Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

EIGHTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-appellee,

Members:
GONZALES-SISON,
- versus - Chairperson
MARTIN, and
*
PASCUA, JJ.

KING ERIC MATEO y Espinal Promulgated:

a.k.a. “ERIC KING MATEO y 15 JANUARY 2021
Espinal” and “King,” __________________
Accused-appellant.
x=========================================x

DECISION

Martin, J.:

This is an ordinary appeal under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court

assailing the Judgment1 dated 11 September 2019 of the Regional Trial
Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 16, Cavite City (RTC),
convicting King Eric Mateo y Espinal (Mateo), a.k.a. “Eric King Mateo
y Espinal” and “King” for illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case
No. 423-16.

THE FACTS

In a Criminal Information dated 18 August 2016, Mateo was

charged with violating Section 11,2 Article II, Republic Act No. 9165
* Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 135-21-RSF dated 25 May 2021.
1 Records, pp. 80-87.
2 Section 11, R.A. No. 9165 provides:
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 2 of 14
DECISION
===============

(R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002,” as amended the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

That on or about August 17, 2016, in the City of Cavite, Republic of

the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without legal authority, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly have in his possession and
control thirty two (32) pieces heat sealed transparent plastic sachets of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as “shabu”, a dangerous
drug, with total net weight of 5.13 grams.”

Contrary to law.3

When arraigned on 06 April 2018, Mateo, assisted by counsel de

officio, pleaded “not guilty”4 to the offense charged. On the same day, pre-
Section 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:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and
those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated
by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
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;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging
from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine,
heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA,
TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three
hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging
from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or
if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.
3 Id., p. 15.
4 Id., Certificate of Arraignment, p. 40.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 3 of 14
DECISION
===============

trial was held wherein the prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate on
the jurisdiction of the RTC, the identity of Mateo and the qualification of the
forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Maridel R. Martinez (PCI
Martinez) as an expert witness. The defense counter-stipulated that PCI
Martinez had no knowledge of the source and the manner of the seizure of
the specimens subject of the instant case.5 Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued.

Police Officer 1 Bryan Rosal (PO1 Rosal) identified his Sinumpaang

Salaysay ng Humuli6 he executed together with PO1 Alnisar Hasan (PO1
Hasan) which essentially stated that he was a member of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) assigned at Cavite City Police Station. PO1 Rosal
stated that around 4:30 a.m. of 17 August 2016, they implemented a search
warrant7 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs against Mateo at Pulo I,
Barangay 8, Dalahican, Cavite City. PO1 Rosal stated that he was the
designated search officer of the team composed of Police Superintendent
Alladin Gaffud Tamayo, PO2 Eugene C. Torejas (PO2 Torejas, team leader)
and PO1 Hasan (recorder/photographer), and that their operation had
coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). PO1
Rosal averred that on the said day, the team proceeded to the house of
Mateo together with Punong Barangay Rogelio Quisol, Jr. (P/B Quisol, Jr.),
Kagawad Ronald T. Isaias (Kagawad Isaias), and media personality Rossel
Calderon (Calderon) to witness the implementation of the search warrant.
According to PO1 Rosal, Mateo allowed them to search his house after
introducing themselves as cops, telling him of their purpose, and showing
him the search warrant.

PO1 Rosal further stated that he searched the kitchen and the living
room of Mateo's house, but that he did not find any illegal drugs so he
proceeded to search Mateo's bedroom where he found a red nylon wallet
hidden beneath the mattresses of the bed. PO1 Rosal averred that when he
opened the said wallet it contained 32 heat sealed plastic sachets of
suspected shabu which PO1 Hasan immediately photographed. PO1 Rosal
narrated that he marked the wallet with “KM” while the sachets of shabu
were marked accordingly with “KM-1” to “KM-32” and that PO1 Hasan,
thereafter, inventoried the seized items in the presence of Mateo, P/B Quisol,
Jr., Kagawad Isaias and Calderon. PO1 Rosal stated that the said witnesses
signed on a Receipt of Inventory of Property Seized Items and on a
Certification of Orderly Search and Seizure. According to PO1 Rosal, he
apprised Mateo of his violations and his constitutional rights as an arrested
person and that Mateo was subsequently brought to their station as well as
the seized items which remained in his possession. According to PO1 Rosal,
5 Id., Order and Pre-trial Order, pp. 37-39.
6 Id., Exhibit ”A”, pp. 58-59.
7 Id., Exhibit ”C”, p. 61.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 4 of 14
DECISION
===============

at the station, their investigator prepared the requests for medical/physical

examination and chemical examination and that Mateo was thereafter
brought to Dra. Salamanca Hospital. PO1 Rosal disclosed that he brought
the seized sachets of suspected illegal drugs to the Cavite Provincial Crime
Laboratory for the requisite forensic examination which were received by
PCI Martinez. PO1 Rosal stated that the suspected illegal drugs yielded
positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as per
Chemical Report No. D-1720-16. PO1 Rosal also identified in open court
the sachets of shabu that he recovered from the house of Mateo by virtue of
the subject search warrant.

