Republic of the 

Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
 
SECOND DIVISION
 
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182348
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ.
 
CARLOS DELA CRUZ, Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
November 20, 2008
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--x
 
 
DECISION
 
VELASCO, JR., J.:
 
This is an appeal from the November 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 entitled People of the
Philippines v. Carlos Dela Cruzwhich affirmed the September 16, 2005
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77 in San Mateo,
Rizal in Criminal Case Nos. 6517 (Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunition) and 6518 (Possession of Dangerous Drug). The RTC found
accused- appellant Carlos Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 11(2) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165
or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
 
The Facts
 
On November 15, 2002, charges against accused-appellant were made
before the RTC. The Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6517
 
That, on or about the 20  day of October 2002, in the
th

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and

within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, being then a private citizen, without any
lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody
and control One (1) Gauge Shotgun marked ARMSCOR with
Serial No. 1108533 loaded with four (4) live ammunition,
which are high powered firearm and ammunition
 respectively, without first securing the necessary license to
possess or permit to carry said firearm and ammunition
from the proper authorities.
 
Criminal Case No. 6518
 
That on or about the 20  day of October 2002, in the
th

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and

within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his
possession, direct custody and control one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic bag weighing 49.84 grams of white
crystalline substance, which gave positive results for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. [1]
 
Accused-appellant entered a not guilty plea and trial ensued.
 
The facts, according to the prosecution, showed that in the morning
of October 20, 2002, an informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit
of the Marikina Police Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo
alias Boy Bicol was at his nipa hut hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. A team
was organized to arrest Boy Bicol. Once there, they saw Boy Bicol by a
table talking with accused-appellant. They shouted Boy Bicol sumuko
ka na may warrant of arrest ka. (Surrender yourself Boy Bicol you
have a warrant of arrest.) Upon hearing this, Boy Bicol engaged them in
a shootout and was fatally shot. Accused-appellant was seen holding a
shotgun through a window. He dropped his shotgun when a police
officer pointed his firearm at him. The team entered the nipa hut and
apprehended accused-appellant. They saw a plastic bag of
suspected shabu, a digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia,
ammunition, and magazines lying on the table. PO1 Calanoga, Jr. put
the markings CVDC, the initials of accused-appellant, on the bag
containing the seized drug.
Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested. The substance seized
from the hideout was sent to the Philippine National Police crime
laboratory for examination and tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. He was thus separately indicted for violation of
RA 9165 and for illegal possession of firearm.
 
According to the defense, accused-appellant was at Boy Bicols house
having been asked to do a welding job for Boy Bicols motorcycle. While
accused-appellant was there, persons who identified themselves as
police officers approached the place, prompting accused-appellant to
scamper away. He lied face down when gunshots rang. The buy-bust
team then helped him get up. He saw the police officers searching the
premises and finding shabu and firearms, which were on top of a table
or drawer.[2] When he asked the reason for his apprehension, he was
told that it was because he was a companion of Boy Bicol. He denied
under oath that the gun and drugs seized were found in his possession
and testified that he was only invited by Boy Bicol to get the motorcycle
from his house.[3]
 
The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition but convicted him of possession of dangerous
drugs. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
 
WHEREFORE, the Court based on insufficiency of evidence
hereby ACQUITS accused CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y
VICTORINO in Criminal Case No. 6517 for violation of P.D.
1866 as amended by RA 8294.
 
In Criminal Case No. 6518 for Possession of Dangerous
Drug under Section 11, 2nd paragraph of Republic Act 9165,
the Court finds said accused CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y
VICTORINO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby
sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to Pay a Fine of FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).
 
SO ORDERED.[4]
 
 
On December 7, 2005, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal
of the RTC Decision.
 
In his appeal to the CA, accused-appellant claimed that: (1) the
version of the prosecution should not have been given full credence; (2)
the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was
guilty of possession of an illegal drug; (3) his arrest was patently illegal;
and (4) the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the
illegal drug allegedly in his possession.
 
The CA sustained accused-appellants conviction. [5] It pointed out
that accused-appellant was positively identified by prosecution
witnesses, rendering his uncorroborated denial and allegation of frame-
up weak. As to accused-appellants alleged illegal arrest, the CA held
that he is deemed to have waived his objection when he entered his
plea, applied for bail, and actively participated in the trial without
questioning such arrest.
 
On the supposedly broken chain of custody of the illegal drug, the
appellate court held that accused-appellants claim is unpersuasive
absent any evidence showing that the plastic sachet of shabu had been
tampered or meddled with.
 
On December 20, 2007, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of
the CA Decision.
 
On June 25, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit
supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties later signified their
willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already with
the Court.
 
Accused-appellant presents the following issues before us:
 
I
 
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
CREDENCE TO THE VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION
II
 
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF
SECTION 11, ARTICLE II, RA 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE
OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE COMMISSION OF
THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
 
III
 
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED
DESPITE THE PATENT ILLEGALITY OF HIS ARREST
 
IV
 
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,
ARTICLE II, RA 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG ALLEGEDLY FOUND IN HIS
POSSESSION
 
 
Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of
the offense of possession of dangerous drug was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt since both actual and constructive possessions were
not proved. He asserts that the shabu was not found in his actual
possession, for which reason the prosecution was required to establish
that he had constructive possession over the shabu. He maintains that
as he had no control and dominion over the drug or over the place
where it was found, the prosecution likewise failed to prove constructive
possession.
 
The Courts Ruling
 
The appeal has merit.
 
The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug 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. [6] On the
third element, we have held that the possession must be with
knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed with the
possession or control of said articles. [7] Considering that as to this
knowledge, a persons mental state of awareness of a fact is involved, we
have ruled that:
 
Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and
thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort to other
evidence is necessary. Animus possidendi, as a state of
mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking
into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the
accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Its
existence may and usually must be inferred from the
attendant events in each particular case.[8]
 
The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant show
that: he was inside the nipa hut at the time the buy-bust operation was
taking place; he was talking to Boy Bicol inside the nipa hut; he was
seen holding a shotgun; when PO1 Calanoga, Jr. pointed his firearm at
accused-appellant, the latter dropped his shotgun; and when
apprehended, he was in a room which had the seized shabu, digital
weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines.
Accused-appellant later admitted that he knew what the content of the
seized plastic bag was.[9]
 
Given the circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed to
establish possession of the shabu, whether in its actual or constructive
sense, on the part of accused-appellant.
 
The two buy-bust team members corroborated each others
testimonies on how they saw Boy Bicol talking to accused-appellant by
a table inside the nipa hut. That table, they testified, was the same
table where they saw the shabu once inside the nipa hut. This fact was
used by the prosecution to show that accused-appellant exercised
dominion and control over the shabu on the table. We, however, find
this too broad an application of the concept of constructive possession.
 
In People v. Torres,[10] we held there was constructive possession of
prohibited drugs even when the accused was not home when the
prohibited drugs were found in the masters bedroom of his house.
 
 In People v. Tira,[11] we sustained the conviction of the accused
husband and wife for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Their
residence was searched and their bed was found to be concealing illegal
drugs underneath. We held that the wife cannot feign ignorance of the
drugs existence as she had full access to the room, including the space
under the bed.
 
In Abuan v. People,[12] we affirmed the finding that the accused
was in constructive possession of prohibited drugs which had been
found in the drawer located in her bedroom.
 
In all these cases, the accused was held to be in constructive
possession of illegal drugs since they were shown to enjoy dominion and
control over the premises where these drugs were found.
 
In the instant case, however, there is no question that accused-
appellant was not the owner of the nipa hut that was subject of the
buy-bust operation. He did not have dominion or control over the nipa
hut. Neither was accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa
hut, a fact not disputed by the prosecution. The target of the operation
was Boy Bicol. Accused-appellant was merely a guest of Boy Bicol. But
in spite of the lack of evidence pinning accused-appellant to illegal
possession of drugs, the trial court declared the following:
 
It cannot be denied that when the accused was talking
with Boy Bicol he knew that the shabu was on the table with
other items that were confiscated by the police operatives.
The court [surmises] that the accused and boy Bicol were
members of a gang hiding in that nipa hut where they were
caught red-handed with prohibited items and dangerous
[drugs].[13]
 
 
The trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecutions
evidence, that accused-appellant was part of a gang dealing in illegal
activities. Apart from his presence in Boy Bicols nipa hut, the
prosecution was not able to show his participation in any drug-dealing.
He was not even in possession of drugs in his person. He was merely
found inside a room with shabu, not as the rooms owner or occupant
but as a guest. While he allegedly pointed a firearm at the buy-bust
team, the prosecution curiously failed to produce the firearm that
accused-appellant supposedly used.
 
The prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements
of the crime absent a showing of either actual or constructive
possession by the accused-appellant.
 
 Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs
in Boy Bicols nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid.
Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless arrest
provides:
 
Sec. 5.  Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
 
            a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
 
            b) When an offense has just been committed, and he
has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
 
            c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
 
 The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under
Sec. 5(a), arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto.  For this type of
warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has
just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
of the arresting officer.[14]
 
Accused-appellants act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust team
would have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante delicto;
however, the prosecution was not able to adequately prove that
accused-appellant was committing an offense. Although accused-
appellant merely denied possessing the firearm, the prosecutions
charge was weak absent the presentation of the alleged firearm. He was
eventually acquitted by the trial court because of this gaffe. His arrest,
independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy Bicol, was
therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any offense.
 
In sum, we find that there is insufficient evidence to show
accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Having ruled on the
lack of material or constructive possession by accused-appellant of the
seized shabu and his succeeding illegal arrest, we deem it unnecessary
to deal with the other issue raised.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The CA Decision
dated November 29, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cruz
is ACQUITTED of violation of Sec. 11(2) of RA 9165 in Criminal Case
No. 6518 of the RTC, Branch 77 in San Mateo, Rizal.
 
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
 
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
 
 
 
 
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
 
 
 
ATTESTATION
 
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Courts Division.
 
 
 
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
 
 
CERTIFICATION
 
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
 
 
 
 
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[1]
 Rollo, p. 3.
[2]
 Id. at 5.
[3]
 CA rollo, p. 17.
[4]
 Id. at 26. Penned by Judge Francisco C. Rodriguez, Jr.
[5]
 Rollo, p. 18. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Sixto C.
Marella, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guaria III
and Japar B. Dimaampao.
[6]
 People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008.
[7]
 People v. Lagata, G.R. No. 135323, June 25, 2003, 404 SCRA
671, 676; citing People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003,
395 SCRA 419.
[8]
 Lagata, supra; citing People v. Burton, 335 Phil. 1003, 1024-
1025 (2000).
[9]
 Rollo, p. 50.
[10]
 G.R. No. 170837, September 12, 2006, 501 SCRA 591, 610-
611.
[11]
 G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 152-153.
[12]
 G.R. No. 168773, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 799, 818-819.
[13]
 CA rollo, p. 25.
[14]
 People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518
SCRA 393, 422.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 177777               December 4, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs.
FERNANDO GUTIERREZ y GATSO, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

On appeal is the Decision1 dated January 22, 2007 of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01688, affirming the decision in
Criminal Case No. 12318 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65
in Tarlac City. The RTC found accused-appellant Fernando Gutierrez
guilty of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs punishable
under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

An Amended Information2 charged accused-appellant Fernando with

violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about September 12, 2002 at around 4:45 o’clock in the

afternoon at Purok Jasmin, Poblacion North, Municipality of Ramos,
Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess two (2) small plastic
[sachets] containing white crystalline substance weighing more or less
14.052 grams of shabu.

Contrary to law.

Arraigned on December 12, 2002, Fernando, assisted by counsel de

officio, entered a plea of "not guilty." After pre-trial, trial on the merits
ensued.

To substantiate the accusation, the prosecution presented the

testimonies of the arresting police officers. Offered in evidence too was
Exhibit "B," captioned Chemistry Report No. D-186-2002 and prepared
and signed by Ma. Luisa G. David, forensic chemist of the Tarlac
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. Exhibit "B" contains the following
entries, among others: the precise time and date the specimen
confiscated from Fernando was submitted for examination by the
requesting party, the time and date of the examination’s completion,
and the results of the examination.

Culled from the challenged CA decision, the People’s version of the

incident is synthesized as follows:

At around 4:45 p.m. on September 12, 2002, the police station of

Ramos, Tarlac acting on a tip regarding a shabu transaction (drug-
pushing) taking place somewhere in Purok Jasmin, Poblacion Norte,
dispatched a three-man team composed of PO3 Romeo Credo, P/Insp.
Napoleon Dumlao, and SPO1 Restituto Fernandez to the place
mentioned. Arriving at the target area, the three noticed Fernando and
one Dennis Cortez under a santol tree handing plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance to certain individuals. At the
sight of the police officers, Fernando and the others scampered in
different directions. After a brief chase, however, one of the three police
operatives caught up with and apprehended Fernando, then carrying a
bag.

When searched in the presence of the barangay captain of Poblacion

Norte, the bag yielded the following, among other items: plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance weighing 15 grams or less, one
small plastic sachet/bag containing white powdered substance, one set
of pipe tooter tube glass, one laptop computer, one Motorola cell phone,
one rolled aluminum foil, three bundles of plastic used for repacking,
one weighing scale, a Metrobank deposit slip in the name of Dhen Bito,
and cash amounting to PhP 1,500 in different denominations.
Forthwith, Fernando and the seized items were brought to the Ramos
police station and the corresponding request for examination was then
prepared. The following day, the confiscated sachets were sent to and
received by the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory Field Office. When
subjected to qualitative examination, the substances in the plastic
sachets and plastic bags were found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
For its part, the defense offered in evidence the sole testimony of
Fernando. His defense relied on denial and alleged fabrication of the
charge by the police, thus:

At around 4:35 in the afternoon of September 12, 2002, while at home

in Anao, Tarlac resting, Fernando was asked by a neighbor, Cortez, to
accompany him to Ramos, Tarlac to buy a duck. At that time, Cortez
had with him a backpack, the contents of which Fernando knew
nothing about.

In Ramos, Tarlac, the two, after buying a duck, repaired to a house

whose owner was not known to Fernando. Cortez went inside the house
with his backpack, leaving Fernando outside the front yard. Not long
thereafter, the police arrived, fired a warning shot, and went inside the
house. After a while, the policemen emerged from the house
accompanied by two individuals who pointed to Fernando as Cortez’s
companion, a fact Fernando readily admitted. The policemen then
proceeded to arrest Fernando on the pretext he and Cortez were earlier
peddling shabu in the town of Paniqui. As they were not able to
apprehend Cortez, the arresting officers had Fernando hold and admit
ownership of Cortez’s backpack earlier taken from inside the house.
Fernando denied ownership of the backpack that contained items
belonging to Cortez, such as but not limited to the cell phone, laptop
computer, driver’s license, and wallet. A bank book and Metrobank
deposit slip signed by Cortez were also inside the bag.

The Ruling of the RTC and CA

After due proceedings, the RTC, invoking, among other things, the
presumptive regularity in the performance of official duties, rendered,
on September 1, 2005, its judgment3 finding Fernando guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of possession of 14.052 grams of the prohibited
drug, methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.
The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment, to pay the fine of P400,000.00 and to pay
the costs.

The Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory who has custody of the 14.052
grams of shabu, subject of this case is hereby ordered to transmit the
same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition
and furnish the court proof of compliance.

SO ORDERED.

Therefrom, Fernando went on appeal to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R.

CR-H.C. No. 01688.

Eventually, the CA issued the assailed decision dated January 22,

2007, affirming that of the trial court, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated September 1,

2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65 of Tarlac City in Criminal
Case No. 12318 finding accused-appellant Fernando Gutierrez y Gatso
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Rule II of
Republic Act No. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.4

The Issues

Undaunted, Fernando is now with this Court via the present recourse
raising the very same assignment of errors he invoked before the CA,
thus:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO

THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT

GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION
11, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165.5

The foregoing assignment of errors can actually be reduced and

summarized to one: the credibility of the testimonies of the three police
officers as prosecution witnesses and the weight to be accorded on said
parol evidence.

The parties chose not to file any supplemental briefs, maintaining their
respective positions and arguments in their briefs filed before the CA.

The Court’s Ruling

The appeal is bereft of merit.

In prosecution proceedings involving illegal possession or sale of

prohibited drugs, credence is usually accorded 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 on the part of the police officers to falsely
ascribe a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the trial court’s
assessment on the credibility of the apprehending officers, shall prevail
over the accused’s self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up. 6

In the case at bench, there is nothing in the records that would dictate
a departure from the above doctrinal rule as far as the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses PO3 Credo, SPO1 Fernandez, and P/Insp.
Dumlao are concerned. We see no valid reason, in fine, to discredit the
veracity of their narration. And as aptly noted by the trial court, there is
no evidence of any ill motive on the part of the police officers who
merely responded to a tip about a drug-pushing incident in their area.
The prosecution’s evidence established the fact that a bona fide follow-
up operation was undertaken following a phone call, reporting some
drug-pushing activities in Poblacion Norte. To recall, PO3 Credo, SPO1
Fernandez, and P/Insp. Dumlao, Chief of the Ramos police station,
made up the team that proceeded to the reported area to check the
veracity of the drug-related call. Upon reaching the target site, they
espied Fernando passing sachets of white crystalline substance. And
Fernando, upon noticing the arrival of policemen, lost no time in fleeing
from the scene. PO3 Credo gave chase and eventually collared the bag-
carrying Fernando and conducted an immediate search on the bag. The
search led to the discovery of two sachets and one small plastic bag
containing suspicious-looking crystalline substance and drug
paraphernalia, among other items.

Thereafter, the police team brought Fernando to the Ramos police

station and a request was immediately made for the examination of the
seized items. After laboratory examination, the white crystalline
substance contained in the sachets was found positive for shabu.

Fernando now questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses

and the weight the trial court gave to their narration of events, laying
stress on the inconsistencies and/or discrepancies of their respective
accounts. The adverted inconsistencies/discrepancies relate to the
place where the police initially spotted and apprehended Fernando and
where the confiscated bag was searched. Fernando urges the Court to
consider: (1) SPO1 Fernandez and P/Insp. Dumlao testified first seeing
Fernando and the three others under a santol tree exchanging sachets
of drugs, while PO3 Credo testified that they (Fernando and three
others) were under a kubo; and (2) PO3 Credo testified that,
immediately upon apprehending Fernando, he searched the latter’s bag
and found the contraband inside. On the other hand, SPO1 Fernandez
and P/Insp. Dumlao placed the search as having been effected in the
police station in the presence of the barangay captain of Poblacion
Norte.

The inconsistencies Fernando cited relate to extraneous matters that do

not in any way affect the material points of the crime charged. The
seeming inconsistency with regard to where Fernando and Cortez
exactly were when the sachets of shabu changed hands––be they in
a kubo, as PO3 Credo mentioned,7 or under a santol tree, as SPO3
Fernandez8 and P/Insp. Dumlao9 asserted––is of little moment and
hardly of any bearing on the central fact of the commission of the crime.
In context, the more important occurrence relates to Fernando and his
companions scampering in different directions when the policemen
chanced upon them, and that Fernando, when apprehended, was
holding a bag which contained shabu and drug paraphernalia—facts
categorically confirmed by the prosecution witnesses. It is perhaps too
much to hope that different eyewitnesses shall give, at all times,
testimonies that are in all fours with the realities on the ground. Minor
discrepancies in their testimonies are in fact to be expected; they
neither vitiate the essential integrity of the evidence in its material
entirety nor reflect adversely on the credibility of witnesses.
Inconsistencies deflect suspicions that the testimony is rehearsed or
concocted. And as jurisprudence teaches, honest differing accounts on
minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen rather than destroy the
credibility of a witness to a crime.10

We took pains in reviewing the transcript of stenographic notes taken

during the trial and found nothing to support Fernando’s allegations of
inconsistencies between or among the prosecution witnesses’ versions
of relevant events. For instance, PO3 Credo testified that, after arresting
Fernando, he immediately searched the bag the latter was
carrying.11 This account does not contradict the testimonies of SPO3
Fernandez12 and P/Insp. Dumlao,13 who both recounted the search
made in the police station in the presence of a barangay captain. As
earlier indicated, it was PO3 Credo who arrested Fernando 14 and had
the opportunity to make the search at the scene of the crime.

On the other hand, SPO3 Fernandez and P/Insp. Dumlao ran after
Cortez and the two others, eventually arresting Cortez, who was initially
included in the original Information.15 What is fairly deducible from the
testimonies of the arresting operatives is that there were two separate
searches actually made: (1) the first done by PO3 Credo immediately
after he arrested Fernando which is the usual and standard police
practice; and (2) a subsequent one effected at the police station where
the bag was apparently marked and its contents inventoried.

The Court notes that immediately after his arrest, Cortez was also
searched but no illegal drugs were found in his person. It was obviously
for this reason that after the original Information was filed following an
inquest, Fernando and Cortez filed a joint Motion for Preliminary
Investigation and/or Re-Investigation. 16 The preliminary investigation
resulted in the filing of the Amended Information that dropped Cortez
as accused paving the way for the dismissal of the charge against him,
but retained Fernando as the sole accused in Criminal Case No. 12318.

To reiterate a long-settled rule, the Court will not disturb the trial
court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, save when it had
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances
of weight and substance which, when considered, will alter the assailed
decision or affect the result of the case. 17 None of the exceptions obtain
in the case at bar.

At the trial, Fernando invoked the defenses of denial and frame-up,

claiming at every opportunity that the bag containing
the shabu sachets and drug paraphernalia belonged to Cortez, not to
him, as the arresting officers would make it appear. To prove this point,
Fernando testified that among the items found in the bag were Cortez’s
driver’s license and wallet.

The defense thus put up deserves scant consideration, because, off-

hand, it stands uncorroborated. Fernando, as may be noted, failed to
present the owner of the house where he and Cortez supposedly went to
and where he allegedly was when arrested, to substantiate his posture
about Cortez being really owning the bag. Certainly, Fernando had the
right to compel the appearance of persons who he believes can support
his defense, but for reasons known only to Fernando, he did not secure
the appearance of the person who could have plausibly lent credence to
his claim of frame-up. As we have time and again held, the defense of
denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor
for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most
prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Here, no clear and convincing evidence was adduced to prove

Fernando’s defense of denial or frame-up. On the contrary, Fernando’s
action while the policemen were undertaking follow-up operations was
what took him behind the bars. The reference, of course, is to the fact
that Fernando hastily fled from the scene of the crime upon noticing the
arrival of the police at the target area.

Fernando’s allegation that the bag the police seized contained Cortez’s
driver’s license and wallet—a futile attempt to avoid culpability over his
possession of the bag—will not save the day for him. First, his assertion
on what the bag contained is belied by the Joint Affidavit 18 of the three
apprehending officers. It was stated under paragraph 5 of their joint
affidavit that the items found in the bag had been duly inventoried. The
items enumerated clearly did not include any wallet or driver’s license
of Cortez. Since said joint affidavit was used in the inquest to indict
Fernando and Cortez, the inventoried items would have included the
license and wallet adverted to, the search of the bag conducted in the
police station having been made in the presence of the barangay
captain of Poblacion Norte.

Second, it bears to stress that Fernando was indicted for illegal

possession of dangerous drugs. In the prosecution of this offense, the
ownership of the bag where the shabu and drug paraphernalia were
found is really inconsequential. The elements necessary for the
prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused
is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug.19 Elucidating on the nature of this offense, the Court in People v.
Tira wrote:

x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not

an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the
accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs.
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in
the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On
the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to
exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.
Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot
avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the
place where the contraband is located, is shared with
another.20 (Emphasis ours.)

Without a trace of equivocation, the RTC and later the CA held that the
prosecution had discharged the burden of proving all the elements of
the crime charged. Since Fernando was caught carrying the
incriminating bag after the police had been tipped off of drug pushing in
the target area, any suggestion that he was not in actual possession or
control of the prohibited drug hidden in the area would be puny. Thus,
ownership of the bag is truly inconsequential.

We emphasize at this juncture that in no instance did Fernando

intimate to the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of
the seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. He,
thus, veritably admits that the crystalline substance in the sachets
found in his bag was the same substance sent for laboratory
examination and there positively determined to be shabu and eventually
presented in evidence in court as part of the corpus delicti. In other
words, Fernando, before the RTC and the CA, opted not to make an
issue of whether the chain of custody of the drugs subject of this case
has been broken. This disposition on the part of Fernando is deducible
from the August 18, 2005 Order21 of the trial court, pertinently saying,
"[The] Acting Provincial Prosecutor x x x and Atty. Emmanuel Abellera,
counsel de officio of the accused manifested that the chain of custody of
the searched illegal drug or shabu is admitted."

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires

that the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims it to be.22 This would ideally
cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the
prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way
that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of
the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. 23

Given the foregoing considerations, particularly the established fact

that the crystalline powder in two sachets the police confiscated from
Fernando in the afternoon of September 12, 2002 was shabu, the Court
is constrained to affirm the judgment of conviction appealed from.

We find the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, to be in

accordance with law. As aptly pointed out by the appellate court, Sec.
11, Art. II of RA 9165 pertinently provides:

SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — 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 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:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred

thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Fernando was caught in possession of 14.052 grams of shabu. Applying

the law, the proper penalty should be life imprisonment and a fine
ranging from PhP 400,000 to PhP 500,000. Hence, Fernando was
correctly sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 400,000.

WHEREFORE, the appeal of accused-appellant Fernando Gutierrez is

hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the January 22, 2007 CA Decision in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01688 is AFFIRMED.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 199898               September 3, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs.
LEO DELA TRINIDAD y OBALLES, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

Before this Court is an appeal assailing the 24 March 2011 Decision 1 of
the Court of. Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04288. The CA
affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25,
Naga City, Camarines Sur finding the accused guilty of violating Section
11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.

The Antecedents

On 22 October 2008, an Information was filed against accused Leo Dela

Trinidad yOballes (appellant) before the RTC, Naga City, Camarines Sur
for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A No. 9165, to wit:

That on or about October 21, 2008, in the City of Naga, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the above-named
accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, custody and control
nine and one-half (9 ½) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves with
fruiting tops weighing more or less 475 grams including its (sic)
wrapper; two (2) big bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves with
fruiting tops weighing more or less 550 grams including its (sic)
wrapper; four (4) pieces of medium size cubes of suspected dried
marijuana leaves weighing more or less 41.1 grams including its (sic)
plastic containers; eighteen (18) pieces of small cubes of suspected
dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops weighing more or less 55.4
grams including its (sic) plastic container; and seventy[-]seven (77)
pieces of small empty transparent plastic sachet, with a total weight of
more or less 1,121.5 grams, which is a dangerous drug, inviolation of
the above-cited law.2

Version of the Prosecution

On 27 September 2008, the Office of the Intelligence Section of the Naga

City Police (Intelligence Section) received an information concerning a
certain Leo De la Trinidad who was allegedly involved in drug
trafficking. Police Senior Inspector Benigno Albao, Sr. (PSI. Albao), Chief
of the Intelligence Section, interviewed the informant and after having
been convinced that the information was true,3 he referred the matter to
Senior Police Officer 1 Feliciano Aguilar (SPO1 Aguilar) and SPO1
Fersebal Abrantes (SPO1 Abrantes) for the conduct of a surveillance
operation for further details.4

The surveillance operation confirmed the identity and exact location of

appellant. The police operatives also observed during the surveillance
that some suspected drug pushers visited the residence of appellant. 5

After having verified the report thatappellant is indeed involved in drug

trade, a test-buy was conducted on 10 October 2008. 6 The test-buy
brought forth positive result as the police asset was able to buy
marijuana cubes, dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops worth
₱100.00 from appellant. After the initial test-buy, the informant was
directed by the police operatives to continue monitoring appellant
because there was a report that the latter is in possession of quantities
of marijuana by the kilo.7

On 13 October 2008, a discussion onthe use of code names was made

by the members of the team in order to conceal the identity of appellant
and to secure their operation.8 The code name is "Leonidas de Leon"
and the name of the plan is "Code Plan Sativa." 9

On 16 October 2008, around 5:30 P.M., another test-buy took place

through SPO1 Aguilar and SPO1 Abrantesand again, the asset was able
to purchase one brick of dried marijuana leaves from appellant. 10

On 17 October 2008, the bricks of marijuana purchased from appellant

on 10 October 2008 and 16 October 2008 were submitted to the
Camarines Sur Police Provincial Office.11

On 20 October 2008, the police operatives applied for two search

warrants from the RTC, Branch 25 in Naga City.12One search warrant
was applied for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 while
the other one was for violation of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A.
No. 8294 or for illegal possession of firearmsand ammunitions because
during the second test-buy, the police asset saw appellant with a gun
which was tucked in his waist.13Upon receipt of the search warrants,
the team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), as shown by the Certificate of Coordination. A pre-operation
report was then submitted to the PDEA.14
The police operatives proceededto conduct a briefing for the execution of
the search warrants. The said briefing was made at the Conference
Room of the Naga City Police Office on 21 October 2008, at about 4:10
A.M.15 The briefing of the teamwas photographed. Among those present
are the members of the raiding team16 and the mandatory witnesses,
i.e.representative from the DOJ, Carlo Lamberto Tayo; media
representative, Roy Ranoco; elected punong barangayof Sabang, Naga
City Jose Jacobo and Kagawad Eugene Froyalde of Sabang, Naga City.

Around 5:10 AM of 21 October 2008, the group proceeded to the

residence of appellant. They wereaccompanied by the DOJ and media
representatives together with the local barangayofficials. Upon reaching
appellant’s house, the raiding team knocked at his door and identified
themselves as police officers from the Naga City Police Office and
informed him that they are executing the search warrants issued by
Judge Jaime Contreras. They told appellant that they have witnesses
with them, and read to him the contents of the warrants and apprised
him of his constitutional rights.17 PO2 Quintin Tusara took picturesof
everything that transpired while the operatives were executing the
warrants.18

When appellant was asked to produce the items enumerated in the

search warrant, if indeed he really had them, appellant voluntarily
presented the items which he took under his pillow. The items
consisted of nine and a half (9 ½) bricks of suspected dried marijuana
leaves sealed with packaging tape, two (2) big bricks of suspected dried
marijuana leaves sealed with packaging tape, four (4) medium sizecubes
of suspected dried marijuana leaves placed inside the small transparent
plastic sachet, and eighteen (18) pieces of small cubes of suspected
dried marijuana leaves placed inside the small transparent plastic
sachet.19 Also found were seventy-seven (77) pieces of empty
transparent plastic sachets. SPO1 Aguilar, placed his initial, "FBA," in
the said items.20

No firearm was found at the residence of appellant. An inventory was

then conducted right inside the house of appellant and a certificate of
inventory was prepared by SPO1 Louie Ordonez. 21 The Certificate of
Inventory and Certification of Orderly Search were duly signed by the
witnesses in the presence of appellant. 22

After making the necessary markings, appellant and the items seized
from him were brought to the Naga City Police Station. 23

The seized items were returned to the court of origin but were
subsequently withdrawn for laboratory examination. 24A request to the
Camarines Sur Provincial Office was subsequently madeby SPO1
Aguilar and the seized items were immediately brought to the Crime
Laboratory for field test examination. 25 The seized items were duly
received by P/Insp. Edsel Villalobos (P/Insp. Villalobos). 26

When subjected to both initial and final test examinations by P/Insp.

Villalobos, the seized items were found positive for the presence of
marijuana.27

Version of the Defense

In the early morning of 21 October 2008, appellant was in his house
located in Sabang, Naga City together with his wife and children.
Somebody knocked at their door, so hepeeped through the window and
asked who was knocking. He noticed a lot of people outside and asked
them who were they. Somebody answered that he was Kapitan, so the
witness opened the door. They entered appellant’s house and
immediately took pictures of it. He was told to just stay at the side and
asked him to bring out the gun and the illegal drugs. When asked to
bring out the illegal drugs, he heard somebody shouted, "I have already
found it." They went near the table, but he was not able to see whatthey
were doing because the table was surrounded by men. At that time, the
appellant was seated on a bamboo chair with his hands placed on his
nape. Thereafter, he was called and asked to sign on a piece of paper.
When he asked what was that for, they told him that they were for the
things found inhis house. A man approached him and read to him the
contents of the warrant. Then, he was handcuffed and brought to the
police station.28

Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision dated 16 November 2009,the trial court found appellant

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The RTC found
that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of the appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No.
9165.

Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and

to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (₱2,000,000.00).

The RTC ruled that the evidence presented during the trial adequately
proved all the elements of the offense.It held that appellant, not being
authorized by law, with full knowledge that the items were dangerous
drugs, had actual and exclusive possession, control and dominion over
the drugs found in his house.29 It likewise held that the officers strictly
complied with the guidelines prescribed by law on how drug operations
should be conducted by law enforcers and in takingcustody and control
of the seized drugs.30 On the other hand, accused failed to present any
substantial evidence to establish his defense of frame-up. The RTC
placed more weight on the affirmative testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, rather than the denials of the accused because positive
testimonies are weightier than negative ones. 31 With the positive
identification made by the government witnesses as the perpetrator of
the crime, his self-serving denial is worthless. 32 Since there was nothing
in the record to show that the arresting team and the prosecution
witnesses were actuated by improper motives, their affirmative
statements proving appellant’s culpability were respected by the trial
court.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, upon a finding that all of the
elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug have been sufficiently
established by the prosecution. It found credible the statements of
prosecution witnesses about what transpired during and after the test-
buy, service of search warrant, and arrest of the accused. Further, it
ruled that the prosecution has proven as unbroken the chain of custody
of evidence. The CA likewise upheld the findings of the trial court that
the entire operation conducted by the police officers enjoyed the
presumption of regularity, absent any showing of illmotive on the part
of those who conducted the same.

The CA likewise found appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up

unconvincing and lacked corroboration. Itnoted that appellant did not
even present his wife, who was allegedly present during the search, to
corroborate his claim.33

Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

Appellant raised in his brief a loneerror on the part of the appellate

court, to wit:

The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the

crime charged despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Our Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

Appellant submits that the trial court overlooked and misapplied some
facts of substance, which if considered, could have altered the verdict.
He maintains that he has no knowledge as to where the illegal drugs
were found as he was not in possession of the same, and alleged
thatthe bricks of marijuana were merely planted by the police
operatives.34

Appellant’s contention is belied by the testimonies of the witnesses for

the prosecution. It bears to stress that the defense of denial or frame-
up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor by this Court for
it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most
prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 35 They are self-
serving evidence, and unless substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, cannot be given weight over the positive assertions of credible
witnesses.36

In the prosecution of illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs,

the following elements must beestablished: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object, which isidentified to be prohibited or
regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 37 As correctly ruled
by the CA, these elements were duly established by the prosecution.
Jurisprudence is consistent in thatmere possession of a prohibited drug
constitutes prima facieevidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused inthe absence of any satisfactory
explanation.38

The ruling of this Court in People v. Lagman 39 is instructive.1âwphi1 It

held that illegal possession ofregulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as
such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the
prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess
(animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not
only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or
control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession
exists whenthe drug is under the dominion and control of the accused
or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the
place where it is found.Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.
The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and
dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with
another.

It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and

paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular
person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof
which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict. 40 Here, accused-appellant
failed to present any evidence to overcome such presumption. He
merely insisted that he was framed and had no knowledge of where the
prohibited drugs came from. In the absence of any contrary evidence,
he is deemed to be in full control and dominion of the drugs found in
his house. Accused-appellant argues that the corpus delictihas not
been clearly established. He points out that although SPO1 Aguilar
allegedly placed his markings on the confiscated items, no such
marking was indicated in the certificate of inventory, nor were the
weight of the said specimens indicated thereon. He further argues that
the markings allegedly placed on the specimens seized were not even
indicated in the return of the search warrant. 41 Thus, he centers his
argument on the contention that the integrity of the dangerous drugs
was not ensured and its identity was not established with moral
integrity.

Relevant to appellant’s case is the procedure to be followed in the

custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs as outlined in
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, which 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/orseized, 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 provision is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) 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 inthe presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative orcounsel, 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, thatthe 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 asthe integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)

Strictly speaking, the aforecited provision of the IRR does not even
require that the certificate of inventory must indicate the markings and
the weight of the seized items. In fact, the rule even sanctions
substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of
custody, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are property preserved by the apprehending officers. In People v.
Pringas,42 the Court recognized that the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field
conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at
all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of
confiscated evidence.

As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish the
integrity of corpus delictiand the unbroken chain of custody. Aptly
noting the findings of the trial court:

It was sufficiently established that representatives from the media and

Department of Justice and even two (2) barangay local officials were
present during the briefing and even until the conduct of the inventory.
And that immediately after seizure and confiscation of the dangerous
drugs, the same were inventoried and photographed in the presence of
appellant and said persons, who even signed copies of the inventory.
The seized illegal drugs were marked at accused’s residence and in his
presence. P/S Insp. Villalobos testified that the seized items he received
from Aguilar already contained the markings, "FBA". Besides, he also
placed his own initials and signatures in blue markings to preserve and
maintain the integrity of the specimens. Thus, there was no cogent
reason why the court should doubt the trustworthiness and credibility
of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 43

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 bear 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.44 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.45 In fact, accusedappellant did not even question the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He anchored his appeal solely
on his allegation of frame-up and denial and on the alleged broken
chain of the custody of the seized drugs.
In sum, we find no reason to modifyor set aside the decision of the CA.
Accused-appellant was correctly found to be guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIEDand the 24 March 2011 Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04288 is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
 
 
FIRST DIVISION
 
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,   G.R. No. 184599
                      Plaintiff-Appellee,  
Present:
   
         -  versus  - CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,
  VELASCO, JR.,
  LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
TEDDY BATOON y MIGUEL and PERALTA,* and
MELCHOR BATOON y MIGUEL, PEREZ, JJ.
                      Accused-  
Appellants. Promulgated:
         
  November 24, 2010
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--x
 
DECISION
 
 
VELASCO, JR., J.:
 
 
                                                The Case
 
This is an appeal from the February 28, 2008 Decision [1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02472 entitled People of
the Philippines v. Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon, which affirmed the
August 11, 2006 Decision[2] in Criminal Case Nos. 11823-12 and
11823-13 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 in Laoag
City.  The trial court held accused-appellants Teddy Batoon and
Melchor Batoon guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No.
(RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

 
                                       The Facts

The charges against accused-appellants stemmed from the

following Informations:

That, on or about July 14, 2005, at Brgy. 14, in the

municipality of San Nicolas, province of Ilocos Norte,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating
and mutually helping each other, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed
plastic sachet containing 0.12345 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as
“shabu” a prohibited drug to a poseur buyer of the police
authorities of INPPO PAID-SOT, Camp Juan, Laoag city who
posed as buyer in a buy-bust operation without authority to
do so.
 
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
 
That on or about July 14, 2005, at Brgy. 14, in the
municipality of San Nicolas, province of Ilocos Norte,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating
and mutually helping each other, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession,
control and custody three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets
containing 0.1559 grams, 0.1168 grams and 0.1337 grams
respectively, of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise
known as “shabu”, a prohibited drug without the authority
or license to possess the same from the appropriate
authority.
 
CONTARY TO LAW.[4]
 
 
          Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the

oral testimonies of Police Officer 2 (PO2) Excel Vicente and PO1 Alizer
Cabotaje of the Philippine National Police Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operations Team (PAID-SOT) of Ilocos Norte in Camp Valentin
Juan, Laoag City. The prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate
on the facts of the testimony of Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Valeriano Laya
II, a forensic chemist of the same office.    

The People’s version of the incident is as follows:

 On July 14, 2005, the PAID-SOT received a report that there was
rampant selling of shabu in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte.
According to the report, brothers Teddy and Melchor Batoon were two of
the most notorious sellers of illegal drugs in the area. [5]

Acting on this information, a team was formed to confirm the

veracity of the report through a buy-bust operation. The team was
composed of P/Insp. Teddy Rosqueta, Senior Police Officer 4 (SPO4)
Angel Salvatierra, SPO3 Arthur Mateo, PO3 Rousel Albano, PO2 Excel
Vicente, PO2 Danny Valdez, and PO1 Alizer Cabotaje. During the
briefing for the operation, PO2 Vicente was designated as the poseur-
buyer. He was given a PhP 500 bill which he marked with the letter “e.”
The briefing was recorded by PO3 Albano in the police blotter.

Thereafter, PO2 Vicente and the police asset proceeded to

accused-appellants’ residence in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos
Norte. The other members of the team followed on board two vehicles.
Upon arriving in the area, the asset approached accused-appellant
Melchor and introduced PO2 Vicente as customer. Melchor informed
PO2 Vicente that the shabu was with his brother, accused-appellant
Teddy. He then asked the money from PO2 Vicente and the latter gave
him the marked PhP 500 bill.[6]  Thereafter, Melchor approached Teddy,
who was about 10 meters away from them. He handed the marked
money to Teddy, who, in turn, gave Melchor a sachet.

Melchor returned to where PO2 Vicente was and handed him the
sachet. Upon receiving the sachet, PO2 Vicente signaled to his
companions by turning his cap, to have its visor at the back of his
head. The other team members rushed to arrest Melchor and Teddy.
PO2 Vicente frisked Melchor and recovered from him one PhP 100 bill,
three pieces of five-peso coins, three pieces of one-peso coin, one jungle
knife, one lighter, and one brown wallet. PO1 Cabotaje got hold of Teddy
and recovered from him the marked PhP 500 bill, six PhP 100 bills, one
candy, and one black coin purse containing three elongated sachets
of shabu. Accused-appellants were then detained in the PAID-
SOT, CampJuan.

Immediately upon reaching the camp, PO2 Vicente and PO1

Cabotaje brought the confiscated sachets to the crime laboratory for
examination. The examination results showed that the four sachets
taken from accused-appellants contained a substance positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The sachet subject of the
buy-bust operation contained 0.1235 gram of shabu. On the other
hand, the three sachets seized from Teddy contained shabu weighing
0.1559 gram, 0.1168 gram, and 0.1337 gram, or an aggregate net
weight of 0.4064 gram.

In their defense, accused-appellants claimed denial and frame-up.

Accused-appellants alleged that in the afternoon of July 14, 2005,
Melchor was seated at the corner of Castro and McKinley Streets
in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte when a car stopped in front
of him. Suddenly, the male passengers of the car alighted, approached
him, and boxed him. Melchor did not know who the men were. Neither
did he know why the men boxed him. Thereafter, the men forced
Melchor to go inside the car.[7]        

Meanwhile, Teddy, who had just come home from the Municipal
Trial Court of San Nicolas, was called by a neighbor and was told that
his brother was being arrested. He ran towards the place where his
brother was, about 30 to 40 meters north of their house. Upon reaching
the place, he asked the men what the commotion was about. Instead of
answering him, however, the men boxed him on the face. Thereafter, he
was also boarded into the vehicle together with Melchor. [8]  The men
then took his money amounting to PhP 1,320 and his mobile phone.

Thereafter, Melchor and Teddy were detained at Camp Juan.

While under police custody, they were continuously maltreated and
mauled.

Charles Tirona, Melchor’s son, Elizabeth Domingo, and Mary Jane

Mariano corroborated the testimonies of accused-appellants as to the
facts and circumstances surrounding accused-appellants’ arrest and
physical abuse in the hands of the police. On the other hand, Emerson
Cabel confirmed that Teddy attended a court hearing in the municipal
hall at around 2:00 p.m. of July 14, 2005. He also testified that he saw
Teddy being boarded into a Wrangler-type jeep. [9]

On August 11, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive

part of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment

finding both accused Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale
of shabu in criminal case NO. 11823 and are, therefore,
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for
each of them to pay the fine of PhP 2,000,000.00. Both
accused are likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as charged of illegal possession of shabu with an
aggregate weight of 0.4064 gram in Criminal Case
No.  11824 and are, therefore, sentenced to suffer the
 indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve
(12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years
as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of PhP
300,000.00.
 
The contraband subject of theses cases are hereby
confiscated, the same to be disposed of as law prescribes,
with costs de oficio.
 
SO ORDERED.[10]

 The case was appealed to the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

 Convinced of the regularity of the buy-bust operation against

accused-appellants, the CA dismissed accused-appellants’ claim of
frame-up and upheld their conviction. Also, it held that the prosecution
was able to prove that the substance submitted for forensic
examination was the same as that seized from the accused.

Hence, we have this appeal.

                                      The Issues

In a Resolution dated November 19, 2008, this Court required the

parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. On January 19,
2009, accused-appellants, through counsel, signified that they were not
going to file a supplemental brief. Thus, the following issues raised in
accused-appellants’ brief dated March 2, 2007 are now deemed adopted
in this present appeal:

                                      I.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-
appellants of the crimes charged despite the prosecution’s
failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs
constituting the corpus delicti of the offenses.
 
                                               II.
The trial court gravely erred in finding that there was
conspiracy in the crime of illegal possession of shabu under
Criminal Case No. 11824 when the alleged confiscated drugs
were seized only from appellant Teddy Batoon’s possession.
 
                                                III.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused
appellant Melchor Batoon of the crime of illegal possession
of shabu under Criminal Case No. 11824 despite the
 prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.[11]
 
 
In essence, accused-appellants question the chain of custody over
the alleged confiscated prohibited drugs and Melchor’s conviction for
illegal possession of shabu. 
 
 
 
 
                             The Ruling of the Court
 
The appeal is without merit.
 
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took
place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit
drug as evidence.[12]
 
There is no question that the police conducted a valid buy-bust
operation against accused-appellants. The positive testimonies of the
police officers show the coordinated efforts of the PAID-SOT to entrap
accused-appellants while in the act of selling a prohibited drug. The
regularity of the performance of their duty on this matter could not be
overturned absent any convincing evidence to the contrary. [13]
 
Accused-appellants hinge their appeal on the alleged failure of the
police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited
and regulated drugs as embodied in Sec. 21(a) of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. They alleged that there was no
conclusive evidence to prove that the substances seized from accused-
appellants were the same substances subjected to examination and
presented in court.
 
We are not convinced. Records show that the chain of custody
over the seized substances was not broken, and that the drugs seized
from appellants were properly identified before the trial court. As
correctly appreciated by the trial and appellate courts, a legitimate buy-
bust operation led to the arrest of accused-appellants. During the police
operation, PO2 Vicente received from Melchor a sachet containing the
drugs.[14] On the other hand, PO1 Cabotaje seized from Teddy three
sachets, also containing drugs.[15] PO2 Vicente and PO1 Cabotaje
marked[16] and separately prepared the certification of the seized items.
[17]
  Thereafter, they personally turned over the items to the crime
laboratory for examination.[18] The police chemist, P/Insp. Laya II, tested
the marked sachets, which turned out positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.[19] Finally, during trial, the same marked sachets were
identified by PO2 Vicente[20] and PO1 Cabotaje.[21]
 
Thus, the forgoing facts confirm that the police officers complied
with the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited drugs.
 
Also, Melchor cannot deny his involvement in the possession of
the shabu. For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to
lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in
possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or
regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the
drug. Notably, exclusive possession of the prohibited drug is not
required. As explained in People v. Huang Zhen Hua:
  
Possession under the law, includes not only actual
possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate
physical possession or control of the accused. On the other
hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the
right to exercise dominion and control over the place where
it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.
The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
control and dominion over the place where the contraband is
located, is shared with another.
 
Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon
exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive
possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of
possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial
evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom.
However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had
knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the
place under his control and dominion and the character of
the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the existence
and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises
dominion and control is an internal act, the same way may
be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the
house or place over which the accused has control or
dominion or within such premises in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation.[22]        
 
 
In this case, although the three sachets containing shabu were
found solely in the possession of Teddy, it was evident that Melchor had
knowledge of its existence. Moreover, as correctly found by the CA,
Melchor had easy access to the shabu, because they conspired to
engage in the illegal business of drugs. The CA explained, thus:
 
 As the records would show, when PO2 Vicente handed
to Melchor Batoon a marked [PhP] 500.00 bill, the latter
went to his brother Teddy and gave him money. Upon
receipt of the money, Teddy Batoon handed a sachet to
Melchor, who then gave it to PO2 Vicente. When the arrest
[was] affected on both of them, the three additional sachets
were found on [Teddy] by PO1 Cabotaje.
 
These acts of the accused indubitably demonstrate a
coordinated plan on their part to actively engage in the
illegal business of drugs. From their concerted conduct, it
can easily be deduced that there was common design to deal
with illegal drugs. Needless to state, when conspiracy is
shown, the act of one is the act of all conspirators. [23]
 
 
Hence, the prosecution successfully adduced proof beyond
reasonable doubt of accused-appellants Melchor and Teddy Batoon’s
guilt of the crimes charged.
 
          WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The February 28, 2008 CA
Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02472 upholding the conviction of
accused-appellants is AFFIRMED.
 
 
SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIET

PANCHO, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

The subject of this review is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR. HC No. 01135 dated 16 July 2012, which affirmed the
Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 57, in
Criminal Case No. CBU 74672, finding accused-appellant Juliet Pancho
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.

The Information filed on 22 September 2005 alleged:

That on or about the 14[th] day of September, 2005, at about 2:40

[p.m.], more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate
intent, did then and there have in [her] possession and under [her]
control three (3) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic bags each of white
crystalline substance weighing 14.49 grams locally known as shabu,
containing [m]ethamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
without authority of law.3ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On arraignment, accused-appellant entered a non-guilty plea. Trial

ensued.

The prosecution witnesses narrated that on the basis of a search

warrant, members of the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Bureau
of Cebu City conducted a search in the house of accused-appellant and
her husband Samuel Pancho located in Sitio Plastikan, Barangay Duljo-
Fatima, Cebu City. Police Superintendent Pablo Labra served the search
warrant on accused-appellant. Police Officer 1 Roy Carlo Veloso (PO1
Veloso) was designated as the searcher, while PO2 Benigno Andrew
Ilagan (PO2 Ilagan) was assigned as the recorder of the raiding team.
The raiding team was accompanied by three barangay tanods. The
search yielded three big plastic packets of suspected shabu weighing a
total of 14.49 grams, which were recovered under a jewelry box placed
on top of a cabinet divider. PO1 Veloso handed the packets of shabu to
PO2 Ilagan who recorded them in the confiscation receipt and made
markings on the plastic packets.

The raiding team brought accused-appellant to the police station. PO1

Veloso accompanied PO2 Ilagan in handing over the seized articles and
the letter-request to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory. The PNP Crime Laboratory later issued Chemistry Report
No. D-1381-2005, confirming that the three heat-sealed transparent
plastic bags, weighing a total of 14.49 grams, were tested positive for
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Chemistry Report
states:

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED

A- Three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic bags each white crystalline

substance having a total net weight of 14.49 grams each with marking
"SW-SP & JP-01 to 03" and further marked as A-l thru A-3. x x x

PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION

To determine the presence of dangerous drugs.

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave

POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, x x x

CONCLUSION:

Specimens A-l thru A-3 contain Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a

dangerous drug.4 x x x

Accused-appellant denied the charge against her and alleged that she
was sewing a blanket in her bedroom on the second floor when two
police officers barged into her room and ordered her to go down. When
she went down, two other police officers came and one of them went up
to the bedroom. After a few seconds, the said police officer went back
down and called the barangay tanods. When the barangay
tanods arrived, accused-appellant was handcuffed and brought to the
police station. Accused-appellant later learned that she was being
charged with illegal possession of shabu.

On 5 October 2009, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-

appellant guilty of illegal possession of shabu and sentencing her to life
imprisonment and to pay a P1,000,000.00 fine.

Accused-appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal 5 before the Court

of Appeals. On 16 July 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment of the RTC, with modification in the fine imposed which was
reduced to P500,000.00.

Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. 6 On 8 July 2013, we issued

a Resolution requiring the parties to file their supplemental briefs, if
they so desire.7 Both parties manifested that they would adopt the same
arguments in their separate briefs filed before the Court of Appeals. 8

Accused-appellant asserts that the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses were plagued with inconsistencies with respect to where the
search of the house started and where the markings were made.
Accused-appellant insists that the barangay tanods should have been
made to testify to corroborate the testimonies of the police officers
relative to the search. Accused-appellant avers that the requisites under
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied
with. Moreover, accused-appellant contends that the packs
of shabu allegedly recovered from her house should first be submitted
to the court which issued the search warrant in accordance with
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) dismisses the inconsistencies

as trivial, and maintains that the elements of the crime of illegal
possession of a prohibited drug were proven by the prosecution. The
OSG agrees that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of
custody of the corpus delicti; and despite the non-compliance with
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution has shown that the
integrity and evidentiary. value of the seized items had been duly
preserved.

Whether accused-appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable

doubt is the crux of this controversy.

In Valleno v. People,9 the Court ruled that -

In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to

prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of
an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2)
such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 10

The prosecution has duly established all these elements. By virtue of a

search warrant, POl Veloso found three packets of suspected shabu in
one of the rooms of accused-appellant's house, thus:
Pros. Lapinid (to witness)
Q: How long have you been a police officer?
A: 4 years.
Q: In September of 2005 can you recall where were you then
assigned?
A: I was assigned at Criminal Investigation and Intelligence
Bureau, Cebu City Police Office.
Q: Specifically on September 14, 2005 at around 2:40 p.m., can
you recall where you were?
A: I was together with the elements of our office led by Police Supt.
Pablo G. Labra because we [were] serving a Search Warrant
against Juliet and Samuel Pancho at Sitio Plastikan, Brgy.
Duljo-Fatima.
Q: You mentioned that you were serving a search warrant. That
search warrant is for what violation of the law Mr. Witness?
A: Violation of Sec. 11 Article II of RA 9165.
Q: Do you have a copy of that Search Warrant with you?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Pros. Lapinid:
We pray your Honor that this certified true copy of the Search
Warrant as certified by Atty. [D]ela Cerna Capacio of RTC
Branch 13 be marked as our Exhibit "D."
COURT Mark it. Pros. Lapinid (to witness)
:
Q: Who were with you at that time Mr. Witness?
A: As I've said, our team created by our Head of Office, Police
Supt. Pablo G. Labra II was serving a Search Warrant at Brgy.
Duljo-Fatima. PO2 llagan and I were designated as searcher
and recorder of the raiding team.
Q: You said that you were designated as the searcher in the
implementation of the Search Warrant. Upon reaching the place
what happened?
A: When we reached at (sic) their place we noticed that their door
was slightly opened.
Q: By the way, before that, could you describe to us what was this
building that you were about to search at that time?
A: It was a two-storey semi-concrete house ma'am.
Q: You mentioned that upon arrival at the area[,] the door was
slightly opened?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And upon seeing that, what did you do?
A: Inside we saw a woman particularly in the living room and we
called her attention that we were serving a search warrant
against the Sps. Juliet and Samuel Pancho.
Q: So after you called the attention of that woman whom you saw
inside the house at the living room what did she do?
A: She walked towards us because we were outside of their house
and this PO2 Ilagan who was in possession of the search
warrant showed to her a copy of the search warrant for her to
read.
Q: And after the woman was shown a copy of that search warrant
by Police Officer Ilagan what happened?
A: When the woman whom we later knew to be Juliet allowed us
to enter the house, we thereafter immediately started the
 search.
Q: Aside from that woman whom you later knew to be Juliet
Pancho, were there other persons inside that house at that
time?
A: I cannot recall anymore ma'am the other persons who were
there inside the house except I, the accused, PO2 Ilagan, and
the three barangay tanods who acted as witnesses.
Q: You mentioned earlier that this Search Warrant was against
Juliet and Samuel Pancho. Do you know where this Samuel
Pancho was at that time that you were conducting the search.
A: He was not around when we began the search.
Q: Did you ask Juliet Pancho where this Samuel Pancho was?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And what was her reply?
A: She replied that Samuel Pancho went out of the house.
Q: You said that after Juliet Pancho was shown a copy of the
search warrant she allowed you to enter the house and
thereafter you immediately conducted the search. Where did
you first start your search?
A: We [began] searching in the living room.
Q: And the living room is located where since you said that it was
a two storey house?
A: It is located in the first floor.
Q: What was the result of your search of the living room?
A: We did not find any contraband or anything that is illegal.
COURT (to witness)
Q: You yourself conducted the search in the living room?
A: The search was conducted by me, together with the recorder
PO2 Ilagan, the three barangay tanods, and the accused.
[COURT]: Proceed prosecutor.
Pros. Lapinid
Q: Considering that you said you did not find any contraband
which was illegal after searching the living room, what did you
do?
A: We continued our search towards the kitchen.
Q: Since you stated that thereafter you searched the kitchen, what
was the result of your search?
A: The result was negative.
Q: And after the search of the kitchen yielded negative result, what
did you do? 
A: We went upstairs and started searching in one of the three
rooms located at the second floor.
Q: You said that there were three rooms at the second floor and
you conducted your search in one of the rooms. At that time do
you know the occupant of this room that you searched first?
A: At first I personally do not know who the occupant of the first
room was. It was later that we knew that the room which we
searched first was occupied by Juliet and Samuel Pancho.
Q: You mentioned that you searched the first room among the
three at the second floor. What was again the result of your
search?
A: When we went inside the room we saw a big divider and on the
divider was a jewelry box which covered the three (3) big plastic
packets of suspected shabu.
Q: Where was Juliet Pancho when you recovered these three (3)
big plastic packets of shabu?
A: She was with the group who conducted the search.
Q: So, you are saying that she (Juliet) was inside the room when
you recovered the items?
A: Yes, ma'am.
COURT
:
Q: What about the three barangay tanods, where were they?
A: They were also inside the room.11
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The three packets of suspected shabu were submitted to the PNP Crime
Laboratory. An examination was conducted on the seized items, and the
result yielded a positive finding for the presence of shabu.

The three packets of shabu were found not on accused-appellant's

person but on top of a cabinet divider inside her room.  Accused-
appellant was deemed to have been in constructive possession of the
packets of shabu because they were under her control and
management.

"[Constructive possession exists when the drug is under  the dominion

and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control  over the place where it is found."12 Accused-
appellant is not authorized by law to possess the shabu. Mere
possession of a regulated drug per seconstitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused
absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus
probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge
or animus possidendi.13 Accused-appellant's bare denials will not suffice
to overcome the  presumption of knowledge.

Accused-appellant emphasizes the inconsistencies in the testimonies of

the two police officers. PO1 Veloso stated that the living room on the
first floor of accused-appellant's house was searched first, while PO2
Ilagan narrated that the search started on the second floor of the house.
Moreover, accused-appellant claimed that PO1 Veloso initially related
that markings were done in the police station, only to backtrack and
declare that markings were done in accused-appellant's house. The
inconsistency on the order of the search is a trivial matter and does not
detract from the fact that all elements for the crime were duly
established. In relation to the marking of the seized shabu, PO1 Veloso
repeatedly declared that the marking was done in accused-appellant's
house, thus:

Q: At the office, the three packs of shabu were marked

subsequently, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So the three packs claimed to be shabu were not marked at the
place or at the room where it was confiscated but in the office?
A: After the search was done, it was already marked in the house of
the accused.
Q: Did you not say earlier that the packs were marked was in the
office because after the confiscation you brought the accused to
the office? Did you not say that earlier?
A: We brought the accused to the office, sir.
Q: I am asking you, did you not say earlier that the packs of shabu
were marked in your office after you brought the accused to the
office? Did you not say that?
A: The shabu was marked, sir.
Q: That indeed you made an answer [to] the statement that the
three packs believed to be shabu were marked in your office
after its confiscation. You told that, right? But later on, you
changed your mind.
A: Because in normal search and seizure after the alleged shabu is
seized, after the search is through, you mentioned the marking
[in] the house. I was mistaken when I said it was marked in the
office.
COURT: (To Witness)
Q: So who made the marking?
A: It was PO2 Ilagan, Your Honor.
ATTY. GONZALE[S]:
May I take in from here, Your Honor.
Q: You said normal, are you saying that all police officers
participating in the implementation of search warrant do that?
A: In our office, sir.
Q: So the marking was done in your office?
COURT: (To Atty. Gonzale[s])
The procedure in their office is to have the shabu marked at the
scene.
That is what he mean[t].
ATTY. GONZALES:
I was not able to get that way, Your Honor.
Q: You know officer Mendaros, SPO4 Mendaros?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: He is with your office, correct?
A: Yes, sir.14

It was actually accused-appellant's lawyer who asked if the markings

were done at the office, and PO1 Veloso inadvertently answered in the
affirmative, but he immediately corrected himself when the mistake was
pointed out to him.

The non-presentation of the barangay tanods is not fatal to the case of

the prosecution. The more relevant testimonies are those of the
members of the raiding team who testified that they recovered packets
of shabu from accused-appellant's house.

With respect to non-compliance with procedure laid down in the seizure

and custody of prohibited drugs, the primordial consideration is the
preservation of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.

Section 21 of R.A. 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[.]

The provisions of Article II, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules

and Regulations (1RR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide:

SECTION 21. x x x.

(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[.]ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Accused-appellant cites as an irregularity the failure of the prosecution

to present photographs of the seized items and that there were no
representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
during the conduct of the inventory of the seized items.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 (a) of R.A. No.

9165 offer some flexibility when a proviso added 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." 15

In People v. Salvador,16 this Court ruled that the failure to submit in

evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the
photograph, as well as the absence of a member of the media or the
DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, is not fatal and
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." 17

In the instant case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was
not broken. The prosecution established that PO1 Veloso seized three
packets of shabu from the bedroom of accused-appellant. He handed
them over to PO2 Ilagan, who made markings on the items and
prepared a confiscation receipt of the same while in appellant's house.
PO2 Ilagan brought the confiscated shabu to the police station where he
prepared a letter-request addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory. It was
PO2 Ilagan, accompanied by PO1 Veloso, who went to the PNP Crime
Laboratory to bring the specimen and the letter-request. PO2 Roma
received the shabu and forwarded the same to the forensic chemist.
The chain of custody was testified to by the police authorities. Clearly,
the recovery and the handling of the seized illegal drugs were
satisfactorily established in this case.

The failure of the members of the raiding team to deliver the seized
items to the judge who issued the warrant becomes immaterial because
records show that the chain of custody is intact.

Accused-appellant was caught in possession of 14.49 grams of shabu or

methamphetamine hydrochloride. The illegal possession of dangerous
drugs is punishable under Section 11, paragraph 2(1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if
the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10)
grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams[.]

We affirm the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. It was specified

in the Information that the shabufound in the possession of the
accused-appellant weighted 14.49 grams. This weight is as certified to
in the Chemistry Report. Such weight is within the range stated for by
law.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 16 July 2012 of the Court of Appeals

CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 01135 affirming the conviction of accused-
appellant Juliet Pancho by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,
Branch 57, for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary