FIRST DIVISION CRIMINAL CASE NO.
14823-D
G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIL GALICIA Y CHAVEZ, Accused-
Appellants.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This resolves the appeal filed by Ramil Galicia y Chavez (appellant) assailing the March 22,
2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 04637 which affirmed the
December 19, 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154, in
Criminal Case Nos. 14821-D, 14822-D, 14823-D, and 14824-D finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 6, 11, 12, and 15, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 6, 11, l 2, and 15, Article II of RA 9165 allegedly
committed as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14821-D
(For violation of Section 6, Article II, RA 9165)
That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, without any lawful authority, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maintain a drug den located at the compound along F.
Soriano Street, Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City, where dangerous drugs and/ or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals arc administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes,
distributed, sold, or used in any form, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14822-D
(For violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165)
That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not having been lawfully authorized to
possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, and knowingly have in his possession, custody, and control the following:
    a) 0.16 [gram] 'RLB-1'
    b) 0.15 [gram] 'RLB-2'
    c) 0.15 [gram] 'RLB-3'
    d) 0.13 [gram] 'RLB-4'
    e) 0.11 [gram] 'RLB-5'
    f) 0.19 [gram] 'RLB-6'
    g) 0.11 [gram] 'RLB-7'
    h) 0.15 [gram] 'RLB-8'
totalling 1.15 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. commonly known as 'shabu' a
dangerous drug, and twenty (20) unsealed transparent plastic sachets and four (4) aluminum
foils (specimen J [RLB-10], specimen L [RLB-12], specimen M [RLB-13], specimen Q [RLB-17]),
each containing traces of 'shabu' in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
(For violation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165)
That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawful1y.
knowingly, and feloniously use, sniff, inhale, or introduce to [his] body, in any manner,
methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as 'shabu', a dangerous drug, in violation of
the aforecited law.
Contrary to law.5
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14824-D
(For violation of Section 12, Article II, RA 9165)
That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, and knowingly have in his possession, custody, and control the following, to wit:
    a) One (1) digital Tanika black weighing scale
    b) One (1) digital Tanika blue weighing scale
    c) Seven (7) disposable lighters and
    d) Four (4) stainless scissors
    e) Five (5) improvised aluminum tooters
which are fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. Joint trial on the merits followed.
Version of the Prosecution
Arnel Tugade (Tugade), a camera man of the television program "Mission X," received an
anonymous call regarding a shabu tiangge inside the Mapayapa compound along F. Soriano
Street, Pasig City where there was rampant selling and use of shabu. Tugade verified the tip by
bringing a camera in the compound where he conducted an undercover surveillance and filmed
the drug-related activities he witnessed inside the said compound.
On January 30, 2006, Tugade went to the oft1ce of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations
Task Force (AIDSOTF) to report the rampant selling and use of shabu within the said
compound. Tugade showed the PNP Chief Director and other officers of the AIDSOTF a 15
minute video showing several persons selling and using shabu inside shanties found within the
compound.
After watching the surveillance footage, Police Senior Inspector Ismael G. Fajardo, Jr. (P/Insp.
Fajardo, Jr.) was instructed to conduct further surveillance of the activities inside the compound,
P/Insp. Fajardo, Jr. assigned PO2 James Nepomuceno (PO2 Nepomuceno) to accompany
Tugade inside the compound to take another video of the compound and to conduct a test-buy.
On January 31, 2006, PO2 Nepomuceno and Tugade went to the compound and conducted a
surveillance. They were able to take video footage of several persons selling and
using shabu inside the compound. They were also able to conduct a test-buy of shabu worth
P300.00. The following day, PO2 Nepomuceno and Tugade conducted another test-buy inside
the compound and they were able to buy P100.00 worth of shabu. Both specimen were
submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory fbr examination and both tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
After reviewing the results of the laboratory examination, P/Insp. Fajardo, Jr. reported the same
to Superintendent Eduardo Acierto (Supt. Acierto) who, in turn, made his own report to General
Marcelo Ele (Gen. Ele). Gen. Ele verified the findings and ordered an aerial and ground
surveillance of the compound. Further test-buys were again conducted in the area which
confirmed the reported rampant selling and use of shabu therein.
Since the reported selling and use of shabu in the compound were confirmed, Gen. Ele
instructed P/Insp. Fajardo Jr. to apply for a search warrant before the RTC. P/Insp. Fajardo, Jr.
applied for a search warrant and presented PO2 Nepomuceno and Tugade as witnesses.
Pictures of persons who were positively identified as sellers and maintainers of drug dens were
submitted along with video footage taken by Tugade and the rest of the "Mission X" crew
showing drug transactions and use of shabu.
On February 9, 2006, Executive Judge Natividad A. Giron-Dizon of the RTC of Quezon City
issued Search Warrant No. 4271(06).7 Gen. Ele was tasked with the supervision and
implementation of the search warrant while Supt. Acierto was the designated ground
commander.
On February 10, 2006, around 200 men under the command of Supt. Acierto from the joint
forces of the Philippine National Police (PNP) AIDSOTF, Special Operations Unit (SOU), Special
Action Force (SAF), Traffic Management Group (TMG), and Scene of the Crime Operative
(SOCO),joined by members of the media and representatives from the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD), raided the Mapayapa Compound to serve Search Warrant
No. 4271-06 against several persons who were alleged to have been engaged in selling and
possessing dangerous drugs and shabu paraphernalia as well as maintaining a drug den inside
the said compound. More than 300 persons were arrested in the raid, 212 of whom were
charged in court for various violations under RA 9165. Appellant was one of the persons
arrested and charged with the following violations: maintenance of a drug den in violation of
Section 6, RA 9165; illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 respectively, RA 9165; and use of dangerous drugs in violation of Section
15, RA 9165.
There were numerous shanties inside the compound requiring the raiding team to divide the
compound into different target areas. Assigned to implement the search warrant in Target No. 8
was the team of PO2 Roberto Beascan8 (PO2 Beascan), SPO2 Roberto Agbalog (SPO2
Agbalog), P/Insp. Ancieto Pertoza9 (P/Insp. Pertoza) and P/Supt. Melecio M. Buslig, Jr. When
the team entered the target area, persons found inside scampered away. P/Insp. Pertoza
presented the search warrant to appellant who was then found inside the shanty designated as
Target No. 8. together with his pregnant wife. Appellant attempted to flee but the team was able
to place him under control. The team then proceeded to search the premises.
Appellant and his wife were inside the shanty during the search. Appellant was sitting in front of
a drug paraphernalia when the team started to conduct its search. In the course of their search,
the team found appellant's driver's license inside a wallet found in the sala. The team discovered
that the address of the appellant as stated in his driver's license was F. Soriano St., Sto. Tomas,
Pasig City, which was the same as the address of Target No. 8. The team likewise noticed that
the appellant had a picture of himself inside the house although the same was not seized since it
was not listed in the search warrant. When interviewed by the team, appellant admitted that he
was the owner of Target No. 8 although this admission was made without the presence of
counsel.
In the course of the search, the team was able to find and seize from the appellant plastic
sachets containing crystalline substances, weighing scale, cellphone, assorted lighters, wallet
containing dollars and a few coins, aluminum foil, and assorted cutters and scissors. The seized
items were marked and inventoried in the Receipt of the Property Seized at Target No. 8. The
seized items were handled by SPO2 Agbalog. Appellant was informed of his rights and
thereafter arrested. Appellant, along with the other persons arrested in the compound, were then
brought to Camp Crame.
Meanwhile, the seized items were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory where results yielded
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Likewise, Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Angel Timario
reported that the urine sample taken from appellant tested positive for the presence of
dangerous drugs.
Version of the Defense
For his defense, appellant claimed that in the morning of February 10, 2006, he was with his
pregnant wife on their way to a hospital for a check-up. They were about to board a tricycle
when men in uniform who looked like soldiers stopped them and ordered them to inside the
Mapayapa Compound.
Inside the compound, appellant was ordered to join a group of men who were arrested and were
lying face down on the ground. His wife was brought to an area inside the compound where she
joined several other females who were also arrested. They were all brought to Camp Crame and
were thereafter processed and were charged with various violations under RA 9165.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On December 19, 2007, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 154 rendered judgment finding appellant
guilty as charged. The RTC was convinced that the prosecution, through the testimonies of the
arresting officers who conducted the search, was able to establish the guilt of appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In the cases for violation of Section 6, R.A. 9165 (maintenance of a den)
xxxx
The accused Rosalino Babao and Ramil Galicia are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 6 of R.A. 9165 and they are hereby sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment; they are also ordered to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 EACH.
xxxx
In the cases for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 (possession of dangerous drugs)
The following accused are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of
possession of dangerous drugs as charged against them in the information to wit:
Ronnie Catubig Crim. Case No. 14618-D
Aiko Escullar Crim. Case No. 14621-D
Ramil Galicia Crim. Case No. 14822-D and
Roy Bohol Montefero Crim. Case No. 14617-D
and each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SEVENTEEN (17)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS of imprisonment.
xxxx
Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of P400,000.00
In the cases for violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia)

The accused ROSALINO BABAO, RAMIL GALICIA and ABUBACAR MAUNA SALIC are
hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165
(possession of drug paraphernalia). They are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of ONE (1) YEAR and ONE (1) DAY to THREE (3) YEARS of
imprisonment.
Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00
xxxx
In the cases for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 (use of dangerous drugs)
The following accused are hereby found GUILTY, it being established beyond reasonable doubt
after a confirmatory test that they used dangerous drugs (shabu/marijuana), to wit:
xxxx
20. Ramil Galicia - Crim. Case No. 14823-D
xxxx
They are hereby ordered to undergo rehabilitation in a government rehabilitation center for a
period of ONE (1) YEAR or until they are fully cured/rehabilitated.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.10
Aggrieved by the RTC's Decision, appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On March 22, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision and held as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 19 December 2007 issued by the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 154, in Criminal Case Nos. 14821-D, 14822-D,
14823[-D], and 14824[-D] is hereby AFFIRMED
SO ORDERED.11
Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, and after denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, appellant
filed a Notice of Appeal12 dated December 19, 2014 manifesting his intention to appeal the CA
Decision to this Court.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether appellant is guilty of maintenance of a drug den, illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, and use of dangerous drugs. According
to appellant, the RTC erroneously convicted him in view of the fact that the prosecution failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in all the offenses charged.
Our Ruling
The appeal is partly meritorious.
In Criminal Case No. 14821-D, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant was guilty of
maintenance of a drug den.
Appellant was charged with maintenance of a drug den in violation of Section 6, Article II of RA
9165 which provides:
SEC. 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. - 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 or group of persons who shall maintain a
den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain
a den, dive, or resort where any controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in
any form.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed in every case where any
dangerous drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in
such a place.
Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in
such den, dive or resort, the penalty of death and a fine ranging from One million
(P1,000,000.00) to Fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000.00) shall be imposed on the maintainer,
owner and/or operator.
If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person, the same shall be confiscated and
escheated in favor of the government: Provided, That the criminal complaint shall specifically
allege that such place is intentionally used in the furtherance of the crime: Provided, further, That
the prosecution shall prove such intent on the part of the owner to use the property for such
purpose: Provided, finally, That the owner shall be included as an accused in the criminal
complaint.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who
organizes, manages or acts as a 'financier' of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a 'protector/coddler' of any
violator of the provisions under this Section.
A drug den is defined under Section 3(l) of RA 9165 as follows:
(1) Den, Dive or Resort. - A place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or
used in any form.
For an accused to be convicted of maintenance of a drug den, the prosecution must establish
with proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is maintaining a den where any dangerous
drug is administered, used, or sold. It must be established that the alleged drug den is a place
where dangerous drugs are regularly sold to and/or used by customers of the maintainer the
den. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court:
To convict an accused under this section, the prosecution must show that the place he is
maintaining is a den, dive, or resort where dangerous drug is used or sold in any form. Hence,
two things must be established, thus: (a) that the place is a den - a place where any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential [chemical] is administered, delivered, stored for
illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form; (b) that the accused maintains the said
place. Hence, it is not enough that the dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia were found
in the place. More than a finding that dangerous drug is being used thereat, there must also be
a clear showing that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where
the dangerous drug is used or sold.13 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case however, the evidence relied upon by the RTC to convict the appellant of
maintenance of a drug den consists of the following: (1) existence of drug paraphernalia inside
the shanty known as Target No. 8; (2) the appellant's driver's license allegedly found in the living
room; and (3) appellant's picture found inside the shanty.14
said that you found specifically among others the driver's license of the accused Ramil
Galicia. Where exactly did you find that driver's license?
The prosecution presented the testimonies of PO2 Beascan and SPO3 Agbalog to establish that
appellant was maintaining a drug den. They testified that when they served the search warrant
for Target No. 8, they saw drug paraphernalia inside the shanty, appellant's driver's license and A: It is contained in a wallet, sir.
picture. PO2 Beascan narrated as follows:
Q: [W]here did you find that wallet containing the driver's license?
[PROSEC. TOLENTINO:]
A: In the sala, sir.
Q: When you searched the area, what did you find out?
Q: Were you able to see for yourself the driver's license?
A: [W]hen we searched target no. 8, we found some plastic sachets containing crystallin;
substance, weighing scale, cell[ph]one, assorted lighters, wallet containing dollars and A: Yes, sir.
some coins.
xxxx
xxxx
Q: What was the address indicated in the driver's license?
Q: And after these items were seized, what did you do with the person with whom you
presented the search warrant? A: I cannot recall the address, sir.

A: We told him his rights. Q: Is it the same address as the address where you implemented the search warrant?

Q: You mean to tell us you arrested him? A: No, sir.

A: Yes, sir. xxxx

Q: What did you do next? Q: So you are not sure if the address indicated in the driver's license is the same address
as the one written on the search warrant you implemented as F. Soriano street?
A: We proceeded to our office, sir.
A: I am not sure, sir.
Q: And to whom did you turn over the person of Ramil Galicia?
xxxx
A: To our office, sir[,]
Q: Since you are not surre whether the accused is really the owner of that target no. 8
Q: By th way, how did you corne to know his name? because your only connection to this mutter is the driver's license, [is it] also possible
that the accused is only a visitor?
A: By virtue of the ID we recovered from the target area, sir.
A: No, sir, because he has a picture inside the house.16
Q: What kind of ID was that?
After scouring through the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to
A: Driver's license. sir. clearly establish that the appellant was guilty of violation of maintenance of a drug den. From ihe
testimonies of the arresting officers, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish that the
shanty where appellant was found was a place where dangerous drugs were sold or used. The
Q: Where did you find that driver's license?
prosecution's witnesses merely testified that when they entered Target No. 8, they found drug
paraphernalia inside the shanty and sachets of crystalline substance in the person of the
A: Inside the target area, sir.
appellant. The prosecution failed to allege and prove an essential element of the offense - that
dangerous drugs were being sold or used inside the shanty located at Target No, 8. What was
Q: In what part of the target area? clear was that appellant was caught in possession of shabu and drug paraphernalia. There was
nothing in evidence that would indicate that the arresting officers saw that dangerous drugs were
A: In a small living room, sir. being sold and/or used at Target No. 8 in the course of the search of the premises. Since there
was no evidence that dangerous drugs were sold and/or used in the shanty located at Target
Q: What else did you find in that target area no. 8? No. 8, appellant may not be held liable for violation of Section 6, Article II, RA 9165 on
maintenance of a drug den.
A: Weighing scale, drug, aluminum foil.15
Moreover, the Court is not convinced that the appellant's driver's license and picture allegedly
During cross examination, PO2 Beascan added:
found inside the shanty can serve as a valid basis for convicting him of maintenance of a drug
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, during the time that you implemented the search warrant, you also den. First, these items do not prove that the shanty was being used as a drug den. The driver's
license and picture only bolster the allegation of appellant's ownership or occupation of the
shanty. It did not establish the fact that the shanty was a drug den. Second and more
importantly, these items were not offered in evidence and were not part of the records of the
case. The arresting officers testified that they did not seize the driver's license and picture
because the search warrant they enforced only authorized them to confiscate dangerous drugs
and drug paraphernalia. Consequently, the Court will not convict an accused based on evidence
that does not appear on the record of the case. Mere assumptions or conjectures cannot
substitute the required quantum of evidence in criminal prosecution.
An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is the quantum of evidence required to sustain appellant's conviction of
maintenance of a drug den. Based on all the foregoing, the Court is constrained to acquit the
appellant of violation of Section 6, Article II, RA 9165 for insufliciency of the prosecution's
evidence.
Use of dangerous drugs is absorbed by illegal possession of drugs.
Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, provides:
A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug,
after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII
of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a
fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested
is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug
provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein
shall apply.
It is clear from the above that the Section 15 does not apply when a person charged with
violation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, is also found to have
possession of such quantity of drugs provided under Section 11 of the same law. This means
that appellant may not be charged separately of violation of Section 11 on illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and of Section 15 on use of dangerous drug since it is clear from the above
that the provisions of Section 11 shall apply. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the
use of dangerous drugs. This is especially true in this case since appellant was not caught in the
act of using drugs. Instead he was caught in the act of possessing drugs and drug
paraphernalia. For this reason, the Court dismisses Criminal Case No. 14823-D against
appellant on use of dangerous drugs as the same is absorbed by Section 11 on illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.
Appellant is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.
Appellant was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs after being caught whh eight
sachets of shabu with a total amount of 1.15 grams in his possession. Likewise, appellant was
charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia for having possession of seven disposable
lighters, five improvised aluminum foil tooters, four sheets aluminum foil, and two weighing
scales. The relevant provisions of the law provides as follows:
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.
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess
or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit
or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various
professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary
implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or
intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima
facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself, injected,
ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this
Act.
SPO2 Agbalog testified that he confiscated the eight sachets of shabu from the appellant whom tooters marked as "RLB-10", "RLB-12", "RLB-13", and "RLB-17" tested positive for the presence
he identified in open court. His testimony was, as follows: of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.19 Finally, the same sachets and aluminum foil tooters were
presented and turned over to the court where SPO2 Agbalog declared that the said items were
Q: And with these seized items [which] specially contains this plastic sachet, 8 packs
the same items that were seized from the appellant.
containing crystalline substance upon seizing the same or confiscating the same at
Target No. 8, what did you do?
The failure of the prosecution to present the forensic chemist to testify on how the seized items
were handled and taken into custody is not fatal to the admissibility of the seized drugs and its
A: I turned it over to Robert Biascan, sir. paraphernalia. In People v. Padua,20 the Court held:
Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in
Q: And what did this police officer do after you have turned it over to him? court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that
imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly
A: He made the markings, sir. established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the
drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of
Q: I am showing to you a plastic sachet, brown envelop will you please go over the same the drugs should take the witness stand. x x x
and tell us what is this in relation to this plastic sachet containing this shabu that you What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
have found in Target No. 8? seized drugs. In this case, the Court upholds the findings of the CA that the shabu and its
paraphernalia that were presented in court were the same items seized from the appellant with
A: These are the same items that we have confiscated, sir. its integrity and evidentiary value uncompromised.

