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual
delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the
predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.32

The testimony of PO3 Lowaton showed the complete details of the transaction: the initial contact between him and accused-appellant,33 the offer
to purchase shabu,34 the delivery of the dangerous drug and payment with the marked money,35 and the eventual arrest of accused-appellant.36
We carefully examined said testimony and found ourselves in agreement with the Court of Appeals that the same was straightforward and clearly
established the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs, namely: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor."37 Likewise, the testimony of PO3 Lowaton38 and MADAC Castillo39 as regards the sachet
seized from accused-appellant also sufficiently established the elements of the crime of illegal possession of illegal drugs, which are: "(1) the accused
is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug."40

It is furthermore a fundamental rule that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court,
is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."41 The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of PO3 Lowaton and MADAC Castillo, on one hand, and accused-appellant, on the other, was in a better position than this Court to
determine which of them is telling the truth.

Propriety of the penalty imposed on accused- appellant

For the crime of illegal sale of a dangerous drug in Criminal Case No. 06-1837, the trial court imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
₱500,000.00. This is correctly within the period and range of the imposable fine provided for in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.1âwphi1

For the crime of illegal possession of a dangerous drug in Criminal Case No. 06-1838, the trial court imposed the penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate term of twelve years and one day, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months, as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000.00. Section
11 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous
drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

xxxx
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

xxxx

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

xxxx

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (₱300,000.00) to
Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or
cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but
not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.

The fine of ₱300,000.00 is clearly within the range of the imposable fine for possession of less than 5 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu under Section 11. As regards the penalty of imprisonment, the Court should take into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law42 and
provide for an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be
less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.43 The minimum (12 years and 1 day) and maximum (14 years and 8 months) of the
indeterminate term imposed by the trial court are likewise correctly within the terms (12 years and 1 day to 20 years) prescribed under Section 11.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02690 dated July 31, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 198113 December 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
FERDINAND BAUTISTA y SINAON, Appellant.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about the gross and deliberate failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards of Section 21, Republic
Act (R.A.) 9165 and Section 2l(a) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) with no justification for such non-compliance.

The Facts and the Case

On September 15, 2003 the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan filed separate charges of selling and possessing dangerous drugs in violation of Sections
5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 against the accused appellant Ferdinand Bautista y Sinaon (Bautista) before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in
Criminal Cases 3529-M-2003 and 3530-M-2003. The evidence for the prosecution shows that on August 31, 2003 the Chief of Police of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) in Meycauayan, Bulacan, received a phone-in information that accused Bautista had been selling illegal drugs in Barangay
Saluysoy, Meycauayan, Bulacan.1 At about 11:40 p.m. on September 3, 2003, after confirming through surveillance that Bautista had indeed been
peddling illegal drugs,2 the police chief dispatched police officers Willie Tadeo, Frederick Viesca, Michael Sarangaya, Philip Santos, and Manuel
Mendoza to the place mentioned to conduct a buy-bust operation against the accused.3

On reaching the place, PO1 Tadeo approached accused Bautista’s house while the rest of the officers positioned themselves nearby. Bautista met
Tadeo outside the house. The officer told Bautista that he was interested in buying ₱300.00 worth of shabu. Bautista agreed and handed over a
plastic sachet believed to contain shabu to his supposed buyer who in turn gave him three marked ₱100.00 bills. At a signal, the police back-up team
rushed in and arrested Bautista.4

During the arrest, Bautista had a lady-companion later identified as Ma. Rocel Velasco (Ma. Rocel). The police officers asked Bautista to take out the
contents of his pockets. He did so and this revealed the money paid to him as well as another sachet of 0.019 gram shabu. PO1 Viesca recovered
from Ma. Rocel one big plastic sachet and eight small ones, the latter containing suspected shabu. PO1 Viesca marked these items with his initials
"FTV."5 The police then herded accused Bautista and Ma. Rocel to the police station.6

At the police station, PO1 Tadeo marked the shabu subject of the buy-bust with the initials "BBWCT." He marked the second plastic sachet seized
from Bautista as "WCT" on one side and the letter "P" on the other side. After marking the seized items, the police submitted them for forensic
examination which proved positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.7

Bautista and Ma. Rocel denied the charges against them. In his brief, Bautista claimed as follows:

On 3 September 2003 while accused Rocel was washing clothes and accused [Bautista] was sleeping inside their house, a male person arrived and
inquired from Rocel as to the whereabouts of a certain Jerry. When she replied that she does not know of a person by that name and that her only
companion was her husband, several armed men went inside their house and demanded for her husband.

As she was about to call [Bautista,] however, they went to him, asked him whether he was Jerry and immediately handcuffed him. Both accused
were invited to the police precinct after that, and were falsely charged of the instant case.

The reason behind the false accusation was that Bautista was accused of stealing the coins from the video karera owned by PO1 Tadeo.8

On August 7, 2009 the RTC rendered a Decision finding accused Bautista guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling dangerous drugs and, further, of
having possession and control of a separate quantity of the same. The court, however, acquitted Ma. Rocel of the crime of possession for lack of the
required proof to sustain conviction.

On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04099, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed on February 22, 2011 the Decision of the RTC with modification on the fine
imposed.

Issue Presented

The key issue presented in this case is whether or not the arresting officers preserved the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
despite their failure to observe the mandatory procedural requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 and its IRR.

The Court’s Ruling

One. When prosecuting the sale or possession of dangerous drugs like shabu, the State must prove not only the elements of each of the offenses. It
must prove as well the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will be unable to discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.9

To prove the corpus delicti, the prosecution must show that the dangerous drugs seized from the accused and subsequently examined in the
laboratory are the same dangerous drugs presented in court as evidence to prove his guilt.10 To ensure that this is done right and that the integrity
of the evidence of the dangerous drugs is safeguarded, Congress outlined in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 the mandatory procedure that law enforcers must
observe following the seizure of such substance:

(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;

Also, Sec. 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. 9165 provides the following:

(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;

Clearly, the Congress and the Executive Department demand strict compliance with the above. It is only by such strict compliance that the grave
mischiefs of planting evidence or substituting it may be eradicated. Such strict compliance is also consistent with the doctrine that penal laws shall
be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused.11

The first stage after seizure is the taking of inventory of the dangerous drugs seized from the suspect. It begins with the marking of the seized
objects to fix its identity. Such marking should be made as far as practicable in the presence of the suspect immediately upon his arrest.12 Of course,
the failure to mark the seized items at the place of arrest does not of itself impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated
items inadmissible in evidence.13 Marking upon "immediate" confiscation can reasonably cover marking done at the nearest police station or office
of the apprehending team,14 especially when the place of seizure is volatile and could draw unpredictable reactions from its surroundings.

Here, however, PO1 Viesca marked the sachets of suspected substance seized from Ma. Rocel right where he arrested her. This shows that such
marking was feasible. In contrast, PO1 Tadeo marked the substance he seized from Bautista after the police returned to their station. This
unexplained digression from what ought to have been done creates a doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence against Bautista.

Two. The law requires the apprehending officer or team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and take photograph of the same in the
presence of the accused, 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 copies of the same.

PO1 Tadeo categorically admitted that no elected official was present when the police made the arrest and when they conducted their investigation.
PO1 Viesca admitted that no representative from the media or the DOJ were present during the inventory of the seized items.

The cross-examination and re-direct of PO1 Viesca is enlightening:

Atty. Sabinorio:
Q: Was there any picture taken in relation to the items you have recovered?
A: As far as I remember there were pictures taken, sir.
Q: And who took the pictures?
A: I cannot remember anymore who took the pictures, sir.

xxxx

Court:
Q: How about pictures of specimen?
A: I cannot remember anymore if there were pictures taken, sir.
Q: How about your coordination with the barangay officials in that place, did you do so?
A: I don’t remember, your honor.

xxxx

Q: How about a media representative was he around?