The presentation of PO1 Hasan and PCI Martinez were dispensed

with as the parties agreed to the following stipulations:

With respect to PO1 Hasan:

1. That he is the recorder and photographer

of the search team;

2. That he prepared the Receipt of

Inventory of Property Seized; and

3. That he and PO1 Rosal failed to sign the

Receipt of Inventory of Property Seized.8

With respect to PCI Martinez:

(1) That she received the specimen subject

of this case;

(2) That she conducted qualitative and

quantitative examinations on the
specimens submitted to her; and

(3) That she stated the results of her

examinations in a Chemistry Report No.
D-1720-16.9

On the other hand, Mateo testified that around 2:00 a.m. of 17 August
2016, he was sleeping in his house when cops barged in, kicked and
handcuffed him.10 Mateo averred that his house was subsequently searched
8 Id., Order dated 08 June 2018, pp. 50-51.
9 Id., Order dated 25 May 2018, pp. 47-48.
10 TSN, 06 February 2019, pp. 4-5.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 5 of 14
DECISION
===============

without showing him any search warrant and that the cops did not find any
illegal drugs.11 Mateo stated that he was, nevertheless, arrested and brought
to the police station where he was detained on the pretext that something
was recovered from his house.12

On 11 September 2019, the assailed Judgment was issued the

dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered finding accused King Eric Mateo GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for violation of Section 11 (2), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging
from TWENTY YEARS (20) as minimum to TWENTY FIVE (25)
years as maximum, and to pay a FINE of FOUR HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P400, 000.00).

The object evidence pertinent to accused King Eric Mateo, the five
point thirteen (5.13) grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, is hereby
ordered confiscated in favor of the government and to be disposed of in
accordance with Section 21, R.A. 9165, as amended, and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.13

On 17 September 2019, Mateo filed a Notice of Appeal which the

RTC gave due course in an Order dated 18 September 2019.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS'
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 9165.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

11 Id., p. 5.
12 Id., pp. 5-6.
13 Supra, note 1, p. 87.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 6 of 14
DECISION
===============

ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 OF

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IDENTITY, INTEGRITY AND
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DRUGS HAD
BEEN PRESERVED THROUGH AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF
CUSTODY.

III.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
OFFICIAL DUTIES.

IV.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE

CREDENCE TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF
DENIAL IN LIGHT OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION'S
CASE.14

THE COURT’S RULING

The prosecution failed to comply

with the chain of custody rule

In convicting Mateo, the RTC held that the prosecution was able to
successfully discharge its burden of overcoming the constitutional
presumption of his innocence and in proving his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The RTC also gave credence to the regularity in the performance of
the arresting officers in the implementation of the search warrant against
Mateo.

It must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire

case for review, and thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct,
cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are
assigned or unassigned.15 An appeal confers upon the appellate court
jurisdiction to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from,
increase (or reduce) the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
law.16 The appellate court may, and generally does, look into the entire
records to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked,
misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.17
14 Rollo, Brief for the Accused-Appellant, pp. 28-46, pp. 31-32.
15 People v. Libre, et al., G.R. No. 235980, 20 August 2018 citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225
(2015).
16 Geroche, et al., v. People, G.R. No. 179080, 26 November 2014, citing Garces v. People, 554 Phil. 683,
696-697 (2007).
17 Id., People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 201723, 13 June 2013.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 7 of 14
DECISION
===============

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes

the very corpus delicti of the offense18 and the fact of its existence is vital to
sustain a judgment of conviction.19 It is essential, therefore, that the identity
and integrity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty.20 Thus,
in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on its identity, the prosecution has
to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each
link in the chain of custody from the moment the drug is seized up to its
presentation in court as evidence of the crime.21 In People v. Que,22 the
Supreme Court explained the links that the prosecution must establish, to
wit:

What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory,

marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items
allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make
their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an
investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where
they are introduced as evidence. Hence, the four (4) links were
underscored in Nandi: first, from the accused to the apprehending officers;
second, from the apprehending officers to the investigating officers; third,
from the investigating officers to the forensic chemists; and fourth, from
the forensic chemists to the courts. The endpoints of each link (e.g., the
accused and the apprehending officer in the first link, the forensic chemist
and the court in the fourth link) are preordained, their respective
existences not being in question. What is prone to danger is not any of
these end points but the intervening transitions or transfers from one point
to another.

In this connection, the pertinent provisions of Section 21(1) of R.A.

No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody rule provides that:

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
18 People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, 02 August 2017.
19 Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679, 686 (2016).
20 People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, 10 January 2018.
21 People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, 21 February 2018.
22 G.R. No. 212994, 31 January 2018 citations omitted.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 8 of 14
DECISION
===============

representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the

Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]

Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)

supplements the procedure to be followed in R.A. 9165 and it states:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or
at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.

R.A. No. 10640 which became effective on 07 August 201423

amended R.A. No. 9165, to wit:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items 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, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
(emphasis supplied).

The foregoing amending law is the statute to be observed in this case

as Mateo was arrested on 17 August 2016. In People v. Que,24 the Supreme
23 Lindongan v. People, UDK, 15 February 2021.
24 G.R. No. 212994, 31 January 2018 citations omitted.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 9 of 14
DECISION
===============

Court discussed the salient points of R.A. No. 10640, Section 21(1), to wit:

As amended by Republic Act No. 10640, Section 21(1) uses the disjunctive
"or," i.e., "with an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media." Thus, a representative from the media and
a representative from the National Prosecution Service are now alternatives to
each other.

Section 21(1), as amended, now includes a specification of locations where

the physical inventory and taking of photographs must be conducted. The
amended section uses the mandatory verb "shall" and now includes the
following proviso:

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: ...(Emphasis supplied)

Lescano v. People summarized Section 2l(1)'s requirements:

As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21(1) of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, requires the performance
of two (2) actions: physical inventory and photographing. Section 21(1) is
specific as to when and where these actions must be done. As to when, it must
be "immediately after seizure and confiscation." As to where, it depends on
whether the seizure was supported by a search warrant. If a search warrant
was served, the physical inventory and photographing must be done at
the exact same place that the search warrant is served. xxx xxx
(emphasize supplied).

The chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165, as amended
fulfills this rigorous requirement25 in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 26 In People v. Beran,27
the Supreme Court explained the concept of chain of custody, to wit:

Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of “chain of
custody,” Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series
of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 nonetheless explains the said
term, as follows:

“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements

and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources
of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and

25 People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, 23 August 2017, citing People v. De Leon, 624 Phil. 786. 800
(2010).
26 Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008.
27 G.R. No. 203028, 15 January 2014.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 10 of 14
DECISION
===============

signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized

item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition[.]

The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure

that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, as
thus dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. To be
admissible, the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the
continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the
possession of the police officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to
determine its composition, and all the way to the time it was offered in
evidence.

Here, PO1 Rosal claimed that the marking, physical inventory and
photographing of the seized sachets of shabu were witnessed by P/B Quisol,
Jr., Kagawad Isaias and media man Calderon who all allegedly signed the
Receipt of Inventory of Property Seized Items 28 and the Certification of
Orderly Search and Seizure.29 However, a close examination of the said
inventory receipt refutes PO1 Rosal's assertion that the said witnesses signed
the same in as much as the said receipt, instead, only shows that P/B Quisol,
Jr. and a certain barangay tanod Alvin D. Oma signed the same. Moreover,
the said inventory receipt supports the stipulated testimony of PO1 Hasan
that he and PO1 Rosal failed to sign the same.

More significantly, no explanation was given by the prosecution why

media man Calderon failed to sign the said inventory receipt despite the
arresting officers' allegation that Calderon was present during the
implementation of the search warrant. Here, the said inventory receipt is
proof certain that media man Calderon did not witness the marking and
inventory of the seized illegal items. When confronted with the inventory
receipt during the cross-examination, PO1 Rosal admitted that the signature
of Mateo, a representative from the DOJ, or media does not appear thereon. 30
Indubitably, the requirement that the marking and inventory of the seized
illegal drugs must be made in the presence of two mandatory witnesses was
not satisfied.

As earlier stated, Section 21 of RA 9165 as amended by R. A. No.

10640, requires the apprehending officers to conduct the physical inventory
of the seized items and the photographing of the same in the presence of the
required witness, “all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof.” Similarly in the case of People v.

28 Records, Exhibit “G,” p. 65.

29 Id., Exhibit “F” p. 64.
30 TSN, 08 August 2018, p. 13.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 11 of 14
DECISION
===============

Del Mundo31 wherein a mandatory witness did not sign the inventory form of
the seized illegal drugs despite his presence during the inventory, the
Supreme Court held that:

The Court notes that while the prosecution witnesses testified that the
seized items were physically inventoried and photographed in the presence
of the accused-appellants and Gargullo, they were not made to sign the
inventory. Instead, a certain Ocampo, Sr. was made to sign the inventory. It
must be noted that Ocampo, Sr. is not among those persons required by the
law to witness and sign the inventory as he did not represent the accused-
appellants, the media, or the Department of Justice. Neither was he an
elected public official.

xxx xxx

In this case, no explanation was offered by the prosecution for failing to

comply with the requirements in Section 21. There is no justifiable ground
for its failure to require the accused-appellants and the elected public
official to sign the inventory if they were indeed present during the physical
inventory. The absence of Garguilo and the accused-appellants' signatures
on the inventory raises the suspicion that the physical inventory was made
without their presence, in violation of the requirements under the law.

More importantly, the Court opines that the evidentiary value and integrity
of the illegal drugs seized have been compromised. The prosecution failed
to sufficiently establish an unbroken chain of custody.

In this case, a barangay tanod was made to sign the inventory receipt
instead of Kagawad Isaias who was allegedly present during the search.
Likewise, the arresting officers also did not explain whether Mateo refused
or just failed to sign on the inventory receipt. Adding more reason to doubt
the veracity of the prosecutions' witnesses is PO1 Rosal's claim that the
supposed witnesses had signed the Certification of Orderly Search and
Seizure but, in fact, the said document was only signed by PO2 Torejas, PO1
Rosal, and PO1 Hasan.

Significantly, even the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Humuli jointly

executed by PO1 Rosal and PO1 Hasan failed to provide answers to the
foregoing lapses in violation of the mandatory policy enunciated in People v.
Lim.32 In the said case, the Supreme Court held that:

[I]n order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested
docket any orchestrated or poorly built-up drug-related cases, the following
should be enforced as a mandatory policy with regard to drug-related cases,
to wit:
31 G.R. No. 208095, 20 September 2017.
32 G.R. No. 231989, 04 September 2018. cited in People v. Bancola, G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019,
citations omitted.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 12 of 14
DECISION
===============

1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must

state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No.
9165, as amended, and its IRR.

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing

officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the
steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized/confiscated items.

3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn

statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file
the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further
preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of
probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court
may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or
warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in
accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.

To reiterate, the seized drug itself is the corpus delicti of the crime
charged, it is of utmost importance that there be no doubt or uncertainty as to
its identity and integrity. The State, and no other party, has the responsibility
to explain the lapses in the procedures taken to preserve the chain of custody
of the dangerous drug. Without the explanation by the State, the evidence of
the corpus delicti is unreliable, and the acquittal of the accused should
follow on the ground that his guilt has not been shown beyond reasonable
doubt.33

Verily, on the first link alone, the prosecution failed to remove the
doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the illegal drugs
presented by the arresting officers during the trial of this case. The rule is
imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered
from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and
that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. 34 Hence, there would
be no need to proceed to evaluate the succeeding links or to determine the
existence of the other elements of the charges against the appellants. 35
Clearly, the case for the prosecution had been irreversibly lost as a result of
the weak first link irretrievably breaking away from the main chain.36

The presumption of regularity in

33 People v. Breciro, G.R. No. 218428, 07 November 2018, citing People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121
(2013).
34 People v. Guzon, G.R. No. 199901, 9 October 2013.
35 People v. Arposeple and Sulogaol G.R. No. 205787, 22 November 2017.
36 Id.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 13 of 14
DECISION
===============

the performance of official duties

does not apply here

In the case at bar, the presumption of regularity on the part of arresting

officers cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of
Mateo considering the evident procedural lapses in their handling of the
seized illegal drugs. In People v. Kamad,37 the Supreme Court held that:

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the
seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody,
a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made
in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute
authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure
in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the
record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct
of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its
face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we
noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The

assailed Judgment dated 11 September 2019 in Criminal Case No. 423-16 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. King Eric Mateo y Espinal a.k.a. “Eric King
Mateo y Espinal” and “King” is ACQUITTED of the crime charged
against him on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The Director of Prison, Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison,

Muntinlupa City is hereby ORDERED to immediately RELEASE King
Eric Mateo y Espinal a.k.a. “Eric King Mateo y Espinal” and “King” from
custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to inform
this Court of the date of his actual release from confinement, within five (5)
days from receipt of a copy of this Decision.

Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RONALDO ROBERTO B. MARTIN
Associate Justice

37 G.R. No. 174198, 19 January 2010, citations omitted.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13533 Page 14 of 14
DECISION
===============

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

MARLENE GONZALES-SISON BONIFACIO S. PASCUA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the opinion of the Court was written.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARLENE GONZALES-SISON
Associate Justice
Chairman, Eighth Division