Q: And those were confiscated from where, Mr. Witness? Based on the evidence on record, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the CA in
Criminal Case Nos. 14822-D and 14824-D on illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug
A: From the accused Ramil Galicia, sir. paraphernalia.

Q: Where, from the person or in the place? WHEREFORE, the March 22, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR H.C. No.
04637 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
A: From the person of the accused, sir.
1. In Criminal Case No. 14821-D for violation of Section 6, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165,
xxxx appellant Ramil Galicia y Chavez is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence;

2. Criminal Case No. 14823-D for violation of Section 15, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165
Q: What were the items that you have confiscated from the accused?
is DISMISSED.
A: These items, sir. These 8 plastic sachets, sir.17 SO ORDERED.
With regard to the alleged drug paraphetnalia found in the possession of appellant, PO2
Beascan testified that aside from the plastic sachets of shabu, they also found drug Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, and Tijam, JJ., concur.
paraphernalia consisting of aluminum foil used for heating shabu, improvised aluminum foil Martires,*J., on official leave.
tooters used for inhaling the smoke emitted when shabu is heated, disposable lighters, and
weighing scales. Endnotes:
The Court finds that the prosecution sufllciently established appellant's possession of drugs and
drug paraphernalia, Both PO2 Beascan and SPO3 Agbalog categorically declared that they
found the drugs and the drug paraphernalia in the possession of the appellant during the course *
 Designated as addition member per October 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due
of the implementation of the search warrant.
to prior action as Solicitor General.
Chain of custody of the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia. 1
 CA rollo, pp. 352-372; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in
by Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
With regard to the alleged failure of the police officers to comply with the procedure required in
the seizure of drugs, the records show that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken 2
 Records, pp. 131-215; penned by Judge Abraham B. Borreta.
chain of custody over the seized drugs - from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the
delivery of the same to the crime laboratory and presentation in Court. As correctly held by the 3
 Id. at 1-2.
CA, the police officer properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
when SPO2 Agbalog and PO2 Beascan seized and marked the sachets of shabu with the 4
 Id. at 32-33.
markings "RLB-1 to RLB-8" and "RLB-9-RLB17" for the aluminum foil tooters. Thereafter, the
items were inventoried under the Receipt of 5
 Id. at 35.
18
Property Seized.  PO2 Beascan then delivered the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory for 6
 Id. at 38-39.
examination. In the Initial Laboratory Report No. D-122-06 dated February 11, 2006 by Forensic
Chemist P/Insp. Alejandro C. De Guzman, "RLB-1" to "RLB-8" as well as the aluminum foil 7
 Id. at 12.
 That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the
8
 Spelled as "Biascan" in some parts of the records. jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maintain in his house at 21 Tagaytay St., Caloocan
9
 Spelled as "Partosa" in some parts of the records. City, a drug den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are habitually dispensed for use by the
customers and addicts.4
10
 Id. at 210-215.
11 Crim. Case No. C-82010 (Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
 CA rollo, pp. 371-372.

That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and
control dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newsprint and contained in transparent
plastic "tea bag" marked "ELS-21-8-09-06" weighing 1.0022 grams, when subjected for
laboratory examination gave positive result to the tests for Marijuana, a dangerous drug.5

Crim. Case No. C-82011 (Violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)

That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and
control several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag, several pieces of used
plastic sachet in a transparent "tea bag," and a plastic tube intended for sniffing
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.6

THIRD DIVISION In relation to Criminal Case No. C-82009 where Santos was charged for maintaining a drug den,
Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores (LoquinarioFlores) who was found inside the house of Santos
during the service of the search warrant, was charged with violation of Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. No.
January 17, 2018
9165.7

G.R. No. 223142

When arraigned, both Santos and Loquinario-Flores pleaded not guilty.8 Joint trial of the cases
thereafter ensued.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
Version of the Prosecution
ROLANDO SANTOS ZARAGOZA, Accused-Appellant