A: None, sir.
Q: How about a DOJ representative?
A: Also none, your honor.

xxxx

Fiscal Roque:
Q: Why were you not able to coordinate this operation with the barangay officials?
A: Because during that time I was just assigned there for only a month and I don’t know the procedure, sir.15 (Emphasis supplied)

Further, although the prosecution witnesses averred that the physical inventory of the seized items was recorded in the police blotter, it did not
bother to present a copy of the same with the required signatures or submit some valid justification for the omission.

What is more, both PO1 Tadeo and PO1 Viesca were uncertain regarding whether they photographed the seized items.1âwphi1 In fact, they failed
to produce any such photograph. This is either sloppy police work or utter refusal to comply with what is required of them. The prosecution should
not have filed the case absent proof of compliance with what the law requires.

The Court has of course held that non-compliance with the procedural safeguards provided in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 and its IRR would not necessarily
void the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs for as long as there is a justifiable ground for it and the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved. Here, however, the buybust team did not bother to show that they "intended to comply with the procedure
but where thwarted by some justifiable reason or consideration."16 Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty, this Court stresses that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed
aside as a simple procedural technicality.17
Due to the gross disregard of the buy-bust team of the procedural safeguards mandated by Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 and its IRR and its failure to give
justifiable reasons for it, this Court is led to conclude that the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti have been compromised.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision of February 22, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04099 as well as the Regional
Trial Court Decision of August 7, 2009 in Criminal Cases 3529-M-2003 and 3530-M-2003 and ACQUITS the accusedappellant Ferdinand Bautista y
Sinaon of the charges against him of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 due to the failure of the prosecution to establish
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Further, the Court DIRECTS the immediate release from detention of Ferdinand Bautista y Sinaon, a.k.a. Ferdie, unless he is detained for some lawful
cause. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this Decision immediately and report his action to this Court within 10
days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 186141 April 11, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JESUSA FIGUEROA y CORONADO, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 02348 dated October 25, 2007 affirming the conviction of
accused-appellant Jesusa Figueroa in Criminal Case No. 04-2433 for violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

There were originally two Informations filed against accused-appellant:

Criminal Case No. 04-2432

That on or about the 2nd day of July 2004, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, direct custody and
control a total weight of nine point fourty [sic] two (9.42) grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.2

Criminal Case No. 04-2433

That on or about the 2nd day of July 2004, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempt to sell, give away,
distribute and deliver four point sixty (4.60) grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug, by then and there
agreeing to sell and deliver the said dangerous drug to the proposed buyer PO3 JOSEFINO CALLORA, thereby commencing the commission of the
crime of sale of dangerous drugs, but which nevertheless failed to consummate the said sale by reason of causes other than her own spontaneous
desistance, that is she got frightened by the presence of police officers at the scene of the crime.3

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Thereafter, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 of Makati City proceeded with the
trial of the aforementioned charges. The versions of the prosecution and the defense of what transpired on July 2, 2004, as concisely summarized by
the Court of Appeals, were as follows:

Version of the Prosecution

In the evening of June 20, 2004, an informant came to the office of P/Supt. Nelson T. Yabut (P/SUPT. YABUT), Chief of the Special Operation Unit 1 of
PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (PNP AIDSOTF) at Camp Crame, Quezon City and informed him of the drug pushing activities of
a certain "Baby," later identified as accused-appellant FIGUEROA. P/SUPT. YABUT instructed PS/Insp. Pepito Garcia (PS/INSP. GARCIA), PO3 Josefino
Callora (PO3 CALLORA) and PO2 Rogie Pinili (PO2 PINILI) to conduct discreet surveillance operation to verify the information.

On June 23, 2004, at about 8:00 p.m., PO3 CALLORA, together with the informant, met with accused-appellant FIGUEROA at the parking area of SM
Bicutan in Taguig, Metro Manila. The informant introduced PO3 CALLORA to accused-appellant FIGUEROA as the one who was willing to regularly
buy shabu from her should her sample be of good quality. Accused-appellant FIGUEROA, however, told them that she had no stock of shabu at that
time, but she promised to inform PO3 CALLORA through the informant once she already has supply of good quality shabu.

