G.R. No.
172953             April 30, 2008
JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Facts:
 On February 4, 2003, a team composed of
P/Insp. Catalino Bolanos, with PO3 Roberto
Esternon, SPO1 Pedro Docot, SPO1 Danilo
Lasala and SPO2 Romeo Gallinera entered
petitioner Junie Mallillin’s house on the strength
of a warrant of search and seizure. Junie was
suspected of possessing shabu. Present during
the search was Junie’s wife Sheila, his mother
Norma, and barangay kagawad Delfin Licup.
 The search yielded 2 plastic packets of shabu
and 5 empty packets containing shabu residue.
Mallillin was thus charged with violation of
Section 11, Article II of RA. No. 9165, (The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
 The trial commenced as follows:
o Bolanos, the raid leader, testified that he
was permitted entry into the house by
Mallillin after showing the search
warrant. He assigned Esternon and
Licup to conduct the search, while
stationing the rest of the team outside to
prevent anyone from fleeing. He stated
that the search yielded five empty
packets with shabu residue, and two full
packets that fell from a pillow Esternon
was searching in Mallillin’s presence.
He himself remained a meter away from
the search, and testified on cross-
examination that he was with Norma so
that he could keep watch on all that was
transpiring while updating the latter.
o Esternon testified that the empty
packets were found in a denim bag
behind the bedroom door, and that he
found the two full packets under a
pillow and called Gallinera to have the
items recorded and marked. On cross-
examination, he testified that he
conducted the search alone; that
Mallillin handed him the pillow which
included the two full packets; and that
he brought the items to the police station
for a “true inventory”, then to the trial
court, then to the laboratory.
o Lorlie Arroyo, the forensic chemist who
examined the items, positively claimed
the substance in the packets as shabu,
and that four out of the five empty
packets contained residue of the same.
She stated that it was Esternon who
delivered the items to the laboratory on
the same day the search was conducted,
and that it was a certain Ofelia Garcia in
their office who received the same.
o Raising irregularity of search and
seizure, petitioner Mallillin testified that
Esternon began the bedroom search
with Mallillin and Licup inside.
However, the search was interrupted
when one of the officers noted that
Sheila tucked something inside her
underwear. Everyone in the bedroom
was asked to step outside with the sole
exception of Esternon, while a lady
officer and Sheila entered such that the
former may proceed with a bodily
examination (leaving only Sheila, the
lady officer, and Esternon in the room).
While this transpired, Mallillin was
asked to buy cigarettes from a nearby
store. Upon his return, he was informed
that there was nothing on Sheila. He was
then requested by Esternon to return to
the bedroom, whereupon he was asked
to lift the mattress and then the
headboard. He was lifting the headboard
when Esternon announced that he found
the shabu packet in the pillow.
o Norma, Sheila and Licup corroborated
Mallillin’s testimony. Norma and Sheila
attested to Mallillin not being in the
house during the entirety of the search
because of the cigarette errand. Licup
stated that he was in the bedroom when
the five empty packets were found, and
it was during a 3-minute period when he
left the bedroom that Esternon, the lone
person inside the bedroom at the same,
announced his discovery of the two full
shabu packets.
 Trial Court: ruled in favor of respondents and
declared Mallillin guilty of illegal possession of
drugs, stating that the shabu found in his house
 constituted prima facie evidence of the crime
charged.
 Court of Appeals: affirmed the decision of the
trial court but modified the prison term to a
slightly lesser sentence.
Issue/Held:
 W/N there was regularity in the performance of
duties of the officers such that the evidence
obtained was sufficient to convict – NO
Ratio:
 The mere fact of unauthorized possession is not
sufficient to create the moral certainty to sustain
guilt. The chain of custody requirement is there
to ensure that the item seized as evidence is the
same one presented in court.
o This requires that every person who
handled the contraband would testify to
how it was handled, to ensure that the
item remained in the same condition as
it was when it was retrieved.
o While not every case needs a ‘perfect’
chain of custody to be valid, “an
unbroken chain of custody becomes
indispensable and essential when the
item of real evidence is not distinctive
and is not readily identifiable, or
when its condition at the time of
testing or trial is critical, or when a
witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness.”
o The contraband’s susceptibility to
tampering dictates the strictness of the
application of the chain of custody rule.
 The testimony is insufficient and raises
significant doubts in relation to the chain of
custody rule and thus the validity of the
evidence.
o Only two people (Esternon and Arroyo)
out of four total (including Gallinera and
Garcia) who personally handled the
substance were presented to testify
before the court.
 Since Gallinera was the one
who marked and recorded the
exhibits, his testimony was
critical.
 The prosecution offered no
explanation for the failure to
present Gallinera and Garcia.
 The argument that the search was conducted in a
regular manner and must be presumed so is
incorrect.
o There is no logical consistency to
Mallillin being tasked, on his own, to
buy cigarettes for the police officers,
and Bolanos’ stationing his officers
outside the house to prevent escape.
o Esternon’s claim that Mallillin handed
over the pillow which allegedly
contained the two full packets is
inconsistent with ordinary human
behavior. Why would one risk discovery
of the paraphernalia by handing it, albeit
concealed, to the investigator?
o The necessity by which Sheila had to be
searched for allegedly tucking
something in her underwear was
successful in drawing attention away
from the search conducted by Esternon.
o The Court also took note of Esternon’s
suspicious presence in the bedroom
while Sheila was being searched by the
lady officer.
 The raiding team failed to adhere to Section 21
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
R.A. No. 9165 which outlines the post-seizure
procedure in taking custody of seized drugs.
o Simply put, Esternon being the one who
initially found the two full packets was
fully responsible for the documenting of
the same. Esternon failed to do this as he
brought the items to the police station
for a “true inventory”. There was no
reason he couldn’t do the same in the
house.
 The raiding team failed to adhere to Rule 126,
Section 12 of the Rules of Court, which states
that items seized be immediately delivered to the
trial court with a true and verified inventory of
the same.
o Esternon, again, failed this as he brought
the items to the police station first for
the true inventory.
 The irregularities in the performance of duty
means that the presumption of regularity does
not obtain, and thus, it fails in attaining the proof
beyond reasonable doubt that hurdles the
presumption of innocence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE,
VS. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO,
APPELLANT.
FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant before
the RTC with violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 under an Information that
states:
That on or about December 27, 2003 at about
4:30 in the afternoon, In the municipality of
Solano, Province of Nueva Vizcaya Felimon
Pagaduan was caught during a buy bust
operation initiated by the PDEA.
 (200php marked money--- PO3 Peter C.
Almarez)
The accused was charged under section 5 of
RA 9165 for unlawful sell, trade, dispense,
deliver and give away 0.01 gram, more or less,
of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
The appellant pleaded not guilty on
arraignment. Trial on the merits, thereafter,
followed.
Evidence for the prosecution
 After having received information that
the appellant was selling illegal drugs in
Nueva Vizcaya, Captain Jaime de Vera
coordinated with PO3 peter Almarez to
conduct a buy bust operation. They met
at a location introduces Almarez to the
tipster and agreed that the PO3 almarez
will be posting the as poseur-buyer.
 Almarez was given 200php as marked
money (markings were his initials)
 Almarez was then introduced by the
informant to Pagaduan, asked him if he
has any “supply”--- to which Pagaduan
confirmed and handed him a sachet
containing a white crystalline substance.
Almarez then signaled his colleagues
 Capt. De Vera took the marked money
at the right pocket of of the accused and
then arrested him whilw Almarez
marked the sachet with his initials.
 Accused then was brought to diadi
police station.
 At the police station, Captain de Vera
prepared a request for laboratory
examination .[13] The appellant was
transferred to the Diadi Municipal Jail
where he was detained.[14] 
 Two days later, or on December 29,
2003, PO3 Almarez transmitted the
letter-request, for laboratory
examination, and the seized plastic
sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory,
where they were received by PO2
Fernando Dulnuan.[15] 
 Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Alfredo
Quintero, the Forensic Chemist of the
PNP Crime Laboratory, conducted an
examination on the specimen submitted,
and found it to be positive for the
presence of shabu (Exh. "B").[16]
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented a different version of
the events, summarized as follows:
 At around 4:30 p.m. of December 27,
2003, A certain jojo jose invited the
appellant told the appellant that he was
invited by Capt. De Vera to be an
“asset”. They then proceeded to meet
captain De Vera riding a tricycle. As the
tricycle approached the location where
captain De Vera was waiting Jojo
dropped his slippers and and ordered
the driver to stop. Subsequently, a van
stopped in front of the tricycle and
emerged captain de vera from the van
and handcuffed the appellant.
 Inside the van, the appellant was frisked
and De Vera tooked 200 pesos from his
pocket, then they went to have a coffee
—moments later, the appellant was
brought to the diadi police station where
he was detained for two days.
 On the morning of December 29, 2003,
the appellant was transferred to the
Provincial Jail. He signed a document
without the assistance of a lawyer after
being told that it would result in his
immediate release.[20]
 RTC
 The RTC, in its decision[21] of August 16,
2005, convicted the appellant of the
crime charged, and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.
The RTC likewise ordered the appellant
to pay a P500,000.00 fine.
CA
 Affirmed the decision of the RTC on
grounds on grounds that the appellant
was apprehended on the basis of a
legitimate entrapment operation.
 It further explained that the lack of prior
surveillance is not fatal to the case of
the prosecution since the police is given
wide array of discretion so as to
determine how to effectively execute an
operation.
 It also ruled that the police officers were
able to justify the correct handling of the
evidence so as to sustain an unbroken
chain of custody.
Issues:
1. W/n the police did not conduct a prior
surveillance on him before conducting
the buy-bust operation.
2. W/n
The Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) counters with the argument
that the chain of custody of
the shabu was sufficiently
established. It explained that
the shabu was turned over by the
police officers to the PNP Crime
Laboratory, where it was found by the
forensic chemist to be positive for the
presence of shabu. The OSG likewise
claimed that the appellant failed to
rebut the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duties by
the police. The OSG further added
that a prior surveillance is not
indispensable to a prosecution for
illegal sale of drugs.[24]
 THE COURT'S RULING
After due consideration, we resolve
to acquit  the appellant for the
prosecution's failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically,
the prosecution failed to show that the
police complied with paragraph 1,
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
and with the chain of custody
requirement of this Act.
The Supreme Court held that the
requirement of section 21 was not
sufficiently satisfied:
In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited
drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the
prosecution must prove the following elements:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. All these require evidence that the sale
transaction transpired, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the
body or substance of the crime that establishes
that a crime has actually been committed, as
shown by presenting the object of the illegal
transaction.[26] 
Section 21 requirements:
 (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[.]
This is implemented by Section 21(a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which
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
The testimony of PO3 Almaza showed That it is
evident that the apprehending team, upon
confiscation of the drug, immediately brought
the appellant and the seized items to the police
station, and, once there, made the request for
laboratory examination. No physical
inventory and photograph of the seized
items were taken in the presence of the
accused or his counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of
Justice, and an elective official. PO3
Almarez, on cross-examination, was unsure
and could not give a categorical answer when
asked whether he issued a receipt for
the shabu confiscated from the appellant. [30] At
any rate, no such receipt or certificate of
inventory appears in the records.
The court emphasized the importance of
following the procedure as many cases
were overturned on the basis of
unfollowed rules of procedure in
handling evidence seized in drug related
offenses without giving any justifiable
grounds as to the deviation from the
procedure.
It also emphasized that the rules
underscored in section 21 of RA 9165,
when breached or lapsed is not
automatically fatal to the case as long
as the lapse or breach from the
procedure were made in justifiable
grounds. The lapses should be
explained and proven as fact.
The "Chain of Custody" Requirement
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that
unwavering exactitude be observed in
establishing the corpus delicti - the body of the
crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.
Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the
crime must be established. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in
buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.[42]
Black's Law Dictionary explains chain of
custody in this wise:
 In evidence, the one who offers
real evidence, such as the
narcotics in a trial of drug case,
must account for the custody of
the evidence from the moment in
which it reaches his custody until
the moment in which it is offered
in evidence, and such evidence
goes to weight not to
admissibility of evidence. Com. V.
White, 353 Mass. 409, 232
N.E.2d 335.
Likewise, Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002
which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines
"chain of custody" as follows:
 "Chain of Custody" means the
duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs
or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record
of movements and custody of
seized item shall include the
identity and signature of the
person who held temporary
custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer
of custody were made in the
course of safekeeping and use in
court as evidence, and the final
disposition[.]
In Malillin v. People,[43] the Court explained
that the chain of custody rule requires that
there be testimony about every link in the
chain, from the moment the object seized
was picked up to the time it is offered in
evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched it 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.
In the present case, the prosecution's
evidence failed to establish the chain that
would have shown that
the shabu presented in court was the very
same specimen seized from the appellant.
The first link in the chain of custody starts
with the seizure of the heat-sealed plastic
sachet from the appellant. ---- It was not
established by the prosecution the manner
of marking made by PO3 Almarez and
therte was no indication tthat the seized
sachets were marked in the presence of the
apprehended upon confiscation, as the
rules specify
The second link in the chain of custody is
its turnover from the apprehending team to
the police station. --- Prosecution through
Po3 Almarez failed to identify the person
who had control over the seized substance.
In the absence of such information—there
is presumption that Po3 almarez still is the
officer that had the control of the sachet,
furthermore, the same officer cannot
identify the identity of the desk officer
where the seized substance was turned
over.
As earlier discussed, the identity of the duty
desk officer who received the shabu, as well
as the person who had temporary custody
of the seized items for two days, had not
been established.
The procedural lapses mentioned above
show the glaring gaps in the chain of
custody, creating a reasonable doubt
whether the drugs confiscated from the
appellant were the same drugs that
were brought to the crime laboratory
for chemical analysis, and eventually
offered in court as evidence. In the
absence of concrete evidence on the illegal
drugs bought and sold, the body of the
crime - the corpus delicti - has not been
adequately proven.[44] In effect, the
prosecution failed to fully prove the
elements of the crime charged, creating
reasonable doubt on the appellant's
criminal liability.
NARCISO SALAS, Petitioners, v.ANNABELLE
MATUSALEM, Respondent. 
FACTS
On May 26, 1995, Annabelle Matusalem
(respondent) filed a complaint for
Support/Damages against Narciso Salas) in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofCabanatuan City
Respondent claimed that petititioner is the
father of her son Christian Paulo Salas Born on
December 28, 1994. It was alleged that
petitioner enticed her at the age of 24 and the
petitioner being 56 years old and making her
believe that petitioner was a widower.
Petitioner provided for shelter and shouldered
the cost of the pregnancy. However, when
respondent refused the offer of the petitioner
to take the child, petitioner abandoned her and
let her at the mercy of his relatives and
friends. On multiple occasions, respondent
alleged that she attempted to end her life
because of depression and that the petitioner
still refused to support her and the child.
Respondent prayed for Support pendent lite of
20,000 php and as well as actual, moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The petitioner on the other hand refuted all
claims and alleged that the respondent was a
woman of loose morals and that it was not the
first time that the woman used her “seductive
inclination” to her own advantage.
Also, the petitioner denied paternity of the
child and claimed that he only shouldered the
expenses of the respondent’s pregnancy
because of pure feelings of altruism unaware of
the respondent’s trickery and chicanery.
At the trial, respondent and her witness Grace
Murillo testified. Petitioner was declared to
have waived his right to present evidence and
the case was considered submitted for decision
based on respondent’s evidence.
Murillo corroborated respondent’s testimony as
to the payment by petitioner of apartment
rental, his weekly visits to respondent and
financial support to her, his presence during
and after delivery of respondent’s baby,
respondent’s attempted suicide through
sleeping pills overdose and hospitalization for
which she paid the bill, her complaint before
the police authorities and meeting with
petitioner’s wife at the headquarters.7
RTC
Rendered decision in favor of the respondent,
Ordering the defendant to give as monthly
support of TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00)
PESOS for the child Christian Paulo through the
mother; Directing the defendant to pay the
plaintiff the sum of P20,000.00 by way of
litigation expenses; andTo pay the costs of
suit.
CA
The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. It
ruled that there is no reason to disturb the
findings of the RTC.
the CA affirmed the trial court’s ruling that
respondent satisfactorily established the
illegitimate filiation of her son Christian Paulo,
and consequently no error was committed by
the trial court in granting respondent’s prayer
for support.
Issue:
1. W/N THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN PRONOUNCING
THAT PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED THE
FULL MEASURE OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND IN UPHOLDING
THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT
GRAVELY ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT DECIDED THE
INSTANT CASE WITHOUT AFFORDING
PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE
EVIDENCE IN HIS DEFENSE.
2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
FILIATION OF CHRISTIAN PAULO WAS
DULY ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 175 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE
172 OF THE FAMILY CODE AND
EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE AND
THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUPPORT
FROM THE PETITIONER.11
Held:
1. NO. there was no abuse of discretion in the
trial court’s denial of the motion for
postponement filed by petitioner’s counsel,
petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of
his day in court must likewise fail. The essence
of due process is that a party is given a
reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit
any evidence one may have in support of one’s
defense. Where a party was afforded an
opportunity to participate in the proceedings
but failed to do so, he cannot complain of
deprivation of due process. If the opportunity
is not availed of, it is deemed waived or
forfeited without violating the constitutional
guarantee.
2. NO. The certificate of live birth presented by
the respondent was not a sufficient proof of
filiation as the same was not signed by the
father. If the father did not sign in the birth
certificate, the placing of his name by the
mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is
incompetent evidence of paternity. 26 Neither
can such birth certificate be taken as a
recognition in a public instrument27 and it has
no probative value to establish filiation to the
alleged father.
As to the baptismal certificate, the supreme
court also emphasized its previous ruling that
although a baptismal certificate is considered
as a public document purposed to show the
dates when the sacrament of baptism was
made. The entries in such does not have
probative value as to prove filiation. The same
thing can be said with the respondent’s picture
and admission of the petitioner to shoulder the
pregnancy expenses.
Meanwhile, it was also ruled the misplaced
reliance of the respondent on one case decided
by the supreme court where it held the validity
of handwritten letters of the parties to
establish filiation since in that case. There was
admission in the letters as opposed to the
letters of the respondent in this case where
there isn’t any.
The testimonies of respondent and Murillo as to
the circumstances of the birth of Christian
Paulo, petitioner’s financial support while
respondent lived in Murillo’s apartment and his
regular visits to her at the said apartment,
though replete with details, do not
approximate the “overwhelming evidence,
documentary and testimonial” presented
in Ilano. In that case, we sustained the
appellate court’s ruling anchored on the
following factual findings by the appellate court
which was quoted at length
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL, Accused-
Appellant.
Facts
That on the 3rd day of July, 2004at about 5:30 o’clock
in the afternoon, more or less, at Purok 3, Barangay
Poblacion, Municipality of Villanueva, Province of
Misamis Oriental, Accused Boncawil was caught
selling and conveying to third persons prohibited and
dangerous drugs under section 5 of RA 9165 in a buy
bust operation. (0.4 grams of shabu)
Upon re-arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged.  Thereafter, pre-trial and
5
trial on the merits ensued.
Based on the records, the prosecution’s version of
the facts is as follows:
On October 13, 2002, on the basis of unconfirmed
reports that accused-appellant Eric Rosauro (Rosauro
for brevity) Oriental conducted a test-buy operation in
the Municipality of Villanueva, Misamis Oriental using
a confidential agent.
The confidential agent bought shabu from Rosauro at
his residence and the same was examined in the
crime lab and subsequently tested positive
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (commonly known
as shabu).
On july 3 2004, The police authorities received
information that drugs were distributed in the same
area and prompted the planning of a buy buts
operation. SPO4 Lorenzo Larut and PO3 Juancho
Dizon positioned themselves in the house of
confidential agent.
After the confidential agent bought the drugs and
gave him the marked 100 peso bill with serial number
YZ7 12579, Larut and dizon came out of their hiding
place and arrested Rosauro. The confidenbtial agent
handed the sachet to Larut, who taped it mark edit
with marking EXHIBIT A and place it inside the
pocket. He took pictures of the drugs and Rosauro as
well.
In the police station he prepared a Certificate of
Inventory and a Request for Laboratory Examination.
Both the drugs and Rosauro were then turned over to
the Crime laboratory which in turned tested positive
for MET.
For his part, accused-appellant claims that he was
merely a victim of instigation:
He claims that the confidential agent went to his
house four times requesting him to buy drugs from a
certain Kael and to deliver it to his house. However he
was not able to buy directly to KAEL and instead
transacted with a certain middle man--- after he
cquired the sachet, he then went to the house of the
confidential agent where Larot and Dizon emerged nd
arrested him. The sahbu was not even recovered from
him but from the confidential agent.
RTC
Found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
under section 5 of RA 9165
CA
Affirmed the RTC’s decision on grounds that what
happened was indeed an entrapment and not an
instigation.
Issue:
W/N the accused guilt was established beyond
reasonable doubt?
Held: Yes.
Verily, all the elements for a conviction of illegal sale
of dangerous or prohibited drugs were proven by the
prosecution: the identity of accused-appellant as the
seller, and that of the confidential informant as
poseur-buyer were established, as well as the
exchange of the sachet of shabu and the marked
money. It was also ascertained that the seized item
was positive for shabu, a dangerous drug, and that
the same item was properly identified in open court by
SPO4 Larot. Moreover, the ₱100.00 bill with serial
number YZ712579, or the subject marked money, as
well as the living body of the accused-appellant
revealed a positive result for ultraviolet fluorescent
powder.
The Supreme Court held that the chain of custody as
described in section 21 of RA 9165 was followed
properly.
In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated,
the confidential informant gave the seized item to
SPO4 Larot who placed tape on the sachet and
marked it "Exhibit A." Upon reaching the police
station, SPO4 Larot executed the Certificate of
Inventory, as well as the request for laboratory
examination. The request, the specimen, as well as
the marked money and accused-appellant were then
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
They were received. by SPO2 Ricardo Maisog, the
Receiving Clerk of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office,
who then forwarded them to Police Inspector Ma.
Leocy Jabonillo Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical
Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory.  Moreover, the
23
seized item was duly identified by SPO4 Larot in open
court as the same item seized from accused-
appellant.
Although the Supreme Court time and again reminded
that the lapse of the procedures presented in section
21 is not fatal to the case if the lapse is on justifiable
grounds.
PEOPLE v. MEDARIO CALANTIAO Y
DIMALANTA, GR No. 203984, 2014-06-18
Facts:
On November 13, 2003, Calantiao was charged
before the RTC of violation of Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 in an Information,[3]
the pertinent portion of which reads:... did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and... feloniously
have in his possession, custody and control two
(2) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops with a
total weight of 997.9 grams, knowing the same to
be a dangerous drug.
On November 13, 2003[,] at around 5:30 x x x in
the afternoon, while PO1 NELSON MARIANO
and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ were on duty, a
certain EDWIN LOJERA arrived at their office
and asked for police assistance regarding a
shooting incident.
the passengers of said taxi cab, one of them was
accused Calantiao, alighted and fired their guns. 
Surprised, Lojera could not do anything but
continued his driving until he reached a police
station nearby where he reported the incident.
PO1 Mariano testified that they immediately
responded to said complaint by proceeding to 5th
Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where
they found the white taxi.  While approaching...
said vehicle, two armed men alighted therefrom,
fired their guns towards them (police officers) and
ran away.  PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez
chased them but they were subdued.  PO1
Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag
containing two (2) bricks of dried marijuana...
fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38
stainless with ammos, while PO3 Ramirez
recovered from Calantiao's companion [a] .38
revolver.
The suspects and the confiscated items were
then turned over to SPO3 PABLO TEMENA,
police investigator at Bagong Barrio Police
Station for investigation.  Thereat, PO1 Mariano
marked the bricks of marijuana contained in a
black bag with his initials, "NM".  Thereafter,...
said specimen were forwarded to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for chemical analysis.  The result of
the examination conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE
DELA ROSA revealed that the same was positive
for marijuana, a dangerous drug.
According to his testimony, this instant case
originated from a traffic mishap where the taxi he
and his companion Rommel Reyes were riding
almost collided with another car.  Reyes then
opened the window and made a"fuck you" sign
against the persons on board of that car.  That
prompted the latter to chase them and when they
were caught in a traffic jam, PO1 Nelson
Mariano, one of the persons on board of that
other car alighted and kicked their taxi.  Calantiao
and Reyes alighted... and PO1 Mariano slapped
the latter and uttered, "Putang ina mo bakit mo
ako pinakyu hindi mo ba ako kilala?"  Said police
officer poked his gun again[st] Reyes and when
Calantiao tried to grab it, the gun fired.  Calantiao
and Reyes were then handcuffed and were...
brought to the police station.
In convicting Calantiao, the RTC held that the
illegal drug seized was admissible in evidence as
it was discovered during a body search after
Calantiao was caught in flagrante delicto of
possessing a gun and firing at the police officers.  the arrestee's person in order to prevent its
Moreover, the RTC found all... the elements of
the offense to have been duly established by the
prosecution.[6]
Issues:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS'
PATENT NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER
CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.
III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
PROVE THE PROPER CHAIN OF CUSTODY
OF THE SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.[8]
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS'
PATENT NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER
CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.
III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
PROVE THE PROPER CHAIN OF CUSTODY
OF THE SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.[8]
In essence, Calantiao is questioning the
admissibility of the marijuana found in his
possession, as evidence against him on the
grounds of either it was discovered via an illegal
search, or because its custodial chain was
broken.
Ruling:
In People v. Valeroso,[14] this Court had the
occasion to reiterate the permissible reach of a
valid warrantless search and seizure incident to a
lawful arrest, viz:
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
arresting officer to search the person arrested in
order to remove any weapon that the latter might
use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. 
Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be
endangered,... and the arrest itself frustrated.  In
addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting
officer to search for and seize any evidence on
concealment or destruction.
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the
duty and the right of the apprehending officers to
conduct a warrantless search not only on the
person of the suspect, but also in the permissible
area within the latter's reach.  Otherwise stated, a
valid arrest allows the... seizure of evidence or
dangerous weapons either on the person of the
one arrested or within the area of his immediate
control.  The phrase "within the area of his
immediate control" means the area from within
which he might gain possession of a weapon or...
destructible evidence.  A gun on a table or in a
drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as
dangerous to the arresting officer as one
concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. 
(Citations omitted.)... n the case at bar, the
marijuana was found in a black bag in Calantiao's
possession and within his immediate control.  He
could have easily taken any weapon from the
bag or dumped it to destroy the evidence inside
it.  As the black bag containing the... marijuana
was in Calantiao's possession, it was within the
permissible area that the apprehending officers
could validly conduct a warrantless search.
Calantiao's argument that the marijuana cannot
be used as evidence against him because its
discovery was in violation of the Plain View
Doctrine, is misplaced.
The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no
applicability in Calantiao's situation because the
police officers purposely searched him upon his
arrest.  The police officers did not inadvertently
come across the black bag, which was in
Calantiao's possession; they deliberately...
opened it, as part of the search incident to
Calantiao's lawful arrest.
This Court has held that the failure to strictly
comply with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, such as immediately marking seized
drugs, will not automatically impair the integrity of
chain of custody because 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]
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.  be presented as evidence.
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.
The prosecution was able to establish the chain
of custody of the seized marijuana from the time
the police officers confiscated it, to the time it
was turned over to the investigating officer, up to
the time it was brought to the forensic chemist for
laboratory... examination.[21]  This Court has no
reason to overrule the RTC and the Court of
Appeals, which both found the chain of custody
of the seized drugs to have not been broken so
as to render the marijuana seized from Calantiao
inadmissible in... evidence.
The defenses of denial and frame-up have been
invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it
can easily be concocted and is a common and
standard defense ploy in prosecutions for
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act.  In order to
prosper, the defenses of... denial and frame-up
must be proved with strong and convincing
evidence.  In the cases before us, appellant
failed to present sufficient evidence in support of
his claims. Aside from his self-serving assertions,
no plausible proof was presented to bolster his...
allegations.[24]
Principles:
Searches and seizure incident to a lawful arrest
are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A
person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have
been used or constitute proof in the commission
of an offense without a search warrant.
he pu
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception
to the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest
outside the suspect's person and premises under
his immediate control.
This is so because "[o]bjects in the 'plain view' of
an... officer who has the right to be in the position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
HERMANOS CONSTANTINO, JR. y BINAYUG,
a.k.a. "JOJIT," Accused-Appellant.
Facts:
On January 20, 2005, in the City of Tuguegarao,
Province of Cagayan the accused was caught, without
authority of law and without permit to sell, transport,
deliver and distribute dangerous drugs, transport,
distribute and deliver two (2) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing 0.14 gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known
as "shabu” to a member of the PNP as poseur buyer
in a buy bust operation.
When arraigned on July 8, 2005, Constantino pleaded
not guilty to the crime charged.  Thereafter, pre-trial
4
and trial on the merits ensued.
Evidence for the prosecution presented the
following version of events:
On January 20, 2005, at around 2:00 in the afternoon,
P/Supt. Mariano Rodriguez received a report coming
from a confidential agent stating that a certin Jojit was
selling drugs in the city.
On the same day, The police officer convened his
colleagues and organized a buy bust operation. The
buy bust money consists of a 500 php and 5 100 php
bill. At 8:00 in the evening of the same day, The team
proceeded to Reynovilla St. Centro Tuguegarao City.
The place where the drugs were allegedly sold. PO3
Domingo positioned himself behind the post light and
with the rest of the team behind a concrete wall.
After waiting for about 45 minutes., Constantino
arrived and PO3 Domingo approached him and asked
if he was jojit and then asked if he has the “stuff”.
Constantino affirmed and asked the police officer if
how much does he want to which the officer replies
“1000php” worth of shabu, simultaneously handing
over the buy-bust money to Constantino, who, in turn,
handed two plastic sachets to PO3 Domingo.
Thereupon, PO3 Domingo turned his cap backwards,
the pre-arranged signal for the consummated sale.
Upon seeing the signal, the other members of the
buy-bust team approached the scene at once and
arrested Constantino, from whom SPO2 Taguiam
recovered the buy-bust money. 6 the shabu.
Thereafter, Constantino was brought to the police
station where the recovered drugs and money were
turned over to the investigator, SPO2 Tamang.  The
7 witnesses. It is the defense that has failed to show in
recovered drugs were then marked with the initials "A-
1" and "A-2." The incident was recorded in the police
blotter with an inventory of the recovered drugs and
money. 8
Later that evening, at around ten o’clock, P/Supt.
Rodriguez and SPO2 Tamang submitted to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory
Services, Camp Marcelo Adduru, Tuguegarao City, a
request for laboratory examination of two plastic
sachets with white crystalline substance marked as
"A-1" and "A-2" to determine the presence of
dangerous drugs;  as well as both hands of
9
Constantino, one piece ₱500.00 bill, and five pieces
₱100.00 bills, to determine the presence of the ultra
violet powder.  Per Chemistry Report prepared by
10
Police Senior Inspector (P/SInsp.) Mayra Matote
Madria,  Forensic Chemist, the contents of the two
13
plastic sachets tested positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride; while the other specimens tested
positive for the presence of bright-yellow ultraviolet
fluorescent powder.
Constantino denied the accusation against him
and asserted that he was merely framed-up.
According to him, he was on his way home from a
joyride when a car suddenly stopped in front of him
and one behind him. 5 men alighted from the two
vehicles, two of them held him and one pointed a gun
at him and asking where is the sahbu. They forced
him inside one of the vehicles, frisked him and said he
was arrested for selling shabu. They then brought him
to the police station, tooked his cellphone and the
next day he was brought to the crime lab, forced to
hold a bunch of money bills, he resisted but to no
avail, he was subsequently detained.
RTC:
Found the accused guilty of reasonable doubt. On
the following grounds:
The RTC promulgated its Decision on April 15, 2008,
finding Constantino guilty as charged. The trial court
rejected the arguments of the defense, thus:
1. The Prosecution failed to give a detailed account of
the arrangement with the accused for the purchase of
The Court’s response: The testimony of PO3
Domingo was detailed enough, corroborated by other
what crucial detail the prosecution’s account is
wanting.
2. The police officers categorically admitted that they
did not personally know the accused until they were at
the alleged place of transaction.
The Court’s response: Substantive law does not
require this; the rules of evidence do not. Did they
know he was Jojit? Yes, from the description given
the informant. Domingo asked whether he was Jojit.
He answered "Yes".
3. The arresting officers failed to comply with the
requirements of Article II, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 that
requires that an inventory be taken and that
photographs be taken of the items seized.
The Court’s comment: The Police Blotter Entry No.
0270 enumerates the items seized. This, the Court
holds to be substantial compliance. Even assuming,
without admitting, that not all the requirements may
not have been complied with, these omissions do not
operate to exclude the evidence nor to cause
suppression thereof. They are directory, not
mandatory provisions.
4. The chain of custody was not established with
certainty.
The Court’s comment: The chain is not difficult to
trace, and has been established by evidence, thus:
a. Exhibit "B": The police blotter recording that
on 20 January 2005 at 2100 hours,
mentioning the two sachets of shabu which
according to the blotter the accused admitted
he handed over to Domingo; Domingo had
testified that the markings A-1 NBT and A-2
NBT were placed on the sachets by
Investigator Alexander Tamang;
b. Exhibit "F": Dated January 20, 2005, a
request to the PNP Crime Lab Services for the
examination of "two plastic sachet (sic) with
white crystalline substance marked A1 and
A2";
c. Exhibit "D": Chemistry Report No. D-08-
2005 completed 21 January 2005 reporting a
qualitative examination of the contents of two
heat-sealed sachets marked as A1 NBT and
A2 NBT and identifying the substance as
"Methamphetamine Hydrochloride".
5. There was no prior coordination with PDEA.
The Court’s response: None was needed. Exhibit "H"
clearly evidences that SPO1 Blaquera was authorized
to conduct anti-drug operations. Domingo also
answered the question about coordination with PDEA
when he testified: "During that time 3 representatives
of the Intelligence Operatives were deputized in the
PDEA in the persons of Noel Taguiam, Arthur
Blaquera and the Chief of Police."
CA
Affirmed the decision of the rtc
Issues:
Whether or not the chain of custody rule was aptly
established in this case?
Held: NO.
After a careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, the Court finds glaring
inconsistencies affecting the integrity of the shabu
purportedly confiscated from Constantino. The
inconsistent testimonies of PO3 Domingo, PO3
Hernandez, and P/SInsp. Tulauan as to who, when,
and where the two plastic sachets of shabu were
marked lead the Court to question whether the two
plastic sachets of shabu identified in court were the
very same ones confiscated from Constantino. The
doubtful markings already broke the chain of custody
of the seized shabu at a very early stage.
To recall, the first crucial link in the chain of custody is
seizure and marking of the illegal drug. In this case,
PO3 Domingo, as poseur-buyer, received two plastic
sachets of shabu from Constantino in exchange for
₱1,000. However, PO3 Domingo himself did not put
any markings on the two plastic sachets of shabu.
Instead, upon arrival of the buy-bust team with
Constantino at the police station, PO3 Domingo
turned over the two plastic sachets of shabu to the
investigator, SPO2 Tamang, who was also a member
of the buy-bust team. PO3 Domingo testified that it
was SPO2 Tamang who put the marking "NBT" on the
said sachets of shabu.
However, PO3 Hernandez, another member of the
buy-bust team, categorically pointed to SPO2
Taguiam, also a member of the buy-bust team, as the
one who put the marking "NBT" on the plastic sachets
upon the team’s return to the police station.
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking
of the seized dangerous drugs or other related items
immediately after they are seized from the accused,
for the marking upon seizure is the starting point in
the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the
evidence will use as reference point. Moreover, the
value of marking of the evidence is to separate the
marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar
or related evidence from the time of seizure from the
accused until disposition at the end of criminal
proceedings, obviating switching, "planting" or
contamination of evidence. A failure to mark at the
time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of
the chain of custody that the law requires.  (Citation
1âwphi1
omitted.)
Herein, the prosecution is completely silent as to why
PO3 Domingo, the poseur-buyer, despite having
immediate custody of the two plastic sachets of shabu
purchased from Constantino, failed to immediately
mark the seized drugs before turning over the custody
of the same to another police officer.
This lapse in procedure opened the door for confusion
and doubt as to the identity of the drugs actually
seized from Constantino during the buy-bust and the
ones presented before the trial court, especially
considering that three different people, during the
interval, supposedly received and marked the same.
To clarify the matter, the prosecution could have
presented as witness either SPO2 Tamang or SPO2
Taguiam to directly validate the marking in court, but
unfortunately, the prosecution chose to dispense with
the testimonies of both officers. This omission
diminished the importance of the markings as the
reference point for the subsequent handling of the
evidence. As a consequence, an objective person
could now justifiably suspect the shabu ultimately
presented as evidence in court to be planted or
contaminated. 30
The failure of the prosecution to establish the
evidence’s chain of custody is fatal to its case as the
Court can no longer consider or even safely assume
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items..
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, VS. MERCURY DELA CRUZ ALIAS
"DEDAY," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
This case is a resolution of the appeal filed by
Accused appellant Mercury Dela Cruz
In a Decision[2] dated 27 November 2008, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City,
found the accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale
of shabu under Sections 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165[3] and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00.
The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of
Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Alejandro
Batobalanos, Police Officer (PO) 1 Angsgar
Babyboy A. Reales, and PO1 Leopoldo Bullido who
conducted the buy-bust operation against the
accused-appellant, and rejected the self-serving
defenses of denial and alibi of accused-appellant
and her live-in partner.
The RTC noted that the categorical affirmation of
accused-appellant and her live-in partner that the
arresting officers did not demand anything from
them in exchange for the accused-appellant's
liberty created the presumption that the arresting
officers were performing their official functions
regularly.[4]
On intermediate appellate review, the CA
affirmed in toto the RTC's ruling. The CA agreed
with the RTC in giving weight to the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, and held that the
arresting officers complied with the proper
procedure in the custody and disposition of the
seized drugs.
Held:
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the accused-
appellant's guilt.
No reason to reverse the RTC's findings, as
affirmed by the CA. In the same manner as the
lower courts, we give full credit to the positive,
spontaneous and straightforward testimonies of the
police officers pointing to accused-appellant as the
seller and possessor of the confiscated shabu.
We have consistently held that in order to secure a
conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is
necessary that the prosecution is able to establish
the following essential elements:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale and its consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment.
What is material is the proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money successfully consummate the buy-
bust transaction.[5] 
Here, all the aforesaid elements necessary for
accused-appellant's prosecution have been
sufficiently complied with, indubitably establishing
that she has indeed committed the crime. PO1
Reales testified in detail how he was introduced by
the confidential informant to accused-appellant.

The confidential informant, thereafter, manifested to
the accused-appellant their intention to buy worth
P200.00. Upon giving the accused-appellant the 2
marked P100.00 bills, she, in return, handed to
PO1 Reales a small plastic containing white
crystalline substance. The plastic sachet later on
tested positive for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The testimony
given by PO1 Reales was corroborated by SPO1
Batobalonos and PO1 Bullido in all material details.
It is therefore clear beyond any shadow of doubt
that the buy-bust operation had been substantially
completed and consummated. The fact that
accused-appellant was able to evade the arrest
immediately after the sale and that she was
arrested only after, by virtue of a warrant of arrest,
did not change the fact that the crime she
committed earlier had been consummated.
We agree with the lower courts that in the absence
of any intent or ill-motive on the part of the police
officers to falsely impute commission of a crime
against the accused-appellant, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty is
entitled to great respect and deserves to prevail
over the bare, uncorroborated denial and self-
serving claim of the accused of frame-up.[6]
Also, we reject the appellant's contention that the
police officers failed to comply with the provisions
of Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165,
[7] which provides for the procedure in the custody
and disposition of seized drugs.
After a careful perusal of the records, we agree with
the CA that the prosecution had established the
unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs.
This was established through the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, to wit: 
"At around 7:15 o'clock in the evening of November
10, 2006, PO3 Batobalonos, PO1 Reales, PO1
Bullido and their civilian asset proceeded to Sitio
Cogon, A. Lopez St., Barangay Labangon. When
the team went inside the interior portion of Sitio
Cogon, PO1 Reales together with the civilian asset
approached the house of Dela Cruz, while PO3
Batobalonos and PO1 Bullido were strategically
hidden more or less ten (10) meters away. The
civilian asset called Dela Cruz and told her that
they will buy shabu worth P200.00. Thereafter,
Dela Cruz handed PO1 Reales a small plastic
containing white crystalline substance and in
exchange he handed to the former the P200.00
bills. Upon getting hold of the money, PO3
Batobalonos and PO1 Bullido, who saw the
consummation of the transaction rushed to the
scene. When PO3 Batobalonos got hold of Dela
Cruz, the latter shouted for help and resisted arrest.
Dela Cruz was able to run and so the team chased
her, however, her neighbor Arthur Tabasa Ortega
("Ortega") blocked their way. The team introduced
themselves as policemen but Ortega did not listen,
so PO3 Batobalonos fired a warning shot as the
people likewise started to gather around them.
Meanwhile, Dela Cruz was able to evade arrest.
The team then arrested Ortega for obstruction of
justice.
On their way to the police station aboard their patrol
car, PO1 Reales handed to PO3 Batobalonos the
small plastic containing white crystalline substance
which he purchased from Dela Cruz. Thereafter,
upon arrival at the police station, PO3 Batobalonos
marked the seized item with "DDM 11/10/06."
Afterwards, a Request for Laboratory Examination
of the seized item was prepared by PO3
Batobalonos. The Request and the seized item
were delivered to the Regional Crime Laboratory
Office-7, Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue,
Cebu City by PO1 Reales at around 1:10 o'clock in
the morning of November 11, 2006.
Thereafter Forensic Chemist PCI Salinas issued
Chemistry Report No. D-1771-2006,"[8] with the
finding that the specimen gave positive result for
the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride.
[9]
The confiscated dangerous drug which also
constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime was
validly considered by the courts in arriving at the
decision despite the fact that the forensic chemist
who examined it did not testify in court. The
relevant portion of the RTC decision reads:
The presentation of the testimony of Forensic
chemist PSI MUTCHIT G. SALINAS was dispensed
with, the defense having ADMITTED: the existence
of the Letter Request dated November 10, 2006
from the PNP Station 10; the existence of one (1)
small plastic pack containing white crystalline
substance which is the subject for examination,
however DENIED as to the ownership of said
evidence; the existence and due execution of the
Chemistry Report No. D-1771-2006 executed by
witness Mutchit G. Salinas; that the intended
witness is and expert witness who examined the
specimen found to contain the presence of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as
shabu, a dangerous drug.[10]
Anent accused-appellant's contention that the
drugs were marked not at the place where she was
apprehended but at the police station and that there
was no physical inventory made on the seized item
nor was it photographed, we find the same
untenable. The alleged non-compliance with
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not fatal to the
prosecution's case because the apprehending team
properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized drugs.[11]
Relevant to the instant case is the procedure to be
followed in the custody and handling of the seized
dangerous drugs as outlined in Section 21(a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory
and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items[.]
The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided
the exception to the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Although ideally the prosecution should offer a
perfect chain of custody in the handling of
evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal
requirements on the handling of the seized item" is
sufficient.[12] This Court has consistently ruled that
even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply
with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not
render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.
[13] What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.[14] In other words, to be admissible in
evidence, the prosecution must be able to present
through records or testimony, the whereabouts of
the dangerous drugs from the time these were
seized from the accused by the arresting officers;
turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to
the laboratory for determination of their
composition; and up to the time these are offered in
evidence. For as long as the chain of custody
remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the
procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 were not faithfully observed, the guilt
of the accused will not be affected.[15]
In the instant case, the failure to strictly comply with
the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was
satisfactorily explained by the apprehending
officers. They testified that a commotion erupted
when accused-appellant resisted and shouted for
help while she was being arrested. The commotion
eventually gave accused-appellant the opportunity
to run and elude arrest. The arresting officers
further alleged that the people who gathered
around them were already aggressive prompting
them to decide to immediately proceed to the police
station for their safety.[16] In fact, the arresting
officers even had to fire a warning shot and arrest
Arthur Tabasa Ortega, the person who intervened
in the arrest of accused-appellant, in order for them
to pacify the people around them.
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have
been preserved unless there is a showing of bad
faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
tampered with. Accused-appellant bears the burden
of showing that the evidence was tampered or
meddled with in order to overcome the presumption
of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
officers and the presumption that public officers
properly discharged their duties.[17] Accused-
appellant in this case failed to present any plausible
reason to impute ill motive on the part of the
arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of the
apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit.
[18] In fact, accused-appellant did not even
question the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. She simply anchored her defense on
denial and alibi.
We affirm the penalties imposed as they are well
within the ranges provided by law. Section 5, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty of life
imprisonment to death[19] and a fine ranging from
P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 for the sale of any
dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity or purity
involved.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated 27 September
2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 01103 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.