DECISION
MARTIRES, J.:
This resolves the appeal of accused-appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza (Santos) seeking the
reversal and setting aside of the 6 August 2014 Decision1 and 2 March 2015 Resolution2 of the
Court of Appeals, Fourth Division (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 05851, affirming the Decision3 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City, in Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and
C-82011 finding him guilty of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of
Drug Paraphernalia under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, respectively.
THE FACTS
Accused-appellant Santos was charged before the RTC of Caloocan City with three (3) counts of
violation of certain provisions of R.A. No. 9165, viz:
Crim. Case No. C-82009 (Violation of Sec. 6, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
The prosecution tried to prove its cases against Santos through the testimony of Special
Investigator Elson Saul (Saul), Agents Jerome Bomediano (Bomediano), Henry
Kanapi (Kanapi) and Atty. Fatima Liwalug (Atty. Liwalug), all from the Reaction, Arrest and
Interdiction Division (RAID) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and Nicanor Cruz,
Jr. (Cruz), of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division (FCD).
Prior to the application on 20 August 2009 by Atty. Liwalug for a search warrant before the RTC,
Manila, the RAID-NBI received information from their confidential informant that there was a
group of individuals at Tagaytay St., Caloocan City, selling drugs and using minors as runners.
After Atty. Liwalug interviewed the informant, she, along with an NBI team and the technical staff
of Imbestigador, a GMA Channel 7 investigative program, went to the reported area to conduct
surveillance. The actual surveillance, where videos were taken of the buying, selling, and use of
drugs in the different houses on Tagaytay St., lasted for two weeks. During the first test-buy,
Bomediano was able to buy shabu from Santos alias "Rolando Tabo." Two informants were
used by the NBI for the surveillance but the spy camera was attached to only one of them. The
informants were able to buy drugs from Santos and to use them inside his house.9
The first video,10 taken by the staff of Imbestigador, showed the informants going inside a
makeshift house on Tagaytay St. which, according to one of the informants, was owned by
Santos. He was shown standing in front of a table while preparing the paraphernalia to sniff
shabu. Also shown in the video was Jenny Coyocot, the adopted daughter of Santos, who,
according to the informant, sold foil for the price of ₱2.00 per strip. The second video11 depicted
Erwin Ganata Ayon telling Jack, one of the occupants in Santos' house, "pasok kami sa bahay ni
Tabo."12 The videos were turned over by Mean de Chavez of Imbestigador to Atty. Liwalug.13
On 21 August 2009, Kanapi, Saul, Bomediano, and SI Junnel Malaluan, armed with a search
warrant,14 proceeded to the house of Santos on Tagaytay St. Kanapi and Malaluan guarded the
perimeter of Santos' house to ensure that no one could exit from or enter the house during the
service of the search warrant. Previous to the service of the warrant, the NBI RAID
coordinated15 with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the officials of the barangay, and the
media.16
Saul knocked on the door of Santos' house. When nobody answered despite several minutes of
waiting, the NBI team broke open the door. Saul, Bomediano, Malaluan, and
the Imbestigator team proceeded to the second floor where they found a person who identified
himself as Rolando Santos. Saul told Santos that the team was from the NBI and that they were
to serve a search warrant on him, which copy was actually shown to Santos. The team waited
for the representatives from the DOJ and the barangay before conducting the search.17
During the conduct of the search at the living room on the second floor of the house, Saul found
inside the bedroom and beside the bed of Santos several used and unused foil strips either
crumpled or rolled, the size of a cigarette stick. The foil strips,18 numbering fourteen, were found
inside a baby powder container.19 He also found unused small plastic sachets.20 Saul placed the
foil and plastic sachets on the center table in the living room. When Saul frisked Santos, he
found marijuana leaves wrapped in paper on the right pocket of his pants. Saul informed Santos
of his constitutional rights and placed the marijuana leaves on top of the center table. Saul
searched the rooms on the second floor but found nothing. From a trash can in the kitchen, Saul
found used small transparent sachets which he also placed on the center table. Loquinario-
Flores, who was caught on video selling to the informant aluminum foil to be used with drugs,
and two minor children were found on the first floor of the house. The children admitted that they
were part of a gang in the area.21
Santos, Assistant City Prosecutor Darwin Cañete, Kagawad Magno Flores, and media
representative Eugene Lalaan of lmbestigador witnessed the inventory22 of the seized items by
Saul and when he marked them. Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the two minors were brought to
the NBI office. When Saul returned to the NBI office after the operation, he submitted the seized
items to the NBI forensic chemist. A joint affidavit of arrest23 was thereafter executed by Saul,
Malaluan, Bomediano, and Kanapi.24
The testimony of Cruz, the forensic chemist, was dispensed with after the parties agreed to
stipulate on the matters he would testify and after a short cross-examination by the defense.
Version of the Defense
The version of the defense was established through the testimony of Loquinario-Flores, Santos,
and Renamel Destriza (Destriza).
On 21 August 2009 at about 3:00 p.m., while Santos was alone at home playing his guitar, the
NBI team armed with long firearms suddenly arrived looking for a certain Roland Tabo. Santos
was made to lie face down and thereafter was frisked. The team took Santos' money amounting
to ₱140.00 and his house was searched in the presence of a kagawad from Quezon City but the
search team found nothing. As a result, the team brought out foil, lighters, and marijuana and
took pictures. Loquinario-Flores was inside the house that time as she was called by Destriza to
help bring down from the second floor an elderly who was hit by the door when the NBI team
forcibly opened it. Loquinario-Flores was no longer allowed to leave while Destriza, who was
carrying a child that time, was allowed to go out of the house. Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the
other persons arrested were brought to the NBI office. It was only during the inquest held the
following day that Santos was informed that he was being charged of violating the provisions of
R.A. No. 9165 and allowed to see the items allegedly seized from him.25
The Ruling of the RTC
The RTC26 ruled that the entry in the house of Santos by the NBI team and the subsequent
confiscation of the paraphernalia and marijuana were valid and legal since the team had a
search warrant. Moreover, it held that the search was conducted following proper procedure.
Thus, the R TC resolved the cases as follows:
Premises considered, this court finds and so holds the accused Rolando Santos y Zaragoza
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 6, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and
imposes upon him the following:
(1) In Crim. Case No. C-82009, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00);
(2) In Crim. Case No. C-82010, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00); and
(3) In Crim. Case No. C-82011, the penalty of Imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱l0,000.00).
Further, in Crim. Case No. C-82012, accused Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores was likewise
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 7 of the above-cited law and
imposes upon her the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen
(14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).
The drugs and drug paraphernalia subject matter of these cases are hereby confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
The Ruling of the CA
Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the RTC, Santos appealed before the Court of Appeals.
In Criminal Case No. C-82009, the CA, Fourth Division27 ruled that the RTC should not have
given much weight to the video footages because these were not identified and authenticated by
the confidential informant who took them. It held that the prosecution failed to present any
witness who had personal knowledge and who could have testified that Santos' house was a
drug den. The team, on the other hand, failed to show that Santos or any other person was
committing illegal activities inside the house. It found that the testimony of the confidential
informant was essential and indispensable for the conviction of Santos because the NBI agents
did not have any personal knowledge as to the alleged illegal activities in the house that would
characterize it as a drug den.28
In Criminal Case No. C-82012, because of its ruling that the prosecution failed to establish that
Santos was maintaining a drug den, the CA held that it necessarily followed that Loquinario-
Flores, pursuant to Sec. 11 (a), Rule 12229 of the Rules of Court, must be exonerated of the
charge against her for violating Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. 9165. Despite the fact that Loquinario-
Flores did not appeal, the CA relied on the dictum that everything in an appealed case is open
for review by the appellate court.30
In Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011, the CA held that the prosecution was able to show
the guilt of Santos beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the testimony of Saul was
straightforward and that there was no proof that he had ill motive to testify against Santos. On
the other hand, it found the defense of frame-up put up by Santos was self-serving which failed
to rebut the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution; and that the alleged
inconsistencies in the testimonies of Kanapi and Bomediano were on trivial and immaterial
details that do not affect their credibility.31 Hence, the appeal of Santos was decided as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 26 September 2012
of the lower court is MODIFIED as follows:
1. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82010 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;
2. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82011 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;
3. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82009 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of maintaining a Drug Den under Section 6,
Article II of RA 9165 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza is
hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-82009 for insufficiency of evidence.
4. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82012 finding the accused Imee Baltazar Lquinario-
Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Visiting a Drug Den under Section
7, Article II of RA 9165 is likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE. She is hereby ACQUITTED
in Criminal Case No. C-82012 for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Santos sought for a partial reconsideration32 of the decision of the CA insofar as it affirmed his
conviction in Crim. Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011. Finding no persuasive grounds or
substantial bases to reconsider, however, the CA denied the motion.33
ISSUES
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND RESONABLE
DOUBT.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE
INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUGS.
OUR RULING
The appeal is without merit.
It bears to stress that while an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven
guilty, the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the
weakness of the evidence of the defense.34The Court firmly holds that the prosecution was
able to successfully discharge its burden of overcoming the constitutional presumption
of innocence of Santos and in proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case
Nos. C-82010 and C-82011.
The findings of the trial court and the appellate
court as to the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses are binding and conclusive upon the Court.
Santos claimed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were indecisive, conflicting,
and contradictory; as opposed to the version of the defense which was consistent,
straightforward, and complementary with each other.35
To justify his claim, Santos averred that when Saul first testified he stated that the second floor
of the house had a living room, kitchen, and two rooms. It was when Saul allegedly frisked
Santos that he found several used and unused aluminum foil and a sachet of marijuana, but
nothing was found inside the two rooms. When Saul was again put on the witness stand, he
allegedly admitted that the five disposable lighters and the strips of aluminum foil were found
inside Santos' bedroom.36
Contrary to the claim of Santos, the testimonies of Saul were not inconsistent with each other.
When first put on the stand, Saul admitted that he found the strips of aluminum foil in the living
room; and that when he frisked Santos he found in the right pocket of his pants the marijuana
leaves wrapped in paper.37 Clearly, Saul was forthright in stating where he found the used and
unused aluminum foil and the marijuana. Saul never claimed that the strips of aluminum foil
were found on the body of Santos.
When Saul testified again, he described in detail that the strips of aluminum foil were found
inside a plastic baby powder container.38 Although Saul claimed that he found these in the
bedroom of Santos, the Court took note of the fact that in most houses in urban areas, the
living room is also used as the bedroom. What is important is that Saul was consistent that
he found the strips of aluminum foil on the second floor of the house where the living room and
bedroom were located.
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.39 The truth that the strips of aluminum foil
were found in the house of Santos and the marijuana in his body, had not been successfully
controverted by him. In fact, there was but the lame defense of frame-up offered by Santos to
overcome the presumption. Enlightening at this point is the jurisprudence in People v.
Lagman, 40 viz:
It held that illegal possession of regulated 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 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.41
The contention of Santos that the members of the raiding team gave an altogether different
account as to who actually witnessed the implementation of the search warrant,42 is a trivial and
inconsequential matter that does not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. These
matters do not deal with the central fact of the crime. Besides, it has been held, time and again,
that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the
witnesses' credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a
rehearsed testimony.43
In stark contrast, the defense of denial proffered by Santos cannot prevail over the positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses. A defense of denial which is unsupported and
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving deserving
no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward,
and probable testimony on affirmative matters.44 Courts generally view the defense of denial with
disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense.45
Equally important is that it is the general rule that "the factual findings of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight
thereof, as well as its conclusions on the credibility of the witnesses on which said findings were
anchored are accorded great respect. This great respect rests in the trial court's first-hand
access to the evidence presented during the trial, and in its direct observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor while they testify on the occurrences and events attested to."46 Settled also
is the rule that factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding
on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness,
capriciousness, or palpable error.47 Let it be underscored that appeal in criminal cases throws
the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.48 The
Court had assiduously reviewed the records but found nothing to qualify these cases as falling
within the exception to the general rule.
Santos asserted that the search warrant was only for an undetermined amount of shabu; thus,
the discovery of the incriminating items other than that described in the warrant must result from
bodily search or seized in plain view to be admissible in evidence.49
The assertion of Santos has no merit considering that he did not question the admissibility of the
seized items as evidence against him during the trial of these cases. It was only when he
appealed the decision of the RTC before the CA that he raised the issue as to the admissibility
of the seized items. Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is that no question will be entertained
on appeal unless it has been raised in the lower court.50
There was an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized drugs and paraphernalia.
It was the position of Santos that there was doubt as to the whether the marijuana and
paraphernalia seized from him were the very same objects offered in court as corpus delicti. He
claimed that there was no explanation given regarding the items confiscated from Santos from
the time these were seized until their turnover for laboratory examination.51
"Corpus delicti is the 'actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.' In illegal
drug cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself. "52
The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) - the policy making and strategy formulating body in the
planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control tasked to
develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified, and balanced national drug abuse
prevention and control strategy53 - has expressly defined chain of custody involving dangerous
drugs and other substances in the following terms in Sec. l(b) of DDB Regulation No. I, Series of
2002,54 to wit:
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition.55
The exacting requirement as to the chain of custody of seized drugs and paraphernalia is
highlighted in R.A. No. 9165 as follows:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs. Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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;
On the one hand, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) settles the proper procedure to
be followed in Sec. 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165, viz:
(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case
of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirement" under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.
The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be established in the
chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by
the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court.56
On the first link, jurisprudence dictates that '"(M)arking' is the placing by the apprehending officer
of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps
ensure that the dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs
subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police
station or at some other practicable venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with
the 'chain of custody' rule requires that the 'marking' of the seized items - to truly ensure that
they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence -
should be done (I) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon
confiscation.57
Saul testified that after he gathered the drug paraphernalia and the marijuana which he
confiscated from Santos, he prepared the inventory of seized items/property58 in the presence of
Santos, and the respective representatives of the DOJ, media, and the barangay. In addition to
the inventory, he marked the confiscated items as follows:
1. five (5) pieces of disposable lighters "ELS-21-8-09"
2. several pieces or strips of unused aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-01"
3. several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-02"
4. several pieces unused small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-03"
5. several pieces used small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-04"
6. one (1) improvised plastic pipe "ELS-21-8-09-05"
7. undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped m newspaper "ELS-21-8-09-06"
Anent the second and third links, on the same day that Saul arrived at the NBI RAID office after
the service of the search warrant, he forthwith prepared the disposition form59 for the turnover of
the seized items to the FCD. The seized items were received by the FCD on 21 August 2009 at
11:05 p.m. A certification60 dated 21 August 2009 was likewise issued by the FCD confirming
that the confiscated items marked as "ELS-21-8-09- 02", "ELS-21-8-09-04", and "ELS-21-8-09-
05" yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and positive
results for marijuana for "ELS-21-8-09-06". On 25 August 2009, the FCD released its Dangerous
Drugs Report Nos. DDM-09-0861 and DD-09-47.62
On the fourth link, the testimony of Cruz was dispensed with after the parties had agreed to
stipulate on the following facts:
That he is an expert witness, and as such is of the receipt of a letter request dated 21 August
2009;
That attached to the letter request were several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil marked as
ELS-21-8-09-02; several pieces of used small plastic sachet marked as ELS-21-8-09-04; one (1)
improvised plastic pipe marked as ELS-21-8-09-05, and undetermined amount of marijuana
leaves and seed wrapped in a newspaper marked as ELS-21-8-09-06;
That he conducted laboratory examination on the specimen submitted to their office, the result of
which he reduced into writing as evidenced by Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-08, stating
that upon examination conducted on the dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newsprint
gave positive results for "marijuana" and by Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-47, stating
that upon examinations conducted on the several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent
plastic bag; several pieces of used plastic sachets in a transparent "tea bag" and a plastic
sachet tube gave positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
respectively;
That he issued a Certification dated 21 August 2009 to the effect that he conducted examination
upon the above-mentioned specimen submitted to their office.63
As opposed therefore, to the claim of Santos, there was no significant gap in the chain of
custody of the seized items. Moreover, the assertion of Santos that the forensic chemist did not
testify to explain the measures undertaken to preserve the integrity and identity of the substance
examined until their presentation in court,64 has no merit. As earlier mentioned, both the
prosecution and the defense had agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist
upon stipulation on certain facts. Moreover, the defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-
examine the forensic chemist but, as revealed by the records, his cross-examination never dealt
on matters pertaining to the measures carried out by the NBI team to maintain the integrity of the
confiscated items.
In the same vein, it needs to be stressed that Cruz is a public officer; thus, his reports carried the
presumption of regularity.1awp++i1 Besides, Sec. 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law,
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.65 It necessarily follows that the findings of
Cruz as contained in Dangerous Drugs Report Nos. DDM-09-08 and DDM-09-47 were
conclusive in view of the failure of the defense to present evidence showing the contrary.
Noteworthy, the legal teaching in our jurisprudence is that "the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the
evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bears the burden of showing that the
evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in
the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly
discharged their duties."66 Santos had miserably failed in presenting any evidence that would
justify a finding that the NBI team had ill motive in tampering with the evidence in order to hold
him liable for these grave offenses.
The prosecution was able to fully discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt its
charges against Santos.
In Crim. Case No. C-82010, Santos was charged with and convicted of violation of Sec. 11, Art.
II of R.A. No. 9165,67 the elements of which are as follows: (1) the accused is in possession of an
item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.68
Saul testified that when he frisked Santos, he found marijuana in the right pocket of his pants.
Santos did not offer any explanation on why he was in possession of the marijuana or if he was
authorized by law to possess the dangerous drug. Based on the Dangerous Drugs Report No. ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
DDM-09-08, the dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in newspaper and contained in the Associate Justice
transparent plastic tea bag marked as "ELS-21-8-09-06" and which gave a positive result for
marijuana, had a net weight of 1.0022 grams.
ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
(₱300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00), shall be imposed if the quantity
of marijuana is less than three hundred (300) grams. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Pesos (₱300,000.00) as imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, is hereby sustained. Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
In Crim. Case No. C-82011, Santos was convicted of violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No.
9165,69 its elements being as follows: (1) possession or control by the accused of any CERTIFICATION
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
possession is not authorized by law.70
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 Court's Division.
Saul testified that when he served the search warrant on Santos at his house on 21 August
2009, he found thereat several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag, several
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
pieces of used plastic sachet in a transparent tea bag, and a plastic tube intended for sniffing
Chief Justice
shabu, which he respectively marked "ELS-21-8-09-01 ," "ELS-21-8-09-04," and "ELS-21-8- 09-
05." Similar to the marijuana, Santos failed to justify his possession of these items. Significantly,
Dangerous Drugs Report No. DD-09-47 showed that the examination made on the washings of
these confiscated items yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride.

Pursuant to Sec. 12, Art. 11 of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) Footnotes
months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos
(₱10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) shall be imposed for violation of this 1
 Rollo, pp. 2-21.
provision of the Act. Finding no error in the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and one
(1) day to four (4) years, and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱l0,000.00) imposed by the RTC, 2
which was affirmed by the CA, the Court hereby maintains the same.  CA rollo, pp. 189-190.

3
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 6 August 2014 Decision and 2 March 2015  Records, pp. 408-422.
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Division in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 05851 are
hereby AFFIRMED. 4
 Id. at 277.

SO ORDERED. 5
 Id. at 25.

SAMUEL R. MARTIRES 6
 Id. at 48.
Associate Justice
7
 Id. at 269, docketed as Crim. Case No. C-82012.
WE CONCUR:
8
 Id. at 174.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice 9
Chairperson  TSN, 29 March 2011, pp.10-12; TSN, 4 October201 l, pp. 15-17.

10
 Records, p. 336, Exh. "O."
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice Associate Justice 11
 Id.; Exh. "0-1."
12 31
 TSN, 4 October 2011, p. 18; TSN, 8 November 2011, pp. 4-6.  Id. at 18-19.

13 32
 TSN, 8 November 2011, p. 8.  CA rollo,pp.173-179.

14 33
 Records, p. 343-344; Exh. "G."  Id. at 189-190.

15 34
 Records, pp. 347-348; Exhs. "N" and "N-1."  People v. Calantiao, 736 Phil. 661, 674-675 (2014).

16 35
 TSN, 4 October 2011, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29 September 2010, p. 10; TSN, 9 March 2011,  CA rollo, p. 58.
p. 5.
36
 Id.
17
 TSN, 29 September 20 10, pp. 7-10.
37
 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-12.
18
 Exh. "K."
38
 TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-5.
19
 Exh. "L."
39
 People v. Dela Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 358 (2014).
20
 Exh. "M."
40
 593 Phil. 617, 625 (2008), citing People v. Tira, 474 Phil. 152, 173-174 (2004).
21
 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-14, 24; TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29
March 2011, pp. 15-16; TSN, 4 October 2011, p.10. 41
 People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 348.
22
 Record s, p. ", 45 , E x h . "H ." 42
 CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
23
 Id. at 330-332, Exhs. "I", "1-1", and "1-2." 43
 People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150, 172-173 (2013).
24
 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp.14-17, 20 and 25-26. 44
 People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 402(2014).
25
 TSN, 22 May 2012, pp. 3-4; TSN, 26 June 2012, pp. 3-7; TSN, 31 July 2012, pp. 4- 45
 Zalamedav. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).
5.
46
26  Luy v. People of the Philippines, G .R. No. 200087, 12 October 2016, 805 SCRA
 Records, pp. 408-422; penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.
710, 718-719; citing Gulmatico v. People, 562 Phil. 78,87 (2007); People v. De
Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 290 (2007); People v. Cabugatan, 544 Phil. 468, 479
27
 CA rollo, pp. 189-190; penned by Associate justice Rosmari D. Carandang and (2007); People v. Taan, 536 Phil. 943, 954 (2006); Perez v. People, 515 Phil. 195,
concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon. 203-204 (2006); People v. Tonog, Jr., 477 Phil. 161, 177 (2004); People v. Genita,
Jr., 469 Phil. 334, 341-342 (2004); People v. Pacheco, 468 Phil. 289, 299
28 (2004); People v. Abolidor, 467 Phil. 709, 716 (2004); People v. Santiago, 465 Phil.
 Rollo, pp. 18-19.
151, 162 (2004).
29
 Section l l. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. - 47
 People v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 798 (2014).

(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect 48
 People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate
court is favorable and applicable to the latter;
49
 CA rollo, p. 60
xxx
50
 Tionco v. People, 755 Phil. 646, 654 (2015).
30
 Rollo, p. 19.
51
 CA rollo, p. 62.
52
 Rontos v. People, 710 Phil. 328, 336-337 (2013). (5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu";
53
 sec. 77, R.A. No. 9165.
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
54
 Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section (7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
21, Article II of the IRR of RA No. 9165 in relation to Section 81 (b ), Article IX of R.A.
No. 9165.
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not
limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy,"
55
 Peoplev. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129-130 (2013). paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine
(TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma
56 hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly designed or
 People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94-95 (2014); citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134,
newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
144-145 (2010).
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the
57
 People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 387-388 (2013). Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.

58
 Records, p. 345, Exh. "H." Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
59
 Id. at p.201, Exh."A."
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred
60 thousand pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
 Id. at 204, Exh. "D." (₱500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50)
61
 ld. at 202, Exh. "E." grams;

62
 ld. at 203, Exh. "F." (2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life
imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand
63
pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
 TSN, 11 November 2009, pp. 9-10. (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5)
grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine,
64
 CA rollo, p. 62. heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu,"
65
or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
 Zalameda v. People, supra note 45 at p. 740. "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or
newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
66
 People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 360. therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more
67
but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and
 Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (I) day to twenty
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos
regardless of the degree of purity thereof: (₱300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00), if
the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of
opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
(1) 10 grams or more of opium; marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine; 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
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin; possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than
three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
68
 People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 357.
69
 Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia/or Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging room Ten thousand pesos
(₱10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous
drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various
professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the
necessary implementing guidelines thereof. The possession of such equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes
enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the
possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested
or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this
Act.

70
 Zalameda v. People, supra note 45 at p. 727.

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 214536, March 13, 2017
MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR
VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN AND JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y
RAMOS, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves the motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated January 11,
2016 of this Court denying petitioners' Petition for Review on Certiorari.1 The
petition assailed the Court of Appeals Decision,2 which affirmed the Regional Trial
Court Decision3 finding accused-petitioners Medel Coronel y Santillan (Coronel),
Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez (Permejo), Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin (Villafuerte), and
Joanne Olivarez y Ramos (Olivarez) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Article II, Sections 7 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002).
Two (2) Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 231,4 alleging that on or about May 19, 2010, Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte,
and Olivarez were caught knowingly and illegally visiting a drug den and using
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).5
The prosecution's version of events is as follows:
On May 19, 2010, a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) team meeting for
the implementation of a search warrant6 covering a building at No. 1734 F. Muñoz
Street, Tramo Street, Barangay 43, Zone 6, Pasay City was held.7 The Special
Enforcement Group Team Leader of the Metro Manila Regional Office - Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency, IO2 Randy Paragasa (IO2 Paragasa), designated IO2
Daniel Discaya (IO2 Discaya) as the seizing officer, and IO1 Jake Edwin Million (IO1
Million) and IO1 Jayson Albao (IO1 Albao) as the arresting officers.8 The team
prepared the pre-operations report form, coordination form, authority to operate,
and inventory of seized property/items form.9
The PDEA team coordinated with a team from the Philippine National Police -
Southern Police District in implementing the search warrant.10 They arrived at the
subject building at around 2:00 p.m., knocked on the door, and announced that
they had a search warrant.11 A PDEA agent shouted that somebody had jumped out
the window and the door was forced open with a battering ram.12 IO1 Million and
IO1 Albao chased down those who jumped out the window.13
Three (3) persons, identified as Olivarez, Erlinda Fetalino, and Benjie Guday, were
found inside the subject building.14 IO2 Discaya read to them the contents of the
search warrant.15
Coronel, Permejo, and Villafuerte were apprehended after trying to escape out of
the window.16 They were brought back to the subject building, where the contents of
the search warrant was read to them.17
Thereafter, Barangay Kagawad Oga Hernandez (Barangay Kagawad Hernandez),
Herald Santos (Santos), Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasay City Angel Marcos (Atty.
Marcos), and DZAR Sunshine Radio Reporter Jimmy Mendoza (Mendoza) arrived,
and the search was conducted in their presence.18
During the search, the team recovered, among others, transparent plastic sachets,
aluminium foils, containers of white crystalline substance and white powdery
residue, disposable lighters, improvised plastic scoops, a total amount ofP580.00 in
assorted bills, and P165.00 in coins.19
Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez were arrested and apprised of their
constitutional rights.20 The confiscated items were also inventoried, photographed,
and marked in their presence, as well as in the presence of the Barangay officials
and the Department of Justice and media representatives.21
The arrested suspects were brought to the PDEA Headquarters for investigation and
mandatory drug testing, together with the seized objects, one of which was
identified as shabu. Coronel, Villafuerte, Permejo, and Olivarez tested positive
for shabu.22
The prosecution submitted the following m its formal offer of evidence:
1) Search Warrant No. 4680(10); 2) Joint Affidavit of the Arresting Officers; 3) Pre-
Operation Report dated 19 May 2010; 4) Authority to Operate dated 19 May 2010;
5) Certificate of Coordination; 6) Certification from the Barangay; 7) Inventory of
the Seized Property/Items and Receipt of property seized; 8) Pictures of the
incident; 9) Request for Laboratory Examination; 10) Request for Drug Test dated
19 May 2010; 11) Chemistry Report N[o]. PDEA-DT010-148 to 153; 12) Booking
Sheets and Arrest Reports of [petitioners]; 13) strips of aluminum foils; 14)
medicine box with white residue; [15]) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance; [16]) improvised white plastic scoops; [17])
metal rectangular cash box containing traces of white crystalline substance; [18])
improvised plastic pipes; [19]) plastic sachets; [20]) plastic tray containing traces
of white crystalline substance; and [21]) silver card boards.23
The defense's version of events is as follows:
Coronel testified that he did not know Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez.24 On May
19, 2010, at around 2:00 p.m., he was looking for a certain Rommel Yabut (Yabut)
in Tramo, Pasay to invite him to the christening of his chi1d.25 Suddenly, there was
a commotion, and someone in a shirt that read "Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency" pointed a gun at him and asked if he was among those being
arrested.26 Coronel responded that he was just looking for someone.27 Another man
who appeared to be the leader of the PDEA team told the man holding the gun that
Coronel should be brought with them.28 Coronel was handcuffed and brought to the
drug den.29 He denied being at the drug den out of his own volition.30
Permejo also testified that he did not know Coronel, Villafuerte, and
Olivarez.31 While walking along Tramo, Pasay from his cousin's place in Zapanta,
two (2) armed men approached him, took him to another alley, and handcuffed
him.32 After about an hour, they made him board a van, and took him to the PDEA
office.33
Villafuerte testified that at the time of the incident, he was walking along Tramo
with Olivarez, two (2) men wearing shirts that read "Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency" approached them and forced them into an alley, where he saw other
persons handcuffed.34 After being told to stay put, he and Olivarez were handcuffed
and made to board a van that brought them to the PDEA office.35 At the office, they
were made to sign documents, and brought to detention cells.36
After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court found Coronel, Permejo,
Villafuerte, and Olivarez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II,
Sections 7 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165. The dispositive
reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
a) ACQUITTING the accused BENJIE GUDAY Y MANTILLA, FIDEL BALBOA Y
MEMORACION and ERLINDA FETALINO Y BATICA of the charge of Violation of
Section 7, of Republic Act 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02059-CR for failure
of prosecution's evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt;
b) Finding accused MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y
ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y
RAMOS a.k.a. JOANNE OLIVARE, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
charge of Violation of Section 15, Article II, Republic Act [No.] 9165 in Criminal
Case No. R-PSY-10-02058-CR and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six
(6) months rehabilitation in a government center; [and]
[c] Finding accused MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y
ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y
RAMOS a.k.a. JOANNE OLIVARE, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
charge of Violation of Section 7, (Visitors of Den, Dive or Resort) of Republic Act No.
9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02059[-CR] and are hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to
fourteen (14) years as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of one hundred
thousand pesos (Php100,000) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.37 (Emphasis in the original)
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the prosecution
failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the Decision dated April 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the
Regional Trial Court.38 The dispositive portion reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Finally, considering that the penalties imposed upon accused-appellants are all in
accord with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165, more so since they never questioned
the same in their Brief, this Court affirms the imposition of said penalties by the
court a quo.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint
Decision dated 30 October 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch
231 in Criminal Case Nos. R-PSY-010-02059-CR and R-PSY-010-02058-CR
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.39 (Emphasis in the original)
On November 21, 2014, petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this
Court.40 This Court denied the petition for lack of merit in its Resolution41 dated
January 11, 2016:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, this court resolves to DENY this Petition for lack of merit. Petitioners
Medel Coronel y Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin,
and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos a.k.a. Joanne Olivare, are GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the following:
a) violating Article II, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02058-CR
and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of rehabilitation in a government
center; and
b) violating Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02059-CR
and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of P100,000.00
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.42
Hence, petitioners have filed this Motion for Reconsideration.43 Petitioners stress
that in its Resolution, this Court did not address the prosecution's failure to establish
both a continuous and unbroken chain of custody of the subject evidence,44 that the
house, where petitioners were apprehended, was a drug den,45 or that petitioners
were aware that said house was a drug den and that they visited it knowingly.46 The
Office of the Solicitor General has not commented, but instead has manifested that
the motion for reconsideration was merely a re-pleading of petitioners' pnor
arguments.47
Contrary to petitioners' claim, the Resolution dated January 11, 2016 sufficiently
disposed of the matter of chain of custody. The requirements under Section 21(a) of
the implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 were complied
with.48 It was established during trial that "there was physical inventory, marking,
and taking of photographs of the seized items."49 This was done in the presence of
petitioners themselves, Barangay Kagawad Hernandez, Santos, Atty. Marcos, and
media representative Mendoza.50 The inventory, which "bore the signature[s] of
these witnesses . . . was presented and formally offered as evidence."51 Although
forensic chemist Richard Allan Mangalip (Mangalip), who examined the specimen
subject of this case, was not presented, this did not detract from the chain of
custody.52 The defense agreed to stipulate on the competency and qualifications of
Mangalip and his testimony on the examination of the specimen subject of the
case.53 It was also stipulated that "the specimen subject of [the] case marked as
Exhibit 'D' for the prosecution was the same item subject of a request for laboratory
examination dated April 16, 2009 marked as Exhibit 'B,'" which was "the same
specimen . . . examined by [Mangalip] as reported in the Physical Science Report
No. D-192-09S marked as Exhibit 'C.'"54
The Resolution dated January 11, 2016 also pointed out that in People of the
Philippines v. Mali,55 this Court said that the non-presentation of a forensic chemist
during trial would not cause an acquittal in illegal drug cases.56
However, the issue of whether the prosecution has established that petitioners
knowingly visited a drug den deserves further review.
Section 7 (b) of Republic Act No. 9165 penalizes the act of knowingly visiting a drug
den:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of
imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed
upon:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature of the place
as such; and
(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding
paragraph, is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the
same.
Before a person may be convicted under the foregoing provision, it must be shown
that he or she knew that the place visited was a drug den, and still visited the place
despite this knowledge.
The Court of Appeals relied only on drug test results to conclude that the petitioners
were aware of the nature of the subject house as a drug
den:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Contrary to accused-appellants' claim that they had no knowledge of the nature of
the drug den, records reveal otherwise. In the Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DT010-
148 to 153, the urine specimens taken from accused-appellants yielded
"positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine[.]" Obviously, accused-
appellants cannot claim that they have no knowledge of the nature of said drug den
when they were positively identified by a police officer as present in the premises,
and their drug test results indicate that their urine samples contain
Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug. Moreover, it is well-established that the
defense of denial, in the absence of convincing evidence, is invariably viewed with
disfavor by the courts for it can be easily concocted, especially in cases involving
the Dangerous Drugs Act.57 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Similarly, the Regional Trial Court ratiocinated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
With regard to the charge for Violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165, to
render a verdict of conviction, it is not enough that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the specimen were preserved and that the presumption of regularity of
performance of duties was upheld. It is primordial for the prosecution to establish
the allegation that the accused knowingly visit[ed] a drug den.
....
As for accused Medel Coronel y Santillan, Ronalda Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor
Villafuerte y Sapin and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos a.k.a. Joanne Olivare, with the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence preserved, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties upheld and their respective drug tests
yielding positive results to existence of Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, the
court is convinced that evidence for the prosecution has established the allegations
of the information beyond reasonable doubt, thus, sustain a verdict of conviction.58
Likewise, respondent claims that the prosecution has established that petitioners
knew that the place was a drug den, based solely on the positive drug test
results:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any
form or are found. Its existence [may be] proved not only by direct evidence but
may also be established by proof of facts and circumstances, including evidence of
the general reputation of the house, or its general reputation among police officers.
The prosecution established that appellants knew that the place is a drug den. All
the appellants in the instant case tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride. The drug tests were conducted right after the appellants were
arrested. Taken together, these facts prove that appellants knowingly visited a drug
den on the day the search warrant was implemented.59
Respondent apparently maintains that because the petitioners' drug tests were
conducted right after their arrest, it was proven that drugs were used at the drug
den itself. Moreover, the use of drugs at a drug den automatically implies that the
drug users were aware of the nature of the place as a drug den before visiting it.
This position is untenable.
True, the drug test results sufficiently proved that petitioners had used drugs some
time before their arrest. However, assuming that petitioners were, in fact, at the
alleged drug den before their arrest, there was no showing how long petitioners
were at the alleged drug den, or how long the drugs had been in their system. In
other words, there is no basis to assume that petitioners used drugs at the moment
immediately before arrest, and thus, at the location of the arrest.
Assuming that persons who test positive for drugs used them at the place of arrest
is not sufficient to show that they were aware of the nature of the suspected drug
den before visiting it, absent any other circumstantial evidence.
There was no attempt to show that petitioners knew the nature of the alleged drug
den, or even that they used drugs in the premises. The petitioners were not found
to be in possession of any drugs. When petitioners were arrested, nobody was found
"in the act of using, selling or buying illegal drugs, nor packaging nor hiding nor
transporting the same."60 There were no acts alleged or evidence found, which
would tend to show a familiarity with the nature of the place as a drug den.
The crime of knowingly visiting a drug den under Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act
No. 9165 carries with it a minimum penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one
(1) day, and a maximum of20 years. It is not to be taken so lightly that its elements
can be presumed to exist without any effort to show them. Given the dearth of
evidence in this case, we are constrained to acquit petitioners of this particular
charge.
However, petitioners do not assail the determination that they violated Article II,
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165, and this conviction must be sustained.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The January 11,
2016 Resolution of this Court, and the April 29, 2014 Decision and September 17,
2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 35399 are SET ASIDE.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 231 dated October 30,
2012 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, and judgment on petitioners Medel
Coronel y Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin, and
Joanne Olivarez y Ramos is rendered as follows:
a) ACQUITTING petitioners of violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165, for failure of the
prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and
b) Finding accused GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the charge of violation of
Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02058-CR, and
hereby sentencing them to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of rehabilitation in a government
center.

Let a copy of this resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of

Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five (5) days from
receipt of this decision on the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to
the Director General of Philippine National Police and the Director General of
Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza, and Martires, JJ., concur.


FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERIC PAVIA Y PALIZA @
“JERIC” AND JUAN BUENDIA Y DELOS REYES @ “JUNE”, Accused-Appellants.
RESOLUTION
PEREZ, J.:
For resolution of the Court is the appeal filed by Jeric Pavia and Juan Buendia
(appellants) from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 7 February 2012
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04020. The CA affirmed the Judgment2 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna which found appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs punishable
under Section 13, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. Appellants were
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00.cralawred
The Antecedents
On 29 March 2005, at around 6:00 in the evening, a confidential informant reported
to SPO3 Melchor dela Peña (SPO3 Dela Peña) of the San Pedro Municipal Police
Station, San Pedro, Laguna, that a pot session was taking place at the house of a
certain “Obet” located at Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. Upon receipt of the
information, SPO3 Dela Peña formed a team to conduct police operations against
the suspect. The team was composed of the confidential informant, PO2 Rommel
Bautista (PO2 Bautista), PO3 Jay Parunggao (PO3 Parunggao), PO1 Jifford Signap
and SPO3 Dela Peña as team leader.3chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
At around 9:00 in the evening of the same date, the team proceeded to the target
area. When the team arrived, the members saw that Obet’s house was closed. Since
the house was not surrounded by a fence, PO2 Bautista approached the house and
peeped through a small opening in a window where he saw four persons in a circle
having a pot session in the living room. PO3 Parunggao then tried to find a way to
enter the house and found an unlocked door. He entered the house, followed by
PO2 Bautista and they caught the four persons engaged in a pot session by
surprise. After they introduced themselves as police officers, they arrested the four
suspects and seized the drug paraphernalia found at the scene.4 Among those
arrested were herein appellants, from each of whom a plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance were confiscated by PO3 Parunggao after he conducted a
body search on their persons.5 PO3 Parunggao marked the plastic sachet he seized
from appellant Pavia with “JP,” representing the initials of Jeric Pavia while that
taken from appellant Buendia was marked, also by PO3 Parunggao, with “JB,”
representing the initials of Juan Buendia.6 These plastic sachets were transmitted to
the crime laboratory for qualitative examination where they tested positive
for “shabu.”7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Consequently, appellants were charged with violation of Section 13, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 in two separate but identically worded informations which
read:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That on or about 29 March 2005, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of
Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court accused
without authority of the law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in his possession, control and custody [of] METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing zero
point zero two (0.02) gram, in the company of two persons. 8
When arraigned, both appellants pleaded not guilty to the
offense.9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A joint trial of the cases ensued.
In defense, appellants provided a different version of the incident. According to
them, on the questioned date and time, they were roaming the streets
of Baranggay Cuyab, selling star apples. A prospective buyer of the fruits called
them over to his house and requested them to go inside, to which they acceded.
When they were about to leave the house, several persons who introduced
themselves as policemen arrived and invited appellants to go with them to the
precinct. There, they were incarcerated and falsely charged with violation of the
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.10chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Ruling of the RTC
The trial court found that the prosecution was able to prove the offense charged
through the spontaneous, positive and credible testimony of its witness. The trial
court noted that the police officers carried out a lawful arrest before they proceeded
with the bodily search of appellants. Moreover, there was no clear and convincing
evidence that the team of PO3 Parunggao was inspired by any improper motive
when they carried out their operation. Thus, the testimony of PO2 Bautista on the
witness stand, narrating the events leading to the apprehension of appellants,
deserves full faith and credit.11chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, upon a finding that the
evidence on record support the trial court’s conclusion that a lawful arrest, search
and seizure took place, and that the prosecution fully discharged its burden of
establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements necessary for the conviction
of the offense charged.12chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On the contention of appellants that their warrantless arrest was illegal and,
therefore, the items seized from them as a result of that arrest were inadmissible in
evidence against them, the CA held that this argument totally lacks merit. According
to the CA:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
We stress at the outset that the [appellants] failed to question the legality of their
warrantless arrest. The established rule is that an accused [is] estopped from
assailing the legality of [his] arrest if [he] failed to move for the quashing of
the Information against [him] before [his] arraignment. Any objection involving the
arrest or the procedure in the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
an accused must be made before [he] enter[s] [his] plea; otherwise, the objection
is deemed waived.
In any event, we carefully examined the records and now hold that the warrantless
arrests conducted on [appellants] were valid. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure lists the situations when a person may be arrested without a
warrant x x x.
xxxx
Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is commonly known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. For
a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto 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.
After a careful evaluation of the evidence in its totality, we hold that the prosecution
successfully established that the petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto.
We emphasize that the series of events that led the police to the house where the
pot session was conducted and to their arrest were triggered by a “tip” from a
concerned citizen that a “pot session” was in progress at the house of a
certain “Obet” at Baranggay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. Under the circumstances,
the police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant considering the
“time element” involved in the process (i.e., a pot session may not be an extended
period of time and it was then 9:00 p.m.). In view of the urgency, SPO3 Melchor
dela Peña immediately dispatched his men to proceed to the identified place to
verify the report. At the place, the responding police officers verified through a
small opening in the window and saw the accused-appellants and their other two (2)
companions sniffing “shabu” to use the words of PO2 Bautista. There was therefore
sufficient probable cause for the police officers to believe that the accused-
appellants were then and there committing a crime. As it turned out, the accused-
appellants indeed possessed and were even using a prohibited drug, contrary to
law. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers are not only
authorized but are duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
In the course of the arrest and in accordance with police procedures, the
[appellants] were frisked, which search yielded the prohibited drug in their
possession. These circumstances were sufficient to justify the warrantless search x x
x that yielded two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets of “shabu.” x x x
xxxx
All the x x x requirements for a lawful search and seizure are present in this case.
The police officers had prior justification to be at a certain “Obet’s” place as they
were dispatched by their desk officer; they arrested the [appellants] as they had
reason to believe that they were illegally using and possessing a prohibited drug
and drug paraphernalia. The search of the [appellants] incident to their arrest
yielded the confiscated crystalline substance which later proved to be “shabu”. In
the course of their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various drug
paraphernalia scattered in the living room. As these items were plainly visible, the
police officers were justified in seizing them.
xxxx
As correctly found by the trial court, the [appellants'] story is unworthy of belief.
Their denial must fail in the light of the positive identification and declarations made
by the prosecution witness. As stated earlier, PO2 Bautista testified in a
straightforward and categorical manner regarding the identities of the malefactors.
He did not waver despite the defense counsel's rigid questioning.
Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with
which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both
negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the
testimony of the prosecution witness who testified clearly, providing thereby
positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed. One such positive
evidence is the result of the laboratory examination conducted by the PNP crime
Laboratory on the drugs recovered from the [appellants] which revealed that the
confiscated plastic sachets tested positive for the presence of "shabu”: two (2)
heated transparent plastic sachet with markings “JB” and “JP” containing 0.02 gram
of white crystalline substance each both yielded positive results.13
With respect to appellants’ claim that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of
custody because the police operatives failed to strictly comply with Section 21 (1) of
R.A. No. 9165, the CA has this to say:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be.
Contrary to what the [appellants] want to portray, the chain of custody of the seized
prohibited drug was shown not to have been broken. After the seizure of the plastic
sachets containing white crystalline substance from the [appellants'] possession and
of the various drug paraphernalia in the living room, the police immediately brought
the [appellants] to the police station, together with the seized items. PO3
Parunggao himself brought these items to the police station and marked them. The
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance was marked "JB" and "JP".
These confiscated items were immediately turned over by PO2 Bautista to the PNP
Regional Crime Laboratory Office Calabarzon, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City for
examination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. After a qualitative
examination conducted on the specimens, Forensic Chemist Lorna Ravelas Tria
concluded that the plastic sachets recovered from the accused-appellants tested
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug, per Chemistry
Report Nos. D-0381-05 and D-0382-05.
When the prosecution presented these marked specimens in court, PO2 Baustista
positively identified them to be the same items they seized from the [appellants]
and which PO3 Parunggao later marked at the police station, from where the seized
items were turned over to the laboratory for examination based on a duly prepared
request.
 q. And what was their reaction when PO3 Parunggao and the rest of the team barged in?
Thus, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the a. They were surprised, maam [sic].
seized items from the time they were first discovered until they were brought for xxx
examination. Besides, as earlier stated, the [appellants] did not contest the x
admissibility of the seized items during the tria1. The integrity and the evidentiary q. And what did you do after that?
value of the drugs seized from the accused-appellants were therefore duly proven a. PO3 Parunggao introduced ourselves as police officers, maam [sic].
not to have been compromised.
q. What happened after that?
a. We confiscated the drug paraphernalias [sic] and then PO3 Parunggao conducted body search and
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply, with
was able to confiscate shabu from the two of the people there maam [sic].
Section 2l (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's
q. Where were you when PO3 Parunggao conducted a search?
arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary a. I was behind him, maam [sic].
value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of q. Did you see him conducting a search?
the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the present case, we see substantial a. Yes, maam [sic].
compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody and q. What did you see him doing?
control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the a. I saw that he was able to confiscate small plastic sachet containing shabu, maam [sic].
seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the succession q. From whom?
of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the seized items by a. From Jeric Pavia and Juan Buendia, maam [sic].
specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no q. If this Jeric Pavia is in court right now, will you be able to point to him?
objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the
a. Yes, maam [sic].
unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence tested
q. Please point to him?
and subsequently identified and testified to in court.14 x x x
a. That man in the first row wearing yellow shirt, maam [sic] (pointed to a person inside the courtroom
Our Ruling who, when asked answered by the name of Jeric Pavia).
q. You said that you saw PO3 Parunggao confiscated plastic sachet containing shabu from Jeric Pavia,
We deny the appeal. from what part of his body was he able to confiscate the same?
a. From the pocket of Jeric Pavia, maam [sic].
Appellants are charged under Section 13, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which xxx
provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary x
q. You said that PO3 Parunggao confiscated plastic sachet with white crystalline substance from two
Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or person [sic], one was identified as Jeric Pavia, who was the other one?
Meetings. – Any person found possessing any dangerous drug during a party, or at a. It was Juan Buendia, maam [sic]
a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) q. Please identify him if he is in court?
persons, shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act, a. That man also in the first row, at the right portion, wearing yellow shirt (pointed to a person who,
regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs. when asked answered by the name of Juan Buendia).
q. Where were you when PO3 Parunggao confiscated from Juan Buendia the plastic sachet of shabu?
The elements for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 13 of R.A. a. I was behind him, maam [sic].
No. 9165 are the same as those for the violation of Section 11 of the law: (1) xxx
possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or x
dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; (3) the free and q. On [sic] what part of the body of Juan Buendia was the item taken by Officer Parunggao?
conscious possession of the drug by the accused,15 with the additional element that a. Also in [sic] his pocket, maam [sic].16
(4) the accused possessed the prohibited or dangerous drug during a social
gathering or meeting, or in the company of at least two persons. The same testimony of PO2 Bautista also established the chain of custody of the
prohibited drugs taken from appellants. Thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As correctly found by the CA, the evidence for the prosecution showed the presence
of all these elements. The testimony of PO2 Bautista on this point is
q. You said that you saw PO3 Parunggao confiscated [sic] plastic sachet containing shabu from Jeric
determinative:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Pavia, from what part of his body was he able to confiscate the same?
a. From the pocket of Jeric Pavia, maam [sic].
q. When you said PO3 Parunggao saw that the door of the house was not locked, what did you do?
q. And do you know what PO3 Parunggao do with the item?
a. He entered the house and we followed him, maam [sic].
a. He placed marking on it, maam [sic].
xxx
q. In what place did he put the marking?
x
a. At the police station maam [sic].
q. In what part of the house where [sic] this [sic] people engaged in a pot session?
q. What markings did he place?
a. At the sala, maam [sic].
a. It was marked JP representing the initials of accused Jeric Pavia, maam [sic]. conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the
q. Where were you when Officer Parunggao placed that marking on the item? handling of confiscated evidence.
a. I was beside him, maam [sic].
q. Can you describe the plastic sachet? Finally, both the trial court and the CA rejected appellants’ defense of denial and
frame-up for failure to substantiate the same.
a. It is a small transparent plastic sachet which contains white crystalline substance otherwise known
as shabu, maam [sic].
Indeed, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this
q. Who was in possession of the plastic sachet from the time PO3 Parunggao took it from the
possession of Jeric Pavia up to the police station? Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard
defense ploy in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.  In order to
a. It was P03 Parunggao, maam [sic].
prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and
q. I am showing to you a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings JP, please convincing evidence.  In the case before us, appellants failed to present sufficient
identify the same?
evidence in support of their claims. Aside from their self-serving assertions, no
a. This is the same item confiscated from Jeric Pavia, maam [sic]. plausible proof was presented to bolster their allegations.20 Consequently, in the
xxx absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by
x any improper motive, this Court will not appreciate the defense of denial or frame-
q. Did you come to know what Officer Parunggao do with the plastic sachet confiscated from Juan up and instead apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
Buendia? duty by law enforcement agents.21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a. He brought it to the police station, maam [sic].
q. And what did he do with it? In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to deviate from the well-discussed
a. He placed the markings JB, maam [sic]. decision of the CA, its findings and conclusions having been supported by both law
q. Who was in possession of the plastic sachet with markings JB from Aplaya [where the pot session and applicable jurisprudence.chanrobleslaw
took place] to the police station?
a. It was PO3 Parunggao, maam. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 7 February 2012 in CA-
q. I am showing to you a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings JB, please G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04020 is AFFIRMED.
identify the same?
a. This is the same item confiscated from Juan Buendia by PO3 Parunggao, maam [sic].17 SO ORDERED.

It is likewise important to note that it was PO2 Bautista himself who brought the Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe,
request18 for laboratory examination of the substance taken from appellants from JJ., concur.
the San Pedro Police Station to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Calamba City, thereby
ensuring that the integrity of the confiscated items are preserved. Thus, the fact Endnotes:
that the apprehending team did not strictly comply with the procedural
requirements of Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily
render appellants’ arrest illegal or the items seized from them inadmissible in
evidence. 1
Rollo, pp. 2-18; Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate
Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring.
As held by this Court in the case of People v. Llanita:19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
2
 Records, Volume I, pp. 149-155.
RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not
require strict compliance as to the chain of custody rule. x x x. We have emphasized
3
 Id. at 150-151.
that what is essential 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
4
 Id. at 151.
or innocence of the accused.”
5
 TSN, 31 May 2006, p. 8; Testimony of PO2 Bautista.
Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and
its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended
6
 Id. at 9 and 11.
persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs
in a buy-bust operation.
7
 Rollo, p. 5.

xxxx
8
 Records, Volume I, p. 1 and Volume II, p. 1.

x x x. We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21

9
 Id. at 150, Judgment of the RTC.
may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied
10
 Rollo, p. 6, Decision of the CA.
11
 Records, Volume I, p. 154.

12
Rollo, p. 7.

13
 Id. at 10-14.

14
 Id. at 15-17.

15
People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 530
citing People v. Naquita, 582 Phil. 422 (2008).

16
 TSN, 31 May 2006, pp. 8-11; Testimony of PO2 Bautista.

17
 Id. at 9-11.

18
 Records, Vol. I, p. 15.

 G.R. No. 189817, 3 October 2012, 682 SCRA 288, 306-307 citing People v.
19

Ara, G.R. No. 185011, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA 304, 325 and People v.
Lorena, G.R. No. 184954, 10 January 2011,  639 SCRA 139, 151.

20
People v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, 14 December 2011, 662 SCRA 574, 596
citing People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, 16 October 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 269.

21
People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 219.