In the morning of the following day, the Special Operation Unit 1 of the PNP AIDSOTF requested the PNP Crime Laboratory to dust with ultra-violet
powder the two (2) pieces of ₱500.00 bills with serial numbers FG403794 and MY883243 to be used in the planned buy-bust operation against
accused-appellant FIGUEROA.

On July 2, 2004, at about 12:00 noon, the informant called the Desk Officer of the Special Operation Unit 1 of PNP AIDSOTF, who in turn relayed to
P/SUPT. YABUT that accused-appellant FIGUEROA had informed him that she already had a stock of good quality shabu and asked how much shabu
would be bought by PO3 CALLORA. P/SUPT YABUT instructed the informant to tell accused-appellant FIGUEROA that ₱10,000.00 worth of shabu
would be bought from her. Later on the same day, the informant made another telephone call and relayed the information that accused-appellant
FIGUEROA had agreed to deliver the shabu worth [₱10,000.00] in front of the 7-Eleven Convenience Store at the corner of M. Almeda and M.
Conception Avenues, San Joaquin, Pasig City at about 4:00 p.m. of that day.

A team, composed of P/SUPT. YABUT, PS/INSP. GARCIA, PO2 PINILI and PO3 CALLORA, was then formed to conduct the buy-bust operation, with
PO3 CALLORA designated as the poseur-buyer. The buy-bust money was prepared. The genuine two (2) pieces of ₱500.00 bills were placed on top of
boodle money to make them appear as ₱10,000.00.

At about 4:00 p.m. of July 2, 2004, the team proceeded to the agreed meeting place. PO3 CALLORA arrived in the vicinity of 7-Eleven on board a car
driven by PS/INSP. GARCIA and met with the informant. PO3 CALLORA and the informant waited for accused-appellant FIGUEROA, who after a few
minutes, arrived driving a Toyota Revo with Plate No. XPN 433. Seeing the two, accused-appellant FIGUEROA waived at them and drove towards
them. Stopping near them, accused-appellant FIGUEROA rolled down the window of her car and asked where the money was. On the other hand,
PO3 CALLORA asked for the shabu. At that juncture, accused-appellant FIGUEROA opened a Chowking plastic bag and showed a plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance. When PO3 CALLORA was about to hand over the buy-bust money to accused-appellant FIGUEROA, the latter
sensed the presence of police officers in the area, so she sped away towards the direction of Kalayaan Avenue and C-5 road. The other occupants of
the car were Susan Samson y Figueroa, sister-in-law of the accused, Margie Sampayan y Garbo, Fe Salceda y Resma and Christian Salceda y Resma, a
nine[-]year[-]old boy.
PO3 CALLORA immediately boarded the car being driven by PS/INSP. GARCIA and gave chase. PO2 PINILI, who was driving another vehicle, joined
the chase.

Accused-appellant FIGUEROA’s vehicle was finally blocked at Kalayaan Avenue near the intersection of C-5 road. At that time, PS/INSP. GARCIA saw
Christian Salceda y Resma alighted from the backdoor of the Toyota Revo and threw the Chowking plastic bag to the pavement, which was about
two steps from the backdoor. PS/INSP. GARCIA picked it up and saw a heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
inside. PO3 CALLORA and PO2 PINILI introduced themselves as police officers. The Toyota Revo was checked by PS/INSP. GARCIA and PO2 PINILI,
which was witnessed by PO1 Alvarado and PO3 Basa of the Makati Police PCP No. 7, MMDA Traffic Enforcers Gonzales and Salvador and a
reporter/press photographer of Manila Star named Eduardo Rosales. Retrieved under the floor matting of the Toyota Revo were two heat sealed
transparent plastic sachets of undetermined quantity of white crystalline substance.

