REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 16 September 2020 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243591 (People of the Philippines v. Glerm Guinto y

Laserna, Corazon Ferrer y Millaro, Henry Narito y Alm01ulia, Ken Bayani
y Sampang, and Ronne/ Getape y Candidato, accused; Glenn Guinto y
Laserna, accused-appellant). - Before the Court is an ordinary Appeal of
the Decision' dated June 13, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09563 which affirmed with modification the Decision2
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 34,
finding accused-appellant Glenn Guinto y Laserna (appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11 , Article II of Republic Act No.
(RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002," for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and violation of Section
28 (a) of RA 10591 , otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunition Regulation Act," for Illegal Possession of F irearm.

The Facts

Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II

of RA 9165 for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Drug
Paraphernalia, respectively; and violation of Section 28 (b) and (g) of RA
10591 ,3 while the other accused, Corazon Ferrer y Millam (Ferrer), Henry
Narito y Almondia (Narito), Ken Bayani y Sampang (Bayani), and Ronnel
Getape y Candidato (Getape) were charged with Section 15, A11icle II of RA
9165 for Use of Dangerous Drugs. However, appellant was acquitted of
Section l 2, A11icle II of RA 9165 and Section 28 (g) of RA 10591 before the
RTC based on reasonable doubt and thus, such cases are no longer subject of
the appeal before the CoU11.

1
Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, wi th Associate Justices Samuel 1-1. Gaerlan (now
a Member of the Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-31.
2
Penned by Presiding .Judge Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo; CA rollo, pp. 52-68.
Id. at 36.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 243591

The Information for Criminal Case No. 26460-2016-C(C) for Illegal

Possession of Dangerous Drugs is as follows:

That on or about April 12, 2016 at (sic) Calamba City, Laguna and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
fe loniously possess quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, approximately weighing 22.22 grafft!s, in violation of the
aforementioned law.

CONTRARY TO LAW .4

Meanwhile, the accusatory portion of the Information for Criminal

Case No. 26461 -2016-C(C) for Illegal Possession of Firearm is as follows:

That on or about April 12, 2016 at (sic) Calamba City, Laguna and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
without authority of law, did then and there willfu lly, unlawfully, and
fe loniously have in his possession, custody, and control, one (1) unit of
Caliber .38 Revolver with serial number 55650, one (1 ) unit Caliber .22
pistol, and one (1) unit Caliber .38 Revolver w ithout serial number,
without any license to possess or permit to carry the same issued by
competent authority, in violation of law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against

6
him.

Version ofthe Prosecution

On April 12, 2016, operatives of the Calamba City Police Station

implemented a Warrant of Arrest against appellant for the crime of
Carnapping. 7 In the course of his apprehension, a police team which
included prosecution witnesses Police Officer 3 Anastacio Motas, Jr.8 (PO3
Motas) and Police Officer 2 Allen Llorente (PO2 Llorente), found him in
possession of illegal drugs and a .38 caliber weapon with serial number
55650 tucked in his waist.

According to PO3 Motas, appellant's identity was made known to

them by a confidential informant. When they spotted appellant, they did not
immediately arrest him but fo llowed him to his residence. After appellant
entered his home, PO3 Motas and PO2 Llorente peeped through a w indow
and saw the other accused in the act of having a pot session. Thus, they
immediately entered the house and introduced themselves as police officers.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Id. at 37.
7
Warrant of Arrest issued by Judge Glenda R. Mendoza-Ramos of the RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36,
in Criminal Case No. 26273-2016-C; see records, Vol. I, p. 10.
8
TSN, January 18, 2017, pp. 1-34.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 243591

Both PO3 Motas and PO2 Llorente arrested appellant while the latter got
hold of a firearm tucked in appellant's waist. Thereafter, PO3 Motas
conducted a preventive search on the body of appellant and recovered seven
(7) plastic sachets of suspected shabu from his pocket. Likewise spotted
inside the house laid on a table were several drug paraphernalia, two guns,
and ammunition. 9

PO3 Motas marked all the items seized inside appellant's residence in
the presence of appellant, the other accused, PO2 Llorente, barangay
officials, and members of the Highway Patrol Group, who accompanied the
police officers in their operation. He prepared a handwritten inventory 10
which was signed by Barangay Councilor Ronaldo Santos and Barangay
Public Safety Officer Investigator R.C. Mangeron. Photographs 11 were
taken throughout depicting the conduct of the inventory to the signing by the
representatives. After the arrest, appellant and the other accused were
brought to the police station for further inventory and investigation. At the
police station, PO3 Motas prepared a Receipt of Physical Inventory, 12
13
Request for Drug Test, and Request for Laboratory Examination. 14 For the
recovered firearms, a Request for Firearms Verification was transmitted to
the Firearms and Explosives Office which in turn, issued an Initial Firearm
Holder's Verification Report 15 certifying that appellant was not a registered
fireann holder. PO3 Motas asserted that he was in possession of the seized
items which he placed in a box from the time he took custody during
appellant's arrest, during the investigation at the police station and until it
was brought to the Crime Laboratory. PO2 Llorente, 16 who acted as PO3
Motas's back up security, corroborated the latter's testimony.

Chemistry Report No. D-780-1 6, 17 prepared by Forensic Chemist Dr.

Lalaine Ong Rodrigo (Dr. Rodrigo), yielded positive results for the presence
of shabu in all the specimens submitted to the Crime Laboratory. The Initial
Laboratory Report 18 also revealed positive results for the presence of shabu
in the urine sample of appellant and the other accused.

Version of the Appellant

Appellant raised the defenses of denial and frame-up. 19 According to

him, he and Narito were at a jeepney terminal acting as barkers when they
were arrested on April 12, 2016. A group of 15 armed men in civilian
clothes arrived and forced them to lie face down wh ile they were
9
CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
10
Records, Vol. I, p. 8.
11
Id . at 19-22.
12
Id. at 15 .
13
Id. a l 11-12
14
Id. at 13-1 4 .
15
Id. at 24
16
TSN, January 18, 2017, pp. 35-39.
17
Records, Vol. I, p. 25.
18
Id. at 26.
19
TSN, March 23, 2017, pp. 1-11.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 243591

handcuffed. There were other persons in the area who were also arrested,
but whose identities he did not know. After their arrest, the armed men
pulled out a table and brought out firearms and illegal drugs which they
placed on the table. Thereafter, they were brought to the municipal hall
where they were incarcerated. It was only during their incarceration that
appellant learned that the armed men were actually police officers and that
firearms, ammunition, and illegal drugs were allegedly found in his home.
Appellant was unaware that there was a standing Warrant of Arrest issued
against him, claiming that it was not even showed to him at the time of his
arrest. He denied that he was arrested at his house, claiming he was a
resident of Brgy. Real, Calamba City while he was arrested at Brgy.
Crossing, Calamba City. 20

Narito confirmed that he was with appellant when they were arrested
at the jeepney terminal. While he and appellant were talking, two men
arrived and suddenly ordered them to lie face down. Thereafter, they were
instructed to proceed to the bridge along Crossing, Brgy. Uno. At the bridge,
there was a table with illegal drugs on it. They were then brought to the
municipal hall and incarcerated. He vehemently denied the accusations
against him, claiming that he was not even informed of the charge against
· 21
l11m.

Finally, Getape claimed that he just came out of his brother's house in
Brgy. Crossing, Calamba City where he slept over for the night when eight
(8) armed men arrived and poked a gun at him, instructing him to lie face
down. Aside from Narito, he did not know the other accused. He and the
other accused were brought to the house of Ferrer, where firearms and other
illegal items were placed on a table. These items came from one of the
companions of the police whose face was concealed with a bonnet.
Thereafter, they were brought to the municipal hall where they were
incarcerated. He denied the charge of violation of Section 15, Article II of
22
RA 9165 against him.

RTC Ruling

On June 15, 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Drugs and violation
of Section 28 (a) of RA 10591, which was necessarily included in the charge
of Section 28 (b) of RA 10591. In so ruling, the RTC gave credence to the
unrebutted testimonies of the arresting police officers which it characterized
as candid, straightforward and credible when they narrated that: 23 (a)
appellant was arrested by virtue of a Warrant of Arrest for Carnapping
issued against him, during which time, a .38 caliber revolver was recovered
from his waist; and (b) during the preventive search conducted on appellant
20
Rollo. pp. 9-1 I .
21
TSN, March 30, 20 17, pp. 1-7.
22
TSN, May 18, 20 17, pp. 1-10.
23
CA rollo, p. 63.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 5 G .R. No. 243591

following his a1Test, he was found in possession of seven (7) plastic sachets
of suspected shabu with an aggregate weight of 22.22 grams. The RTC
likewise ruled that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was established
by the prosecution, there being no gaps in its custody. 24

Moreover, appellant was acquitted of Illegal Possession of Drug

Paraphernalia as penalized under Section 12, A11icle II of RA 9165 and
violation of Section 28 (e) of RA 10591 due to reasonable doubt since the
prosecution failed to establish that he either owned or possessed the drug
paraphernalia, and the other firearms and ammunition. 25

CA Ruling

On June 13, 2018, the CA rendered a Decision sustaining appellant's

conviction for both crimes but modified the penalty for violation of Section
28 (a) of RA 10591 in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The CA found no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of
the lower court. With regard to the Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs,
the CA determined that the totality of the evidence established appellant's
culpability and that the chain of custody was unbroken. Likewise, the CA
held that absent a showing that there was bad faith or ill will on the pa1t of
the arresting officers or proof that the evidence had been tampered with, the
presumption that police officers properly handled the exhibits and
discharged their duties prevailed. As regards the Illegal Possession of
Firearm, the appellate com1 ruled that the Initial Firearm's Holder
Verification Report was sufficient in establishing that appellant was not
licensed to possess a firearm. 26

Both pa1ties filed their respective Manifestations to the effect that they
are adopting the arguments in their Briefs.27

The Issues

I. Whether appellant possessed a license or permit to possess a

firearm.
II. Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs were complied
with.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is paitly meritorious.

At issue in this instant appeal is the corpus delicti of the crimes

charged against appellant. The term corpus delicti refers to the body or
24
Id at. 64.
25
ld.at67.
26
Rollo, pp. 11-29.
27
Id. at 39-4 1; 44-46.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 243591

substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the
crime has been actually committed. 28 For the crime of Illegal Possession of
Firearms, the corpus delicti is an accused's lack of license or permit to
possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law. 29
Meanwhile in narcotics cases, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a
30
judgment of conviction.

As will be further discussed below, the Court sustains appellant' s

conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearms under Section 28 (a) of RA
10591 but finds it proper to acquit him of the crime of Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, there being gaps in the chain of custody which undermine
the identity and integrity of the seized shabu.

Appellant was not licensed to possess

a firearm.

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of Illegal

Possession of Firearms are: (a) the existence of subject fiream1; and (b) the
fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the
corresponding license for it. 31 In this case, while appellant concedes that the
32
prosecution was able to establish the existence of the .38 caliber revolver,
he claims that the prosecution failed to prove that he was not licensed to
possess the same.

The Comi disagrees.

ln a catena of cases,33 it has been held that either the testimony of a

representative of, or a certification from a representative of the Philippine
National Police-F irearms and Explosives Office (PNP-FEO) attesting that a
person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove the second
element of Illegal Possession of Firearn1s. The Initial Firearm Holder's
Verification Repmi obtained from the PNP-FEO sufficiently established that
appellant was not licensed to possess a firearm. A cursory reading of the
document, which partakes the nature of a certification, states in no unce1iain
terms that appellant "is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind
of caliber, p er verification from Records of this Office." 34 Anent the
purpo1ied non-compliance with Depaiiment of Justice (DOJ) Circular No.
067,35 the Cou1i agrees with the appellate court's determination that non-

28
People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, March 11 , 2019.
29 Id.
30
People v. Abdulah, G.R. No. 243941 , March 11 , 2020.
31
People v. Olarte, supra note 28.
n Rollo, p. 43.
33
People v. Go, 406 Phil. 804, 8 12-81 3 (2001); Del Rosario v. People, 410 Phi l. 642, 652 (2001); People
v. Lazaro, 375 Phil. 811 , 883-890 (1999).
34
Records, Vol. I, p. 24.
35
Additional Guidelines in the Disposition of Inquest Cases Involving Violations of Presidential Decree
No. 186, as amended by RA 8294.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 243591

compliance with this Circular will not exonerate an accused. 36 For

reference, DOJ Circular No. 067 requires that: (1) the recovered firearm was
physically inventoried, checked, and accounted for; (2) pictures and the
stencil of the subject firearm are submitted by the duly authorized personnel
of the PNP Crime Laboratory and attached to the record of the case; (3) the
recovered firearm is fully safeguarded by the law enforcer and the chain of
custody is properly recorded; (4) the recovered firearm be properly
deposited by the police investigator with the police evidence custodian; and
(5) the PNP Officials submit an affidavit of undertaking, stating, among
others, that he/she shall take the obligation of presenting the subject firearm
when the prosecutor or the judge deems it necessary. The Court finds that
this Circular laying down this post-seizure procedure was simply intended to
set guidelines for the efficient disposition of cases involving RA l 0591, non-
compliance of which will not automatically exculpate an accused from
liability.

It bears pointing out that historically, the Court has applied the "chain
of custody" rule as a mode of authenticating illegal drug substances in order
to determine its admissibility, however, such rule has not yet been extended
to other substances or objects,37 such as a firearm. This is because a firearm
is a unique object and could readily be identifiable by a distinguishable mark
such as a serial number in contrast to non-unique objects such as narcotic
substances, chemicals and the like, that present an inherent problem with
fungibility. 38 Even assuming arguendo that the chain of custody rule applies
to dispel supposed doubts as to the firearm's identity as the very same one
obtained from appellant, the Court is satisfied that the .3 8 caliber revolver
submitted into evidence is the very same firearm tucked in appellant's
waist. As found by the CA:

In the course of the implementation of the warrant of arrest against

accused-appellant, prosecution witness P02 Llorente was able to recover a
caliber .3 8 revolver which was then tucked in the waist of accused-
appel lant. This established the intent on the part of the accused-appellant
to possesses the said firearm. P03 Motas also testified that it was P02
Llorente who immediately recovered the said firearm from accused-
appellant. Said firearm was marked by P03 Matas as 'GLG-AMM-014'
with serial number 55650 which was later presented in court. During their
testimony before the trial court, P03 Motas and P02 Llorente identified
said caliber .3 8 revolver, as the same firearm recovered from accused-
appel !ant. 39

Aside from being photographed, marked as "GLG-AMM-14," and

included in the inventory prepared by P03 Motas, the subject firearm also
had a serial number which further confirms to the Court that this was the
same firearm seized from appellant at the time of his apprehension.

36
CA rollo, p. 140.
37
People v. Olarte, supra note 28.
38 Id.
39
CArolfo,p. 138.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 243591

The prosecution failed to establish an

unbroken chain ofcustody.

An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and it is
the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 40 The appeal
confers the appellate court ful l jurisdiction over the case and renders such
court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from,
increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.41
Additionally, the rule that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when
affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight, however, does not apply
where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended
or misapplied in a case under appeal, 42 as in this case.

In every prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the

prosecution must establish the following elements by proof beyond
reasonable doubt: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object
identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by
law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 43
However equally imperative is the task of ensuring that identity of the
dangerous drug is established with moral certainty, considering that the
dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the
crime. Establishing the corpus delicti in a crime involving dangerous drugs
calls for the preservation and establishment of the chain of custody:

In drug-related criminal prosecutions, chain of custody specifically

refers to the documented various movements and custody of the subjects
of the offense be they seized drugs, controlled chemicals or plant sources
of dangerous drugs, and equipment for their production - from the
moment of seizure or confiscation to the time of receipt in the forensic
laboratory, to their safekeeping until their presentation in court as
evidence and their eventual destruction. The documentation includes the
inventory, the identity of the person or persons w ho held temporary
custody thereof, the date and time when any transfer of custody was made
in the course of safekeeping until presentation in court as evidence, and
. · · 44
d 1spos1tion.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the

police officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to
preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. This statutory requirement
provides, among others, that the apprehending team shall immediately after
seizure and confiscation physically inventory and photograph the seized
items in the presence of the accused, or the person from whom such items
were seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media

0
" People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. I 042, I 050(2018); citing People v, Dahil, 750 Phil. 2 12, 224 (20 I 5).
,11 Id.
42
People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259, 275 (2018).
43
People v. Hilario, 823 Phil. 528, 588-589(20 18).
41
' Lapi v. People, G. R. No. 2 I073 I , February 13, 20 19.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 243591

and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Notably, this
provision was amended in 2014 by RA 10640,45 which is the applicable law
at the time of the commission of the crime charged against appellant. The
difference between the requirements in RA 9165 and RA 10640 is the
requirement of having representatives of the media or the DOJ instead of
previously requiring the presence of both to witness the inventory process;
and the relaxation of the rule regarding the certification of the forensic
laboratory examiner. In addition to the foregoing, the Court, in People v.
46
Kamad, delineated the four (4) links that must likewise be established by
the prosecution:

First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer;

Second, the turnover of the i lie gal 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.

After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that all four links
were not established by the prosecution.

As regards the first link, the prosecution presented P03 Motas who
testified that he immediately marked the seized items at appellant's
residence with the latter's initials, prepared the handwritten inventory in the
presence of two (2) barangay representatives and took photographs.
However, appellant argues that the chain of custody was broken, considering
that representatives from the DOJ and the media were not present during the
47
conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs.

Appellant's argument is well-taken.

In contrast to the conclusion of the CA,48 the Comt finds that the fact
that the arresting officers' initial objective was to implement a Warrant of
Arrest for Carnapping and the discovery of illegal drugs in appellant's
possession was unexpected but does not constitute a justifiable ground to
excuse the absence of these representatives. The law is emphatic that the
presence of these insulating witnesses is mandatory and thus, any deviation
therefrom must be detailed by the prosecution and proven as a fact, because
45
Entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the
Purpose Sectio n 2 1 of Repub lic Act No. 9 165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of2002," approved on Ju ly 15, 20 14.
46
624 Phil. 289,304 (201 0).
47
CA rollo, p. 44 .
48
Id. at 28.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 243591

the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 49
In addition, the earnest efforts unde1taken to secure the attendance of these
witnesses must be shown. Jurisprudence has held that the mere statement of
unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required
witnesses, is unacceptable as a justifiable ground for non-compliance. 50 In
this case, there was no evidence that there was any attempt by the arresting
officers to secure the presence of the representative from the DOJ or the
media. Rather, it appears that the prosecution relied on the presumption of
regularity of duty, the absence of any ill-motive on the part of the arresting
officers, and the accidental discovery of the illegal drugs as badges of truth.
Needless to state, this falls sho1t of the stringent requirements laid down by
law and for this reason, the first link of the chain was not demonstrated.

With regard to the second link, the Comt notes that while the lower
courts unite in their finding that P03 Motas never relinquished custody of
the seized drugs; reference to his testimony reveals othe1wise. On direct
examination, P03 Motas testified that he was in possession of the seized
items from the time of their initial seizure up to the time they were brought
to the Crime Laboratory. Both the RTC 51 and the CA52 stated that the seized
items were merely shown to the investigator at the police station; however,
on cross-examination, P03 Motas testified that the seized items were
actually given to the investigator, to wit:

ATTY. CRUZ
Q. After inventory, who handled the evidence?
A. Me sir.

Q. How about the guns?

A. Me also sir.

Q. Where did you put it?

A. Inside a box si r.

Q. And where did you bring the box?

A. At the Crime Laboratory Office sir.

Q. From the crime scene, you directly go (sic) to the Crime

Laboratory Oflice?
A. No sir. To the Police Station first before going to the Crime Lab
SIL

Q. And you gave that box to the Investigator?

53
A. Yes sir.

49
People v. Dela Victoria, 829 Phil. 675, 685(2018), citing People v. Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (20 I0).
50
People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 2 181 26, Ju ly 10, 20 19; People v. Rodriguez, G. R. No. 213760, July I,
2019; People v. Lim, G.R. No. 23 1989, September 4, 2018.
51
CA rol/o, p. 64.
52
Id. at 136.
53
TSN, January 18, 20 17, pp. 33-34.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 1l G.R. No. 243591

It is clear from P03 Matas' testimony that he relinquished possession

of the box containing the seized items to an unidentified police investigator.
While reference to Request for Drug Test and Request for Laboratory
Examination indicates as its signatory a certain Police Senior Inspector
Marlon Mescuso Calonge from the Intelligence Section, the Court is
nonetheless left to speculate as to the identity of this investigating officer
because he was never identified by P03 Motas in his testimony. The
identities of the officers who had custody of the illegal drugs, even for
momentary periods, are open to question.

As regards the third link, even assuming arguendo that P03 Motas
never relinquished custody of the seized shabu and thus transported the same
to the crime laboratory, 54 noticeably absent in his testimony is the identity of
the person who received the seized shabu at the crime laboratory . The only
pieces of evidence representing the third link in the chain consisted of the
letter-requests for laboratory examination and for drug test.

Similarly, there is a dearth of evidence, testimonial or otherwise

pertaining to the fourth link of the chain of custody, i. e., turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court. In People v. Plaza,55 the Couti stated in no uncertain terms that
there is a break in the fourth link of the chain of custody where there is
absence of evidence to show how the seized drug was handled, stored, and
safeguarded pending its presentation in court. In this case, the stipulations
during the preliminary conference on Dr. Rodrigo's testimony were
essentially confined to her examination of the samples which she found
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and which she reduced into
writing in her Chemistry Report. In fact, the stipulations by the prosecution
and the defense on her testimony were limited to the examination of the
seized drugs, thus:

3. T he specimens examined by Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong

Rodrigo were allegedly submitted by police officers;
4. T he specimens were examined and analyzed by said Forensic
Chemist;
5. The due execution and authenticity of the Chemistry Report;
6. The specimens were brought to the C rime Laboratory for
examination;
7. There is a request dated April 12, 20 16; and
8. The specimens accompanying the written request were examined
and found positive for the presence of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride with qualification that said specimens were not
taken from the accused. 56

Even a painstaking review of the records and transcripts yields no

results as to the identity of the person/s who had custody of the seized

5~ Id. at 19.
55
G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 20 18.
s<, Records, Vol. II, pp. 46-48.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 12 G.R. No. 243591

sachets of shabu before it was presented to the court as evidence. Notably

Section 6, paragraph 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 2,
Series of 2003 requires laboratory personnel to document the chain of
custody each time a specimen is handled or transferred until the specimen is
disposed; it also requires the identification of the individuals participating in
the chain. The records are silent regarding compliance with this regulation.

In People v. Mola,57 the Court explained the dilemma caused when the
testimony of the forensic chemist lacks details as to the chain of custody,
stating:

Moreover, in dispensing w ith the testimony of the forensic chemist,

it is evident that the prosecution failed to show another link in the chain of
custody. Since her testimony was limited to the result of the examination
she conducted and not on the source of the substance, PS/Insp. Malojo
Todefio fai led to certify that the chemical substance presented for
laboratory examination and tested positive for shabu was the very same
substance recovered from Mola. The turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drugs seized from the forens ic chemist to the court was also
not established. Neither was there any evidence to indicate how the sachet
of shabu was handled during and after the laboratory examination and on
the identity of the person/s who had custody of the item before it was
presented to the court as evidence. Without the testimonies or stipulations
stating the details on when and how the seized sachet of shabu was
brought from the crime laboratory to the comi, as well as the specifics on
who actually delivered and received the same from the crime laboratory to
the court, it cannot be ascertained whether the seized item presented in
evidence was the same one confiscated from Mola upon his arrest. This
gap in the chain of custody creates doubt as to whether the corpus delicti
of the crime had been properly preserved. (Underscoring supplied)

This is not to state that the testimony of a forensic chemist cannot be

58
dispensed with. In People v. Pajarin, the Court explained that in case the
patties dispense with the testimony of the fo rensic chemist, it should be
stipulated that the forensic chemist wo uld have testified that he took the
precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and
ev identiary value of the seized item, thus: ( 1) that the forensic chemist
received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; (2) that he
resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own
marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.
These however were not present in the case. As seen above, the prosecution
and defense even stipulated that the specimens examined were "allegedly
submitted by police officers" to the crime laboratory for examination. For
reasons unknown to this Comt, the prosecution made no efforts to address
this, considering that as earlier pointed out, P03 Motas failed to identify the
person who received the seized shabu in the crime laboratory. Here, the
saving clause in RA 10640, which was reproduced from RA 9165 , fails to
remedy the arresting officers' lapses and save the prosecution's case. It
57
830 Phil. 364, 380-38 1 (20 18).
58
See 654 Phil. 461, 464-466 (20 I I).

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 13 G.R. No. 24359 l

must be stressed that the saving clause applies only where the prosecution
recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited justifiable grounds. 59
Failure to follow the procedure mandated under RA 9165, as amended, and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations must be adequately explained.
Unfortunately, the prosecution simply glossed over the above discussed
lapses.

It could be that appellant was really in possession of shabu when the

arresting officers implemented a Warrant of Arrest against him for another
crime, but considering the doubts engendered by the procedural lapses
committed, the Court has no recourse but to give him the benefit thereof.
Though the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty is of course
available, it has to be remembered that the presumption of irn1ocence of a
person accused of committing a crime prevails over the presumption of
regularity of the performance of official duty. 60 The Court must be
convinced that there was no room for the dangerous drug to be replaced by
or contaminated w ith other pieces of evidence for other cases. In this case,
there were lapses in all four (4) links in the chain of custody, creating a
reasonable doubt on whether the shabu seized from appellant was the same
shabu that was brought to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and
eventually offered in court as evidence. With the corpus delicti of the crime
of Illegal .Possession of Dangerous Drugs not having been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, the acquittal of appellant becomes the proper recourse.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

Decision dated June 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 09563 is MODIFIED insofar as appellant Glenn Guinto y Laserna is
hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2000
in Criminal Case No.26460-2016-C(C).

SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on Leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(J{IUIJl~-:7
INOTUAZON
!erk of Court ;, 2
11 3 FEB 2021 1/~

59 Sec Peup/e v. /-/e111e11tiza, 807 Phil. 101 7, 1038 (201 7).

10
' People v. l'laza, supra nolc 55.

(219)URES - more -
Resolution 14 G.R. No. 243591
September 16, 2020

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)

134 Amorsolo Street
1229 Legaspi Village
Makati City

PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (reg)

Special & Appealed Cases Service
Department of Justice
th
5 Floor, PAO-DOJ Agencies Building
NIA Road corner East Avenue
Diliman, 1104 Quezon City

GLENN GUINTO y LASERNA (reg)

c/o The Director
Bureau of Corrections
I 770 Muntinlupa C ity

THE DIRECTOR (reg)

Bureau of Corrections
I 770 Muntinlupa City

HON. PRESIDTNG JU GE (reg)

1'
Regional Trial Court, ·anch 34
Calamba City, Laguna
(Crim. Cases Nos. 264 0-2016-C[C] to
26467-2016-C[C])

JUDGMENT DlYISIO (x)

Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC fNFORMATI I N OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuan to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]

OFFICE OF THE CH I~F ATTORNEY (x)

OFFICE OF THE REP I RTER (x)
Supre me Cou11, Mani la

COURT OF APPEALS (x)

Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, l000 Manila
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 0r 63

Please notify the Court otim1y change i11 your address.

GR24359 l. 09/16/2020 2 l 9)URES JJi,.