PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.

SIU MING TAT AND LEE YOONG HOEW, ACCUSED-

APPELLANTS.

[ G.R. No. 246577, July 13, 2020 ]

REYES, J. JR., J.:

EMERGENCY RECIT:

The Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF), Special Operations Unit-2 at Camp Crame, Quezon
City on July 25, 2012 conducted a buy-bust operation at China Town hotel based on a confidential informant who was able to
arrange a drug deal with certain persons who turned out to be appellants Tat and Lee.

The SC said that all the elements of illegal sale were proven. It is clear from the records of the case that appellants Tat
and Lee were caught in flagrante delicto of selling a dangerous drug, ephedrine, to PO3 Mabanglo on July 26, 2012. The
appellants sold and delivered the plastic sachet containing ephedrine to PO3 Mabanglo posing as buyer. There was an actual
exchange of the marked money and the plastic sachet containing ephedrine. Further, the appellants were positively identified
in open court by the prosecution witnesses as the persons who sold the dangerous drugs to PO3 Mabanglo.

There was an unbroken  chain of custody of the seized drugs and the corpus delicti has  not lost  its  integrity   and
evidentiary value. A perusal of the records clearly reveals how PO3 Mabanglo, assisted by PI Salmingo, effected the arrests
immediately after appellants Tat and Lee sold to him the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Thereafter, he
immediately marked the seized item with "EAM 07-26-2012 EXH. A". The same was inventoried and photographed in the
presence of the appellants, ACP Tuvera, Brgy. Chairman Que and Marco Gutierez, a media representative from ABS-CBN.
Clearly, the requirements provided under Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640 was faithfully
complied with by the apprehending team. Following that, the seized item was brought to the police station and was turned
over to the duty investigator, SPO1 Calva. After making the proper documentation, the specimen was brought to the crime
laboratory for qualitative examination which was received by PCI Ballesteros. Upon receipt of the specimen, consisting of one
(1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "EAM 07-26-2012 EXH. A" containing 426.30 grams of white
crystalline substance, PCI Ballesteros conducted the examination thereof. The said specimen tested positive for ephedrine, a
dangerous drug, as shown in the Chemistry Report No. D-220-12 dated July 26, 2012. The  ephedrine subject of the sale was
brought to and duly identified in open court.

FACTS:

Accused-appellants Siu Ming Tat (Tat) and Lee Yoong Heow (Lee) were charged with Violation of Section 5 in relation
to Section 26, paragraph (b), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.

A briefing was conducted by the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF), Special Operations Unit-
2 at Camp Crame, Quezon City on July 25, 2012. The purpose of the briefing was to discuss the buy-bust operation that will be
conducted on the basis of the information gathered from a confidential informant who was able to arrange a drug deal with
certain persons, who turned out to be appellants Tat and Lee.

During the briefing, PO3 Mabanglo was assigned as the poseur-buyer while PI Salmingo was his immediate backup.
Thereafter, PCI Arnulfo Ibañ ez, (PCI Ibañ ez), the team leader, handed to PO3 Mabanglo 10 pieces of P1,000 bills to be used as
the buy-bust money. The latter then prepared the boodle money to be used together with the genuine P1,000 bills as the deal
made by the confidential informant was for about half-kilo of shabu worth P1.3 Million.

PO3 Mabanglo and PI Salmingo then left the office and checked in at the China Town Hotel as the confidential
informant informed them that the appellants were already in the said hotel. They stayed at Room 316 and waited for the
confidential informant's call. At 9 p.m. the following day, the confidential informant called PO3 Mabanglo and met him at the
hotel lobby at around 9:30 a.m. At the lobby, the confidential informant told PO3 Mabanglo that the deal that he arranged will
be held at Room 315 of the hotel. Subsequently, PO3 Mabanglo called PCI Ibañ ez and informed him about what had transpired.
The latter then gave the former the "go" signal and thus, the confidential informant and PO3 Mabanglo proceeded to Room 315
while PI Salmingo was instructed to remain on standby in Room 316.

Upon reaching the target area, they were greeted by a Chinese-looking man, later identified as appellant Tat. Appellant
Lee was also seen in the room seated on the bed. After that, appellant Tat then went to the cabinet at the left side of the room
and got a travelling bag. He placed the bag on top of the bed and pulled out a yellow plastic bag with Chinese characters. From
the yellow plastic bag, appellant Tat took out one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 426.30 grams of white
crystalline substance. Appellant Tat then showed the sachet to PO3 Mabanglo, who told the former that "it was good" and gave
the money to appellant Lee.

PO3 Mabanglo executed the pre-arranged signal by pressing on his cellphone PI Salmingo's number to signify that the
deal had already been consummated. The latter then rushed to the scene and effected the arrest of appellant Lee while PO3
Mabanglo arrested appellant Tat. The appellants were then apprised of their violation and constitutional rights.

Following that, the other members of the buy-bust team arrived at the crime scene and prepared the documentation
of the evidence seized from the appellants. Seized from the appellants were the yellow plastic bag and one plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance as well as the buy-bust money. PO3 Mabanglo then, with the assistance of the members
of the team, conducted the marking and physical inventory of the seized items in the presence of the appellants, ACP Tuvera,
Brgy. Chairman Que, and Marco Gutierez, a media representative from ABS-CBN. Photographs of the same were taken as well.
The seized items were then turned over to the duty investigator, SPO1 Calva, by PO3 Mabanglo after accomplishing the
Receipt/Inventory Form and the Chain of Custody Form as proof that he was turning over the seized items to the former.

After making the request for laboratory examination and drug testing, the specimen was brought to the laboratory for
qualitative examination. Forensic Chemist, PCI Ballesteros found that the seized item tested positive for  ephedrine, a
dangerous drug.

Appellant Tat declared that on July 25, 2012, he and appellant Lee arrived in the Philippines from Hongkong through
Clark International Airport in Pampanga to take their vacation. From the airport, they immediately proceeded to Binondo,
Manila by taking a taxi. Upon arrival thereat, they checked-in into a hotel in Binondo. The following day, around 8 a.m., Tat
asked appellant Lee to go to a travel agency in Binondo to buy airline tickets. While he was left alone inside the hotel room,
police officers went inside the room and pointed a gun at him. One of the police officers handcuffed him and searched the
room. When appellant Lee arrived at the hotel room at around 10:30 a.m., he was surprised to see appellant Tat in handcuffs
and being ganged up by police officers. He was also handcuffed and he saw one of the police officers bring something into the
room and placed this thing inside a plastic bag owned by him. He also saw a paper bag with money inside and photographs
were taken as well by a media representative. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station.

Merlyn Tadoy, was the last witness who testified for the defense. She declared that she works as a Reservation Officer
at Timberfield Travel and Tours Agency. She presented documents to show that appellant Lee purchased a Cebu Pacific ticket
bound for Malaysia on July 26, 2012. However, she stated later that she does not know Lee as she was not the one who dealt
with the latter but her boss.

The RTC rendered its assailed Decision, finding appellants Tat and Lee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged in the Information. Displeased, appellants Tat and Lee moved for a reconsideration of the foregoing ruling but the
same was denied by the RTC, Branch 50 of Manila in its Order dated March 3, 2017.

The CA, in its Decision denied the appeal. The CA found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item as
provided by the rules was substantiated beyond an iota of doubt by the prosecution.

Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the CA on grounds of serious errors in the findings of facts and conclusions of
law. The Court issued a Resolution requiring the parties to submit their respective Supplemental Briefs simultaneously, if they
so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs?

RULING:

YES. The elements of illegal sale of dangerous   drugs  had  been proven beyond  reasonable doubt.

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution
must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually
took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs
seized from the accused.

In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.

It is clear from the records of the case that appellants Tat and Lee were caught in flagrante delicto of selling a
dangerous drug, ephedrine, to PO3 Mabanglo on July 26, 2012. The appellants sold and delivered the plastic sachet
containing ephedrine to PO3 Mabanglo posing as buyer. There was an actual exchange of the marked money and the plastic
sachet containing ephedrine. Further, the appellants were positively identified in open court by the prosecution witnesses as
the persons who sold the dangerous drugs to PO3 Mabanglo.30

Appellants also claim that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that they were
framed by the police. We also find the same to be untenable. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the
police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been
viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner, which the appellants
failed to do in the instant case. Absent any clear showing that the arresting officers had ill motive to falsely testify against the
appellant, their testimonies must be respected and the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties must be
upheld.

In addition, the claimed inconsistencies by appellants pertain to the events prior to the buy-bust operation. Appellants
point out that there is a material discrepancy as to the time of coordination with other police offices including PDEA which was
made as early as 10:00 a.m. on July 25, 2012, when in fact the police informant only arrived at their office at 1:00 p.m. on July
25, 2012. We find the same to be immaterial to the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused and does not affect
the credibility of PI Salmingo. The alleged inconsistencies do not even pertain to the  corpus delicti and its integrity. This Court
has ruled that "inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details cannot destroy
their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies even guarantee truthfulness and candor."

II. There was an unbroken  chain of custody of the seized drugs and the corpus delicti has  not lost  its  integrity   and
evidentiary value.

In all prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. The corpus delicti is
established by proof that the identity and integrity of the subject matter of the sale, i.e., the prohibited or regulated drug, has
been preserved; hence, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug to prove
its case against the accused. The prosecution can only forestall any doubts on the identity of the dangerous drug seized from
the accused to that which was presented before the trial court if it establishes an unbroken chain of custody over the seized
item. The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment
of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.

Generally there are four links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug: (i) its seizure and marking, if
practicable, from the accused, by the apprehending officer; (ii) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; (iii) its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (iv) its turnover by the
forensic chemist to the court.

We find that the prosecution sufficiently established all the links in the chain of custody and proved that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had not been compromised.

A perusal of the records clearly reveals how PO3 Mabanglo, assisted by PI Salmingo, effected the arrests immediately
after appellants Tat and Lee sold to him the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Thereafter, he immediately
marked the seized item with "EAM 07-26-2012 EXH. A". The same was inventoried and photographed in the presence of the
appellants, ACP Tuvera, Brgy. Chairman Que and Marco Gutierez, a media representative from ABS-CBN. Clearly, the
requirements provided under Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640 was faithfully complied with by
the apprehending team. Following that, the seized item was brought to the police station and was turned over to the duty
investigator, SPO1 Calva. After making the proper documentation, the specimen was brought to the crime laboratory for
qualitative examination which was received by PCI Ballesteros. Upon receipt of the specimen, consisting of one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet with markings "EAM 07-26-2012 EXH. A" containing 426.30 grams of white crystalline substance,
PCI Ballesteros conducted the examination thereof. The said specimen tested positive for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, as
shown in the Chemistry Report No. D-220-12 dated July 26, 2012. The ephedrine subject of the sale was brought to and duly
identified in open court.41

III. The difference between  the drugs that were supposedly bought and the  drugs  that were actually bought  is
irrelevant

Appellants also question the finding of guilt by the trial court on the ground that the drugs that were supposedly
bought, seized, recovered, confiscated and inventoried are "shabu," but the prosecution presented "ephedrine."

We find this to be inconsequential and does not affect the finding of guilt by the accused. Even if the police transacted
for the sale of shabu, the fact that the seized drugs are ephedrine, will not warrant a reversal of the finding of guilt of the
accused. In any case, the charge in the information was clearly for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, paragraph
(b), Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It is immaterial whether the allegation was for shabu or ephedrine, since both are dangerous
drugs.

Further, the purpose of the laboratory examination is to confirm that the seized items are indeed dangerous drugs.
The police officers cannot be expected to conclude with certainty whether the suspected dangerous drugs
are shabu or ephedrine just by visual inspection. What matters is that the prosecution was able to prove that the seized items
are indeed dangerous drugs and are the ones presented in court.

Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the offenses
charged, which are included in the crimes proved. Under these provisions, an offense charged is necessarily included in the
offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. At any rate,
a minor variance between the Information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or
qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 9, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 09200
is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellants Siu Ming Tat and Lee Yoong Hoew are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, and are hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to each PAY a FINE of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DAVID JAMES PIS-AN Y DIPUTADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

[ G.R. No. 242692, July 13, 2020 ]

REYES, J. JR., J.:

EMERGENCY RECIT:

A team headed by PO2 Eugene A. Calumba (PO2 Calumba) and PO2 Dexter S. Banua (PO2 Banua) marched to
implement a search warrant. Upon reaching the house of Pis-an, the police officers, along with Brgy. Kagawad Raul Dicen
(Brgy. Kagawad Dicen), enforced the warrant and seized the following: 1. One (1) red com purse containing 14 pieces of heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystal line substance; 2. Four (4) pieces of disposable lighters; 3.
Two (2) pieces of plastic straws; 4. Two (2) pieces of metal clips; 5. Three (3) pieces of assorted needles; 6. Three (3) pairs of
scissors; 7. Seven (7) pieces of tin foil; 8. Two (2) pieces of improvised tooters; and 9. A total of P3,050 in various
denominations.

In the case at bench, the courts a quo correctly held that all the aforementioned elements are present here,
since: (i) by virtue of SW No. 10- 2015, a valid search warrant, the police officers recovered, among others, 14 heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which later tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu; (ii) such possession is not authorized by law as Pis-an himself admitted during the pre-
trial; and (iii) the prohibited drugs were uncovered from Pis-an's house which was a prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi. Verily, the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the RTC are binding upon this Court absent any
showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.

In addition, the Court agrees that the police officers duly complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 916522 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Records reveal that right after Pis-an was arrested,
the police officers immediately took custody of the seized items and marked them right there and then. They also conducted
the requisite inventory and photography in the presence of all three (3) insulating witnesses as required by R.A. No. 9165
prior to its amendment, namely: Brgy. Kagawan Dicen; media practitioner Gallarde; and DOJ representative Benlot. Thereafter,
PO2 Calumba delivered the confiscated drugs to PCInsp. Llena for laboratory examination. Later, confirmatory tests on all 14
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets would yield a positive finding for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
more commonly known as shabu. Clearly, therefore, the chain of custody over the seized drugs remained unbroken as the
recovery and proper handling of the corpus delicti were sufficiently shown.

FACTS:

On February 16, 2015, Pis-an was placed under surveillance after the police received a tip from a confidential
informant that the former was involved in drug dealing. The police then conducted a test-buy operation and was able to
recover from Pis-an one transparent plastic sachet which yielded positive results for shabu. Thus, on February 18, 2015, Police
Officer 3 Derek T. Alcoran (PO3 Alcoran) applied for a search warrant which was later on issued by Executive Judge Gerardo A.
Paguio, Jr., authorizing the search of Pis-an's residence located in Barangay (Brgy.) Camanjac, Dumaguete City.

On February 25, 2015, a team headed by PO2 Eugene A. Calumba (PO2 Calumba) and PO2 Dexter S. Banua (PO2
Banua) marched to implement the search warrant. Upon reaching the house of Pis-an, the police officers, along with  Brgy.
Kagawad Raul Dicen (Brgy. Kagawad Dicen), enforced the warrant and seized the following: 1. One (1) red com purse
containing 14 pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystal line substance; 2. Four (4) pieces
of disposable lighters; 3. Two (2) pieces of plastic straws; 4. Two (2) pieces of metal clips; 5. Three (3) pieces of assorted
needles; 6. Three (3) pairs of scissors; 7. Seven (7) pieces of tin foil; 8. Two (2) pieces of improvised tooters; and 9. A total of
P3,050 in various denominations.

All the items were carried out to the porch of the house where PO2 Calumba marked them while PO2 Banua took
photos. Afterwards, an inventory was made in the presence of Pis-an and Brgy. Kagawad Dicen; together with media
practitioner Juancho Gallarde (Gallarde) and Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Anthony Chilius Benlot (Benlot), who
had both arrived by then. Thereafter, Pis-an and the seized items were brought to the Provincial Intelligence Branch (PIB)
satellite office where a Memorandum Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test and a Return of Search Warrant were
prepared and signed by PO2 Calumba.

That afternoon, at the crime laboratory, PCInsp. Llena received the confiscated items from PO2 Calumba and
proceeded to conduct confirmatory tests thereon. PCInsp. Llena stated that the 14 pieces of transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance have a total aggregate weight of 9.38 grams and all tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PCInsp. Llena also examined the urine sample taken from Pis-an and, as inscribed
in her Chemistry Report, the same also tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine.

Consequently, Pis-an was charged under an Amended Information for violation of Section 11 (illegal possession), Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." Arraigned thereon, Pis-
an entered a "not guilty" plea whereupon trial on the merits ensued.

Pis-an denied the charge against him and testified that (i) on February 25, 2015, at around 5:00 a.m., police officers
barged through their gates and demanded to search the place; and (ii) he asked to see the search warrant but PO2 Calumba
replied that there was no need to show the same as it was already signed by higher authorities.  Pis-an contended that he was
not able to witness the search as he was made to stay on the porch of the house.

The RTC rendered its Judgment dated September 12, 2016, convicting Pis-an of the crime charged.

The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. In doing so, the CA held that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements
required to secure Pis-an's conviction. Moreover, the CA observed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs
were properly preserved as each link in the chain of custody rule was duly established by the prosecution. Further, the CA
opined that Pis-an's allegation that no search warrant was shown to him was belied by the fact that his signature appears
thereon.
ISSUE:

Whether the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

YES.

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

In the case at bench, the courts a quo correctly held that all the aforementioned elements are present here,
since: (i) by virtue of SW No. 10- 2015, a valid search warrant, the police officers recovered, among others, 14 heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which later tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu; (ii) such possession is not authorized by law as Pis-an himself admitted during the pre-
trial; and (iii) the prohibited drugs were uncovered from Pis-an's house which was a prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi. Verily, the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the RTC are binding upon this Court absent any
showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.

In addition, the Court agrees that the police officers duly complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 916522 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

The Court, in Aranas y Dimaala v. People,24 declared that:

[T]o establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each
link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the
crime. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and
photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further
requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the
amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b)
if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service OR the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the
establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence."
(Citations omitted)

Records reveal that right after Pis-an was arrested, the police officers immediately took custody of the seized items
and marked them right there and then. They also conducted the requisite inventory and photography in the presence of all
three (3) insulating witnesses as required by R.A. No. 9165 prior to its amendment, namely: Brgy. Kagawan Dicen; media
practitioner Gallarde; and DOJ representative Benlot. Thereafter, PO2 Calumba delivered the confiscated drugs to PCInsp.
Llena for laboratory examination. Later, confirmatory tests on all 14 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets would yield a
positive finding for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or more commonly known as shabu. Clearly, therefore,
the chain of custody over the seized drugs remained unbroken as the recovery and proper handling of the  corpus delicti were
sufficiently shown.

In view of the foregoing, we modify the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Since Pis-an was found to
have been in illegal possession of 9.38 grams of shabu, he is meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 20 years and one
day, as minimum, to 30 years, as maximum.26

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02422
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant David James Pis-an y Diputado is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00. SO
ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONALD SUATING Y SAYON ALIAS "BOK", ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.

January 29, 2020  G.R. No. 220142

LEONEN, J.:

EMERGENCY RECIT:

In coordination with the Regional Office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Iloilo City, the police
officers planned a buy-bust operation within the area of Barangay Mambulac Elementary School to verify whether or not
Suating was selling marijuana. While Suating and the poseur - buyer were talking, the latter took out the marked money from
his pocket and gave it to Suating. In exchange, Suating handed unknown articles suspected to be marijuana. After the sale, the
poseur - buyer left the area. He proceeded to where PO2 Bernil was in order to surrender the large stick of suspected
marijuana cigarette bought from Suating. PO2 Bernil then handed the item to PO2 Ian Libo-on (PO2 Libo-on), who marked it
with "BOK-1."22

The SC ruled that a prearranged police entrapment led to Suating's apprehension. However, despite a carefully
planned and coordinated buy-bust operation, there were still irregularities committed in the course of the entrapment, which
caused apparent lapses to the chain of custody rule. For this reason, the identity of the corpus delicti was not duly established
beyond reasonable doubt. We are no longer certain whether or not the miniscule quantities of 0.1583  and 0.14 grams84 of
marijuana, presented as evidence against Suating in court, were the very same ones allegedly confiscated from him.

FACTS:

Two separate (2) Informations were filed against Suating for violations of Sections 56 and 117 of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Acting on a tip from concerned constituents and barangay officials, the Philippine National Police of Silay City (PNP
Silay) effected a surveillance to verify whether or not Suating was selling marijuana within the area of Barangay Mambulac
Elementary School. After several test buys, the Information against Suating was confirmed. In coordination with the Regional
Office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Iloilo City, the police officers planned a buy-bust operation. They
prepared three (3) P20.00 bills with serial numbers RS654551, RT180921, and RT395576. As marking, they underlined the
last digit of each bill's serial number. They subscribed to the marked money before City Prosecutor Ma. Lisa Lorraine Atotubo,
and the use of the same was entered in their blotter book under entry number 01723.

PO2 Reynaldo Bernil (PO2 Bernil) handed the marked money to a confidential asset who was the designated
poseur - buyer. On the afternoon of November 9, 2011,17 the operation ensued. The poseur - buyer went to the premises of
Barangay Mambulac Elementary School, ahead of the police officers. Shortly thereafter, he called PO2 Bernil when Suating was
already "within his sight." The rest of the police officers followed, positioning themselves approximately 10 meters away from
the area of operation and about 50 meters away from the school. PO2 Bernil was the point person of the entrapment. He saw
the poseur - buyer approach Suating and engage in a short conversation with him. He also witnessed when Suating left the
area of operation, only to return to the poseur -buyer after a few minutes. While Suating and the poseur - buyer were talking,
the latter took out the marked money from his pocket and gave it to Suating. In exchange, Suating handed unknown articles
suspected to be marijuana. After the sale, the poseur - buyer left the area. He proceeded to where PO2 Bernil was in order to
surrender the large stick of suspected marijuana cigarette bought from Suating. PO2 Bernil then handed the item to PO2 Ian
Libo-on (PO2 Libo-on), who marked it with "BOK-1."22
 PO2 Bernil and the other police officers immediately moved towards Suating and restrained his hands. After
introducing themselves as persons of authority, they apprehended Suating and informed him of his constitutional rights.
Suating's father, along with the other unidentified individuals, attempted to stop the arrest but to no avail. Thereafter, the
police officers brought Suating to a police station in Silay City, and proceeded to conduct a body search on him in the presence
of Kagawad Jose Junsay of Barangay Mambulac. Found in his possession were the marked money used during the operation,
together with another large rolled cigarette stick of suspected marijuana, which was marked "BOK-2" by PO2 Libo-on.24

In the presence of an elected official, the police officers inventoried and photographed the confiscated items. After the
request letter was prepared, the items were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory of the Negros Occidental Police Provincial
Office in Bacolod City. Under Chemistry Report No. D-217-2011, Forensic Officer Paul Jerome Puentespina (Forensic Officer
Puentespina) examined the seized illicit drugs, which yielded positive for marijuana.

Suating denied all charges against him and claimed that he was merely framed by the police. Suating detailed in his
testimony, that he was allegedly buying fish in the flea market of Barangay Mambulac on the day of the buy-bust operation,
when a police officer suddenly apprehended him. The police officer brought him to a room in Silay City Police Station where
they asked him certain questions. When Barangay Kagawad Junsay arrived, Suating was frisked. However, they were only able
to recover two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50) from his possession. Thereafter, the police officers took his photo, made him
sign a document, and later brought him to the Negros Occidental Police Provincial Office where he was made to urinate in a
disposable cup.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Suating of the charges. The Regional Trial Court did not find merit in Suating's
contention that the buy-bust operation did not happen, specifying how Suating was apprehended through a well-planned
entrapment, which was conducted after monitoring and validation by the police officers. The Regional Trial Court found the
testimonies of police officers Bernil and Libo-on to be "detailed and straightforward." Hinging on the presumption of
regularity in the performance of their official duties, and in the absence of any convincing proof that they have ill intent to
falsely testify against Suating, the trial court upheld the testimonies of the arresting officers.

The Court of Appeals ruled against Suating. It held that the illegal sale transaction was effectively completed when
Suating gave the hand rolled marijuana cigarette to the poseur - buyer in exchange for the marked money. As to the elements
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, Suating failed to persuade that he had legal authority to possess the marijuana
cigarette found when he was frisked. Moreover, his previous act of selling marijuana to the poseur buyer showed his intention
to "freely and consciously " possess illicit drugs. Relative to the alleged non-conformity with the chain of custody, the Court of
Appeals underscored that the prosecution was able to prove that there was "no gap or confusion in the confiscation, handling,
custody and examination" of the confiscated illicit drugs.

Suating maintains his innocence.51 While he concedes that the defense of frame-up and denial is weak, he asserts that
this cannot be utilized to further the prosecution's cause, as the latter's evidence "must stand or fall on its own weight and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of his defense." Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, Suating
claims that the prosecution failed to establish the illegal sale of illicit drugs. Arguing that the police officers were 10 meters
away from the area of operation, he insists that it would be impossible for them to observe or even hear what transpired
during the alleged transaction.54 He then questions why the prosecution failed to present the poseur - buyer as witness when
only the latter can best ascertain the necessary details surrounding the sale.

As to the chain of custody in handling the seized illicit drugs, Suating underscores the following irregularities on the
part of the police officers: First, he points out that the marking of the large stick of marijuana cigarette was done neither in his
presence nor in the presence of third-party witnesses.57 Moreover, Suating emphasizes that during the inventory, the
confiscated illicit drugs were already laid down on the table when the barangay officials came.58  Hence, they have no personal
knowledge on how the items were taken from his possession. Second, he also stresses that since the body search was belatedly
undertaken, there is a possibility that the second item might have been merely planted by the police.nLastly, Suating also
stresses his misgivings on whether or not the articles allegedly seized from him were the same ones tested by the forensic
chemist in the first place, and eventually, the ones presented in court. He posits that the records failed to provide details on
who handled the confiscated illicit drugs after examination and up to the moment they were offered as evidence in court.61

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the guilt of Suating was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether or not the police officers complied with the chain of custody as provided for under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules.
RULING:

I.

This Court rules in favor of Suating.

In order to guarantee a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the following:
(1) The identity of the buyer and the seller , the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor. In sum, the occurrence of the sale should be established. Moreover, the object of the deal should
also be offered as evidence and must similarly be proven as the same one confiscated from the accused.

As to the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements should be ascertained: 1.) The accused was in
possession of dangerous drugs; 2 .) such possession was not authorized by law; and 3.) the accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

In both cases, the confiscated illicit drugs from the accused comprises the corpus delicti of the charges,  "i.e., the body
or substance of the crime which establishes that a crime has actually been committed." It is of paramount importance to
maintain the integrity and the identity of the corpus delicti. Thus, the chain of custody rule warrants that "unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."

The chain of custody is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs. . . of each stage, from
the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction." As a means of verifying evidence, it demands "that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by [Proof sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be." Accordingly, the prosecution must be able
to monitor each of the following links in the chain of custody over the illicit drugs: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.

In this case, a prearranged police entrapment led to Suating's apprehension. However, despite a carefully planned and
coordinated buy-bust operation, there were still irregularities committed in the course of the entrapment, which caused
apparent lapses to the chain of custody rule. For this reason, the identity of the corpus delicti was not duly established beyond
reasonable doubt. We are no longer certain whether or not the miniscule quantities of 0.1583 and 0.14 grams84 of marijuana,
presented as evidence against Suating in court, were the very same ones allegedly confiscated from him.

II.

The apprehension of Suating and the consequent seizure of illegal drugs in his possession were due to a buy-bust
operation conducted by the police officers, after prior surveillance and investigation. Although this type of operation has been
recognized to be effective in eliminating unlawful dealings that are covertly undertaken, it has a notable "downside that has
not escaped the attention of the framers of the law." Buy-bust operations are vulnerable "to police abuse, the most notorious of
which is its use as a tool for extortion."

Accordingly, police officers are mandated to strictly observe the procedure for confiscation and custody of prohibited
drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The initial procedural safeguard under Article II, Section 2190 thereof provides:

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;91 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Notwithstanding the mandatory directive of the law as construed from its use of the word "shall," the police officers
miserably failed to comply with the specific procedures in handling the seized marijuana cigarettes allegedly taken from
accused-appellant. The initial link in the chain of custody is the marking of the confiscated illicit drugs. Marking precludes any
contamination, switching or planting of evidence. Through it, the evidence is separated from the corpus of other similar and
correlated evidence, starting from confiscation until its disposal at the close of criminal proceedings. To be at par with the rule
on the chain of custody, the marking of the confiscated articles should be undertaken: (1) in the presence of the accused; and
(2) immediately upon seizure. This effectively guarantees that the articles seized "are the same items that entered the chain
and are eventually the ones offered in evidence. "

In this case, the prosecution offered no reason as to why the marking of the seized marijuana labelled "BOK-1" was
not immediately done after confiscation, but rather only after a considerable lapse of time, thereto when the poseur buyer was
able to leave the area of operation:, away from the sight of the accused. Moreover, they particularly failed to explain why the
police officers could not have promptly marked the item in the presence of Suating, if only to remove any uncertainty that the
marijuana cigarette marked by PO2 Libo-on, and later subjected to laboratory testing, was the very same one allegedly sold by
the accused to the poseur - buyer. Here, an apparent break in the chain of custody already existed before the item was even
marked.

Additionally, the prosecution's failure to present the poseur - buyer is prejudicial to their cause. To emphasize, the
negotiations during the assailed transaction was intimately between the poseur buyer and Suating. PO2 Bernil, whose exact
location from the area of operation was not specifically stated, was merely observing from a distance.  Considering that the
poseur buyer was the one who has personal knowledge of the illegal sale transaction since he was the one who conducted the
same, his testimony is not merely corroborative to that of the police officers. The quantity of dangerous drugs here is "so small
that the reason for not presenting the poseur-buyer does not square with such a miniscule amount." Moreover, this Court
observed that while there was a narration that the confiscated items were inventoried and photographed in the police
station, it is not, however, clear whether such procedures were done in the presence of the required third-party witnesses. To
underscore, the prosecution's narrative in the Court of Appeals' Decision states that both the inventory and photograph of the
confiscated articles were undertaken before "an elected public official." However, in the Appellee's Brief, the mandatory
procedures were allegedly made "in the presence of Hon. Ireneo Celis and the Barangay Kagawad."

The inconsistencies in the prosecution's narration of events points out that the required attendance of representatives
(from both the media and the Department of Justice) during the inventory and photographing was not faithfully complied
with, despite having more than enough time to secure their presence during preparation of the allegedly well-planned
entrapment. Although their absence does not per se make the seized articles inadmissible as evidence, the prosecution must
prove that it has acceptable reason for such failure, or a showing that it exerted "genuine and sufficient effort" to secure their
presence, which, in this case, the prosecution failed to do.

Finally, the prosecution's narration of facts ended when the confiscated articles were examined by Forensic Officer
Puentespina, whose findings under Chemistry Report No. D-217-2011 provided that the items yielded positive for
marijuana.110 This finding, however, leaves the following questions unresolved: (1) did the confiscated drugs remain under
Forensic Officer Puentespina's custody; and (2) were they conveyed to some other place until their presentation in court as
evidence? The lack of details on the post-chemical examination custody of the confiscated illicit drugs creates another
substantial gap in the chain of custody rule, particularly on the must accounted "turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court."112

In addition, the prosecution cannot merely assert the saving clause under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 9165. Non-confonnity with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is certainly not fatal to the cause of the
prosecution, as long as the lapses committed by police officers in the handling of evidence were "recognized and explained in
terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to
have also been preserved." However, these requirements were not present in this case, since the prosecution, to begin with,
failed to acknowledge that there were lapses committed by police officers while dealing with the custody of the seized illicit
drugs. These irregularities created major gaps in the chain of custody rule, which, if remained unjustified, is prejudicial to the
claim of the prosecution.

III

Contrary to the rulings of both the trial and appellate court, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties cannot stand in favor of the police officers on account of the glaring lapses committed in handling the seized
illicit drugs. To underscore, this presumption is neither definite nor conclusive. By itself, it cannot overturn the constitutional
safeguarded presumption of innocence. When the assailed official act "is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course. "

From the standpoint of the accused, we concede that his defense of denial and frame-up is weak. In our jurisdiction, these
defenses, "like alibis, have been viewed with disfavor for these can easily be concocted and arecommon defense ploy s in most
prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act." However, this cannot strengthen or aid the case of the prosecution. "If
the prosecution cannot establish, in the first place, the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the need for the defense to
adduce evidence in its behalf in fact never arises. "

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' December 22, 2014 Decision in CA-GR CEB HC No. 01702 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Ronald Suating y Sayon is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. SAMIAH S. ABDULAH, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

[ G.R. No. 243941, March 11, 2020 ]

LEONEN, J.

EMERGENCY RECIT:

In an Amended Information, Abdulah and another accused, a child in conflict with law identified as "EB," were charged
with violating Section 54 of Republic Act No. 9165. A buy-bust team went to the target area where they saw EB and Abdulah.
The officer handed Abdullah the marked P500.00 bill, which she then passed to EB. In turn, EB placed the money in a sling bag
and retrieved from it a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which she handed to the officer. At this, PO3
Temporal immediately introduced himself as a police officer and apprehended Abdulah and EB. Believing that the area was
unsafe for being "a Muslim area," the team brought Abdulah and EB to the barangay hall where they marked, inventoried, and
photographed the seized items.

The SC held that the marking of the seized drugs was not done immediately after accused-appellant's arrest. In his
own words, PO3 Temporal revealed that the team decided to mark and inventory the items at the barangay hall after deeming
the target area to be unsafe, it being "a Muslim area". The prosecution's attempt to justify the delay in marking and
inventorying the items is too weak, if not callous, a reason to validate the police officers' noncompliance with the chain of
custody requirements. Furthermore, the manner by which the allegedly seized drugs were handled after their confiscation,
and while in transit to the barangay hall, remains unaccounted for. All that was alleged was that PO3 Temporal kept them
himself. The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own pockets precisely underscores the importance of strictly
complying with Section 21. His subsequent identification in open court of the items coming out of his own pockets is self-
serving.

FACTS:

In an Amended Information, Abdulah and another accused, a child in conflict with law identified as "EB," were charged
with violating Section 54 of Republic Act No. 9165.

Based on their collective testimonies, the prosecution averred that at around 1:30 p.m. on November 20, 2014, a
confidential informant went to the District Anti-Illegal Drug of the Eastern Police District in Pasig City, reporting that two (2)
girls were selling illegal drugs on Singkamas Street in Tumana, Marikina City. Superintendent Ogbac at once instructed PO3
Temporal and the informant to verify the tip.

At the area, the informant introduced PO3 Temporal to "Erika" and "Lalay"—later identified as EB and Abdulah—as a
potential buyer of shabu. However, PO3 Temporal was advised to just return the following day, as they had no shabu at that
time. PO3 Temporal reported the incident, and Superintendent Ogbac formed a buy-bust team accordingly. The team was
composed of him, Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Garcia, SPO1 Villanueva, PO3 Serpino, PO3 Temporal, PO2 Gayatao, and Police
Inspector Javier. PO3 Temporal was designated as the poseur-buyer, PO2 Gayatao as his back-up, and the others as the
support group. PO3 Temporal was given a P500.00 bill to be used as buy-bust money, which he marked with his initials, "EJT."

On November 21, 2014, the buy-bust team went to the target area where they saw EB and Abdulah. At first, the girls
hesitated approaching PO3 Temporal as he was with PO2 Gayatao, so PO3 Temporal advised the other to distance himself.
Abdulah then approached PO3 Temporal and inquired about his order. The officer handed her the marked P500.00 bill, which
she then passed to EB. In turn, EB placed the money in a sling bag and retrieved from it a small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, which she handed to the officer. At this, PO3 Temporal immediately introduced himself as a police
officer and apprehended Abdulah and EB. PO2 Gayatao proceeded to frisk the girls while PO3 Temporal seized the sling bag
from EB, recovering the buy-bust money and another sachet of white crystalline substance.

Believing that the area was unsafe for being "a Muslim area," the team brought Abdulah and EB to the barangay hall
where they marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized items. The proceeding was witnessed by Barangay Tanod
Reynaldo Garcia, Barangay Kagawad Francisco delos Santos, Abdulah, and EB. The team then proceeded to the Eastern Police
District headquarters. There, SPO1 Garcia prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination while PO3 Temporal prepared
the Chain of Custody Form. PO3 Temporal later brought the request and the seized items to the Crime Laboratory and passed
them to PO3 Altarejos, who then gave the items to Chief Inspector dela Cruz-Alviar for examination. The test results revealed
that the confiscated items tested positive for shabu.

The defense, on the other hand, presented Abdulah as its sole witness. She denied selling drugs, insisting that she was
merely sleeping in her house during the incident. She further testified that EB is her nephew's wife. By escaping the
Department of Social Welfare and Development, under whose custody she had been placed, EB was considered to have waived
her right to present evidence.

The Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision convicting Abdulah and EB of the crime charged.

In her Brief, Abdulah argued that the Regional Trial Court erred when it rendered conviction despite the
apprehending officers' failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.22 She noted that the inventory and
photographs were taken only at the barangay hall, without the presence of representatives from the media and the National
Prosecution Service.

The Court of Appeals sustained the Regional Trial Court. Abdulah filed a Notice of Appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant Samiah S. Abdulah for the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING:

NO.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: "(1)
proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the  corpus delicti or the illicit drug as
evidence."

In People v. Nacua, the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime itself, is further explained in this wise:

Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug.  In
prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of
its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act spells out the chain of custody requirements for the safeguarding and
custody of items seized in a buy-bust operation. Complying with these stringent measures preserves the seized items'
authenticity and integrity. Strict observance of the chain of custody requirements ensures the seized items' integrity. When
the integrity of the seized items cannot be trusted—as when there are procedural lapses in the chain of custody—the
prosecution has failed to establish the corpus delicti. It has fallen short of proving an element of the offense of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, which engenders reasonable doubt on the accused's guilt.

Nonetheless, in situations that render strict compliance impossible or impracticable, deviations from Section 21's
requirements do not invalidate the seizure of illegal items. Noncompliance may be excused when "(a) there is a justifiable
ground for such non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved."  The
prosecution bears the burden of proving that the items presented are authentic without any indication of tampering.
 The first in the chain of custody's interconnected links is the marking stage, in which the arresting officer or poseur-
buyer affixes "initials or other identifying signs on the seized items . . . in the presence of the accused shortly after arrest." This
crucial step "serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence."In  People v.
Gonzales:

The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related
items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or
related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the
criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

Here, the marking of the seized drugs was not done immediately after accused-appellant's arrest. In his own words,
PO3 Temporal revealed that the team decided to mark and inventory the items at the barangay hall after deeming the target
area to be unsafe, it being "a Muslim area". The prosecution's attempt to justify the delay in marking and inventorying the
items is too weak, if not callous, a reason to validate the police officers' noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements.

To sustain the police officers' equating of a so-called "Muslim area" with dangerous places does not only approve of a
hollow justification for deviating from statutory requirements, but reinforces outdated stereotypes and blatant prejudices.
Islamophobia, the hatred against the Islamic community, can never be a valid reason to justify an officer's failure to comply
with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Courts must be wary of readily sanctioning lackadaisical justifications and
perpetuating outmoded biases. No form of religious discrimination can be countenanced to justify the prosecution's failure to
comply with the law.

Worse, the manner by which the allegedly seized drugs were handled after their confiscation, and while in transit to
the barangay hall, remains unaccounted for. All that was alleged was that PO3 Temporal kept them himself. The circumstance
of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own pockets precisely underscores the importance of strictly complying with Section
21. His subsequent identification in open court of the items coming out of his own pockets is self-serving. The prosecution
effectively admits that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until the seized items' turnover for examination,
these items had been in the sole possession of a police officer. In fact, not only had they been in his possession, they had been
in such close proximity to him that they had been nowhere else but in his own pockets. Keeping one of the seized items in his
right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to
the Court of Appeals' finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not dubious.

Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single police officer's act
of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to
view with distrust the items coming out of PO1 Bobon's pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both
failed to see through this and fell — hook, line, and sinker — for PO1 Bobon's avowals is mind-boggling.

Another glaring failure was the absence of representatives from the media and the National Prosecution Service
during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. The prosecution gave no excuse to justify their absence,
either. Yet, worse, the prosecution did not even show that the police officers exerted any effort to call in these
representatives. The officers had sufficient time to secure their presence, since a surveillance operation had been conducted
prior to the buy-bust operation. By then, the necessary arrangements could have been made.

Finally, this Court emphasizes that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the
prosecution cannot merely rely on the oft-cited presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty to justify
noncompliance with the law's mandate. The presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused stands so long as there is
reasonable doubt on their culpability. To overcome the presumption of innocence, the prosecution must prove the accused's
criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt; it cannot be overcome by merely relying on the weakness of the defense. The
prosecution's duty to prove the accused's criminal liability must rise or fall upon its own merits.

Deviations from the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act’s chain of custody requirements are permitted only on the
strictest and most exceptional grounds. It is the burden of law enforcers to declare and demonstrate not only the specific
reasons impelling them to deviate from the law, but also the concrete steps they took to ensure the integrity and evidentiary
value of items allegedly seized. Cursory and shallow averments of unsafe conditions premised on the profile of a given
locality's population reveals indolence, if not bigotry. Such trite references fall woefully short of the law's lofty standards and
cast doubt on the conduct of buy-bust operations. They justify the acquittal of those whose prosecutions are anchored on
noncompliant police operations.
WHEREFORE, the July 24, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals m CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08883 is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Samiah S. Abdulah is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless she is confined for some other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs.
JAVIER MORILLA Y AVELLANO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 189833               February 5, 2014

PEREZ, J.

EMERGENCY RECIT:

Two vehicles, the Starex van driven by Mayor Mitra and the ambulance van driven by Morilla, left Infanta, Quezon en
route to Manila. The Starex van which was ahead of the ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint set up by the police
officers. However, the ambulance driven by Morilla was stopped by police officers. Through the untinted window, one of the
police officers noticed several sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla replied that the sacks contained narra
wooden tiles. Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla to open the rear door of the car for further inspection. When it
was opened, the operatives noticed that white crystalline granules were scattered on the floor, prompting them to request
Morilla to open the sacks.

The SC held that Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous
drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place
to another." It was well established during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who
was driving a Starex van going to Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum
since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need
not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.

FACTS:

On 15 October 2001, Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang y Yao (Yang) and Ruel Dequilla y Regodan (Dequilla) were
charged in a criminal information as follows:

That on or about October 13, 2001, in Barangay Kiloloran, Municipality of Real, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, one of them an incumbent mayor of the Municipality
of Panukulan, Quezon Province, who all belong to an organized/syndicate crime group as they all help one another, for
purposes of gain in the transport of illegal drugs, and in fact, conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding and
abetting one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously transport by means of two (2) motor vehicles,
namely a Starex van bearing plate number RWT-888 with commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal ambulance
of Panukulan, Quezon Province, methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug which is commonly known as shabu, and
with an approximate weight of five hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos, without authority whatsoever.

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City convicted Morilla and his co-accused Mayor Mitra, then incumbent Mayor of
Panukulan, Quezon, of illegal transport of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, with an approximate
weight of five hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos. However, it absolved Dequilla and Yang due to the prosecution’s
failure to present sufficient evidence to convict them of the offense charged.

The trial court found valid the search conducted by police officers on the vehicles driven by Mayor Mitra and Morilla,
one with control number 888 and the other an ambulance with plate number SFK-372, as the police officers have already
acquired prior knowledge that the said vehicles were suspected to be used for transportation of dangerous drugs. During the
checkpoint in Real, Quezon, the information turned out to be accurate and indeed, the two accused had in their motor vehicles
more than five hundred kilos of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The trial court dismissed the arguments of Mayor Mitra
that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and that he was merely requested to transport them to Manila
on board his Starex van. He explained that he only accommodated the request of a certain Ben Tan because the latter bought
his fishing boat. It likewise dismissed the defense of ambulance driver Morilla of lack of knowledge of the illegality of the
contents. Morilla insisted that he thought that he was just transporting wooden tiles and electronic spare parts together with
Dequilla. The other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his defense, did not bother to inquire about the contents of the
vehicle as he was merely an accommodated passenger of the ambulance. The court rejected the defenses presented by Morilla
and Mayor Mitra as they were caught in flagrante delicto of transporting dangerous drugs in two vehicles driven by each of
them.

The ruling of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla was based on the testimonies of the four accused
themselves. It was found by the trial court that the two vehicles, the Starex van driven by Mayor Mitra and the ambulance van
driven by Morilla, left Infanta, Quezon en route to Manila. The Starex van which was ahead of the ambulance was able to pass
the checkpoint set up by the police officers. However, the ambulance driven by Morilla was stopped by police officers. Through
the untinted window, one of the police officers noticed several sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla
replied that the sacks contained narra wooden tiles. Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla to open the rear door of
the car for further inspection. When it was opened, the operatives noticed that white crystalline granules were scattered on
the floor, prompting them to request Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment, Morilla told the police officers that he was with
Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade them to let him pass. His request was rejected by the police officers and upon
inspection, the contents of the sacks turned out to be sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 10 This discovery prompted
the operatives to chase the Starex van of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able to overtake the van and Mayor Mitra was
asked to stop. They then inquired if the mayor knew Morilla. On plain view, the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded
with sacks like the ones found in the ambulance. Thus, Mayor Mitra was also requested to open the door of the vehicle for
inspection. At this instance, Mayor Mitra offered to settle the matter but the same was rejected. Upon examination, the
contents of the sacks were likewise found to contain sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The Appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It upheld the finding of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and
Morilla in their common intent to transport several sacks containing methamphetamine hydrochloride on board their
respective vehicles. The singularity of their intent to illegally transport methamphetamine hydrochloride was readily shown
when Morilla agreed to drive the ambulance van from Infanta, Quezon to Manila together with Mayor Mitra, who drove the
lead vehicle, the Starex van. The appellate court likewise dismissed the argument of lack of knowledge of the illegal contents of
the sacks. The claim that the sacks were loaded with wooden tiles was implausible due to the obvious disparity of texture and
volume.14

ISSUE:

Whether or not the ruling of the Appellate Court is correct?

RULING:

We affirm the ruling but modify the penalty imposed.

Morilla argues that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended is not sufficient to prove
that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs. This argument is misplaced.

In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into
and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof
of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. In this case, the totality
of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the
dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. Mayor
Mitra was able to drive through the checkpoint set up by the police operatives. When it was Morilla’s turn to pass through the
checkpoint, he was requested to open the rear door for a routinary check. Noticing white granules scattered on the floor, the
police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not
have told the police officers that he was with the mayor.

His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and he just obeyed the instruction of his
immediate superior Mayor Mitra in driving the said vehicle likewise bears no merit. Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were
caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under
the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place to another." It was well established during trial that
Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex van going to Manila. The very
act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special
law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
motive or knowledge.

However, we modify the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Originally, under
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, the penalty for illegal transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride was
imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand
pesos. Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1683, the penalty was amended to life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from twenty to thirty thousand pesos. The penalty was further amended in Republic Act No. 7659, where the penalty was
changed to reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.

From the foregoing, we sustain the imposed penalty of fine of ₱10,000,00.00 to be paid by each of the accused but
amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua following the provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 and the principle of retroactive
application of lighter penalty. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict
becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special disqualification, etc. Life
imprisonment, on the other hand, does not appear to have any definite extent or duration and carries no accessory penalties.

The trial court, in this case, imposed on petitioner the penalty of reclusion perpetua under R.A. No. 7659 rather than
life imprisonment ratiocinating that R.A. No. 7659 could be given retroactive application, it being more favorable to the
petitioner in view of its having a less stricter punishment. We agree. And, since "reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life
imprisonment, and considering the rule that criminal statutes with a favorable effect to the accused, have, as to him, a
retroactive effect," the penalty imposed by the trial court upon petitioner is proper. Consequently, the Court sustains the
penalty of imprisonment, which is reclusion perpetua, as well as the amount of fine imposed by the trial court upon petitioner,
the same being more favorable to him.31

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed 13 July 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02967 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION with respect to the penalty to be imposed as Reclusion Perpetua
instead of Life Imprisonment and payment of fine of ₱10,000,000.00 by each of the accused.

SO ORDERED.