Accused-appellant FIGUEROA was informed of her violation and was apprised of her constitutional rights. She was brought to the office of Special
Operation Unit 1 of PNP AIDSOTF for investigation. The items recovered from the crime scene were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where
they were tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant FIGUEROA denied that she met and transacted with PO3 CALLORA regarding the sale of shabu. She likewise denied knowledge of
the plastic sachets of shabu that were recovered under the floor matting of the car she was driving as well as the plastic sachet of shabu inside a
Chowking plastic bag found on the pavement of Kalayaan Avenue corner C-5 road.

She alleged that between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. of July 2, 2004, she was driving a Toyota Revo with Plate No. XPN 433 on her way to the house of her
elder brother at Eco Center, Barangay Calsada, Taguig City to get their mother’s allowance. Their mother stays with her at her residence at Better
Living Subdivision, Parañaque City. With her as passengers were Susan Samson y Figueroa, Fe Salceda y Resma, and the latter’s nine[-]year[-]old son,
Christian Salceda y Resma, and Margie Sampayan y Garbo, accused-appellant FIGUEROA’s laundrywoman. They stayed at her brother’s house for
about twenty (20) minutes.

From her brother’s house, she proceeded to Tejeron, Sta. Ana, Manila to bring Susan Samson y Figueroa to the latter’s house. The other passengers
remained in the car. Accused-appellant FIGUEROA then continued driving, taking the C-5-Kalayaan Avenue route. When she was about to proceed
after the traffic light turned green at the junction of Kalayaan Avenue, a navy blue car blocked her path. P/SUPT YABUT alighted from said car and
was shouting that he was a police officer while approaching accused-appellant FIGUEROA. He ordered accused-appellant FIGUEROA to roll down her
car window. Accused then asked, "Bakit po mister?" P/SUPT YABUT reiterated that he was a police officer and ordered accused-appellant FIGUEROA
to get down from her car as they would be searching the same.

Accused-appellant FIGUEROA and her companions were made to stay at the sidewalk for about thirty (30) minutes. They were asked to turn their
backs and were told not to do anything while the search was going on. P/SUPT. YABUT later said, "Aantayin muna natin sila." For another thirty
minutes, they stayed at the sidewalk until other persons referred to by P/SUPT. YABUT arrived at the scene.

After the search, accused-appellant FIGUEROA and her companions were ordered to board the same Toyota Revo, which was driven to Camp Crame
by one of the persons who arrived at the scene.4

On May 18, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision5 acquitting accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 04-2432, but convicting her in Criminal Case No.
04-2433. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing[,] judgment is rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 04-2432[,] the accused Jesusa Figueroa y Coronado is ACQUITTED of the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II RA No. 9165 for
lack of evidence. The two plastic sachets of containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu with a combined weight of 9.42 grams are
forfeited in favor of the Government. Let the custody thereof be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its appropriate
disposition.

2. In Criminal Case No. 04-2433, the accused Jesusa Figueroa y Coronado alias "Baby" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
violation of Sec. 26, Art. II, RA 9165 and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (₱500,000.00).

Let the one plastic bag labeled Chowking containing one (1) heat sealed plastic sachet with 4.60 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride be
turned over to the PDEA for its appropriate disposition.

The period during which the accused is detained at the City Jail of Makati shall be considered in her favor pursuant to existing rules.6

Alleging that the foregoing decision was contrary to law and unsupported by the evidentiary records, accused-appellant sought a review of the same
with this Court through a Notice of Appeal, which the RTC gave due course. However, in accordance with our ruling in People v. Mateo,7 we
remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.

On October 25, 2007, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed Decision affirming the conviction of accused-appellant. The dispositive portion of the
Decision states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Decision, dated May 18, 2006, in Criminal Case Nos. 04-2432 and
04-2433, of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, is hereby AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which
became effective on October 15, 2004, this judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with
the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals.8

Accused-appellant appealed to this Court anew. Accused-appellant filed a Supplemental Brief,9 wherein she highlighted the fact that the Court of
Appeals did not discuss the first error assigned in her Brief with said appellate court. In the aforementioned Brief10 with the Court of Appeals,
accused-appellant submitted the following assignment of errors:

First
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION CONDUCTED BY THE SPECIAL OPERATION UNIT 1 OF THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE ANTI-ILLEGAL DRUGS SPECIAL OPERATIONS TASK FORCE WAS IRREGULAR BECAUSE OF LACK OF PRIOR
COORDINATION WITH THE PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA).

Second

THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN PO3 JOSEFINO CALLORA AND ACCUSED
REGARDING THE ALLEGED SALE OF SHABU.

Third

THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIES OF PO3
JOSEFINO CALLORA AND P/INSP. PEPITO GARCIA THAT HAVE DIRECT BEARING ON THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.

Fourth

THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF ATTEMPT TO SELL SHABU AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 26,
ART. II OF R.A. 9165.11

Lack of Prior Coordination with the PDEA

In both the Appellant’s Brief with the Court of Appeals and accused-appellant’s Supplemental Brief before this Court, the main defense proffered by
accused-appellant was the alleged violation of Section 8612 of Republic Act No. 9165, requiring that the Philippine National Police (PNP) maintain
close coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on all drug related matters.

Accused-appellant’s contention is unmeritorious. It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of
the the law enforcers’ failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Thus, in People v. Berdadero,13 the Court noted that Section 86, as well
as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek
the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This Court consequently held that "this silence [cannot] be interpreted as a
legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible."14 The
same conclusion was reached by this Court in People v. Roa,15 People v. Mantalaba16 and People v. Sabadlab.17

Alleged lack of prior agreement between accused-appellant and PO3 Callora.

Accused-appellant argues that the alleged sale transaction borne out by the evidence of the prosecution was not between Police Officer 3 (PO3)
Josefino Callora and accused-appellant Figueroa, but was instead between the latter and the unnamed informant. Accused-appellant concludes that
the testimony of PO3 Callora regarding the alleged sale transaction is purely hearsay, and therefore inadmissible and without probative value, as it
was the informant which is competent to testify on the alleged agreement to sell drugs.18

We disagree. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, we have held that the hearsay rule does not apply where only the fact that
such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial.19 In the case at bar, the testimony of PO3 Callora as regards
the conversations between the informant and accused-appellant is admissible insofar as it established that said information led the police officers to
prepare for and proceed with the buy-bust operation. The conversation between the informant and the accused-appellant was not necessary to
prove the attempted sale of shabu, as said attempt to sell was already clear from accused-appellant’s actuations on July 2, 2004, which were all
within the personal knowledge of PO3 Callora and testified to by him, to wit: (1) when accused-appellant arrived at the scene, she waived at the
informant and PO3 Callora and approached them while driving her Toyota Revo;20 (2) upon reaching PO3 Callora and the informant, accused-
appellant asked PO3 Callora where the money was, while the latter asked for the shabu;21 (3) accused-appellant showed PO3 Callora a Chowking
plastic bag containing a sachet of white crystalline substance;22 (4) when PO3 Callora was about to give her the money, accused-appellant sensed
that there were police officers around the area, and drove away;23 (5) PO3 Callora and the informant boarded the car of PS/Insp. Garcia, and they
chased her to C-5 Road corner Kalayaan Avenue.24

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt to commit a crime when the offender commences its commission directly by overt acts but does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.25 This definition has essentially been adopted by this Court in interpreting Section 26 of Republic Act No. 9165. Thus in People v.
Laylo,26 we affirmed the conviction of the appellant therein and held that the attempt to sell shabu was shown by the overt act of appellant therein
of showing the substance to the poseur-buyer. In said case, the sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and placed appellant
under arrest.

The identity of the white crystalline substance was furthermore established by the testimony of PS/Insp. Garcia, who likewise testified as to the
following matters based on his own personal knowledge: (1) after the chase, PS/Insp. Garcia saw a boy (later identified as Christian Salceda) alight
from the vehicle and threw a Chowking plastic bag two to three meters from the vehicle;27 (2) PS/Insp. Garcia picked up the Chowking plastic bag
from the sidewalk ad found a sachet of shabu inside the same;28 (3) PS/Insp. Garcia later proceeded with the other police officers to their office,
where they requested for a laboratory examination of the white crystalline substance;29 PS/Insp. Garcia identified the Chowking plastic bag and the
sachet containing white crystalline substance in court. He identified the mark "PEG-1" on the sachet as his initial and testified that he was the one
who marked the same.30

The prosecution presented as its Exhibit "B" an Initial Laboratory Report.1âwphi1 The report states that the heat-sealed transparent plastic bag with
the marking "PEG-1" inside a Chowking plastic bag was found to contain 4.60 grams of white crystalline substance. The latter specimen was found
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.31

In light of the foregoing testimonial and documentary evidence, which were found credible by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the
crime of attempt to sell a dangerous drug under Section 26 of Republic Act No. 9165 was sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt.

As for the purported inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, we agree with the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals that
discrepancies "referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair [the witnesses’]
credibility"32 nor do they overcome the presumption that the arresting officers have regularly performed their official duties.33

In sum, this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the rulings of the lower courts in the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02348 dated October 25, 2007 affirming the
conviction of accused-appellant Jesusa Figueroa in Criminal Case No. 04-2433 for violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby
AFFIRMED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 193943 January 16, 2012
REYNALDO POSIQUIT @ "Chew", Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

REYES, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Reynaldo Posiquit @ "Chew" (petitioner) assailing the Decision1
dated April 29, 2009 and Resolution2 dated April 14, 2010 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31214 which, inter alia, affirmed the
conviction of the petitioner and Jesus Saunar (Saunar) for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as
the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

This Court notes that Saunar did not join the petitioner in filing the instant petition. Thus, our discussion would be limited to the petitioner’s case.

On the strength of a Search Warrant issued by Executive Judge Romulo Villanueva of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao City, the combined
forces of Albay Police Provincial Office, Liban Police Station, Polangui Police Station and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted a
search on the house of Saunar in Barangay Kinale, Polangui, Albay on September 18, 2002.

Before the search team arrived, the petitioner, Saunar, Ricardo Morada and Myla Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) were inside Saunar’s house engaged in an
activity which seemed like a pot session. Upon the arrival of the search team’s vehicles in front of Saunar’s house, the group of the petitioner
scampered towards the back of the adjacent house. While attempting to escape, the petitioner threw his wallet away. However, members of the
search team caught up with the petitioner and, thereupon, recovered his wallet which contained three small plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substances.

Meanwhile, the other members of the search team, after showing the search warrant to Saunar and his wife, proceeded to conduct the search. The
search yielded, among others, three small plastic sachets and one big plastic bag containing white crystalline substances and a stick of dried
marijuana leaves. After the search was completed, the search team prepared a receipt of the items seized which was signed by the members of the
search team and Saunar. Pictures of the seized items were thereafter taken. The petitioner and Saunar were then brought to the police station.

The following day, SPO4 Herminigildo Caritos brought the seized items to the Philippine National Police – Regional Crime Laboratory at Camp
Simeon Ola, Legaspi City where it was examined by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Josephine Clemen. Laboratory tests on the seized items confirmed that
the plastic sachets contained a total of 3.548 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu and that the confiscated stick was indeed dried
marijuana leaves weighing 0.2869 grams.

Thus, in an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 4650, the petitioner and Saunar were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A.
9165 before the RTC of Ligao City.

The petitioner denied the allegations against him and claimed that, at the time of the search in Saunar’s house, he and the group of Saunar were just
having a drinking spree. When he and Dela Cruz were about to go home, the search team immediately arrived at the said house and pointed their
guns at them. He insisted that he ran away because he was surprised. When the armed men caught up with him, the former boxed him on the nape
and had him handcuffed. The petitioner admitted ownership of the wallet that was seized by the search team but denied that it contained plastic
sachets containing shabu.

After due proceedings, the RTC of Ligao City, on September 25, 2007, rendered a Joint Judgment3 finding the petitioner and Saunar guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. They were then sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from thirteen years
as minimum to fifteen years as maximum and to each pay a fine in the amount of ₱300,000.00. In convicting the petitioner, the RTC of Ligao City
intimated that his flight can only be interpreted as a deliberate intention of a guilty person to prevent apprehension.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner and Saunar appealed from the said disposition to the CA. The petitioner and Saunar asserted that the confiscation,
inventory and taking of pictures of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of a representative from the media, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and an elected public official, contrary to Section 21 (a) of R.A. 9165. They likewise asserted that the chain of custody of the seized
items was not clearly established by the prosecution.

On April 29, 2009, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision4 affirming in toto the September 25, 2007 Joint Judgment of the RTC of Ligao City.
The CA held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution adequately showed that the substance confiscated was the same specimen submitted for
laboratory tests.

On the absence of a representative from the media, the DOJ and an elected public official during the confiscation, inventory and taking of pictures of
the seized items, the CA held that the presence of the said persons becomes mandatory only in the absence of the persons from whom the
confiscated items are taken or their representative. In any case, the CA pointed out that the integrity and identity of the seized items still stand as
the prosecution was able to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. The petitioner and Saunar sought to reconsider the April 29, 2009
Decision but the same was denied by the CA in its April 14, 2010 Resolution.5

Undaunted, the petitioner instituted the instant petition for review on certiorari asserting the following arguments: (1) the CA erred in convicting
the petitioner for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in conspiracy with Saunar; (2) the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
were not proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) the chain of custody of the seized items was not clearly established by the prosecution.

The petition is denied.

At the outset, this Court notes that the filing of the instant petition is accompanied by glaring lapses on the part of the petitioner which would
warrant its outright denial.

A copy of the April 14, 2010 Resolution of the CA denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was received by the latter on May 5, 2010. The
petitioner had, following the reglementary 15-day period from receipt of the denial of his motion for reconsideration by the CA,6 until May 20, 2010
within which to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court.

The petitioner, by himself, filed instead with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal/ For Review.7 The said Motion was sent by the
petitioner through JRS, a private courier, on May 20, 2010 and was actually received by this Court on May 21, 2010. Thus, the said Motion for
Extension was filed a day late.

It is a basic rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be
extended. The court’s discretion to grant a motion for extension is conditioned upon such motion’s timeliness, the passing of which renders the
court powerless to entertain or grant it. Since the motion for extension was filed after the lapse of the prescribed period, there was no more period
to extend.8 1avvphil

Also, the said motion for extension was not accompanied by a proof of service thereof to the adverse party. In view of the foregoing, the instant
petition indubitably warrants outright denial. Nonetheless, even if we are to disregard the said procedural lapses, the instant petition would still be
denied.

A perusal of the arguments set forth by the petitioner in support of the instant petition would clearly show that the same only raised questions of
fact. The petition failed to show extraordinary circumstance justifying a departure from the established doctrine that findings of fact of the CA are
conclusive on the Court and will not be disturbed on appeal. The issue on whether the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and whether the prosecution was able to show an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs are
factual in nature and, hence, not proper subjects of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Anent the petitioner’s contention that the CA erred in convicting him for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in conspiracy with Saunar, this
Court finds the same utterly specious. First, an astute perusal of the April 29, 2009 Decision of the CA and the September 25, 2007 Joint Judgment of
the RTC of Ligao City would show that the circumstance of conspiracy was not, in any manner, appreciated by the said courts against the petitioner.
What the said courts held was that both the petitioner and Saunar were separately found in possession of dangerous drugs making them each liable
under R.A. 9165.

Second, contrary to the tenor of the petitioner’s argument, the crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist. Simply
put, the circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. The
fact that the Information for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 that was filed against the petitioner and Saunar alleged that they
"conspired and helped each other" is immaterial. In any case, the said Information sufficiently alleged that the petitioner and Saunar were caught in
possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice