Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Seventh Judicial Region
Branch xx, XXX City
email address: rtc1xxx@judiciary.gov.ph
Tel. No. (032) 511-xxxx; Mobile No. 0932xxx

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

R-CEB-18-03966-CR
- versus - For: VIOL. OF SEC. 11,
ART. II OF RA 9165

LADY GAGA MOLINA CYRUS,

Accused.
x x

ORDER

After the prosecution rested its case, on motion of the counsel for
accused Lady Gaga Molina Cyrus (Lady Gaga), the defense was granted leave
of court to file a demurrer to evidence in this case.1

On 25 February 2023, the court electronically received the Demurrer to

Evidence (with prior Leave of Court) of Lady Gaga in this case, copy furnished
the public prosecutor.

On the other hand, the prosecution did not file a comment to the
demurrer to evidence of Lady Gaga.

A demurrer to evidence is “an objection by one of the parties in an

action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain
the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole
evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the
evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is
competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a
verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer
thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify
1
Pls. see Order dated 16 February 2023.

1
the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be
considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of
the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.” 2 
Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the
prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.3

In criminal cases, the grant of the demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal

and the dismissal order may not be appealed because this would place the
accused in double jeopardy.4

The evidence of the prosecution in this case shows that on 14 June 2018,
Jail Officer 1 Virzeneth Marshmallows (JO1 Marshmallows) was assigned to
frisk women visitors at the main entrance of the XXX City Jail-Male
Dormitory. At around 9:10 in the morning, Lady Gaga came to the jail facility
to visit her live-in partner, who was then an inmate threat. She entered the
searching room and, as a standard operating procedure, submitted herself to a
body search. JO1 Marshmallows frisked Lady Gaga, ordered her to lower her
pants and sit in a squat position. While checking her genital area using a mirror
and flashlight, JO1 Marshmallows noticed a white object apparently tucked
inside. Suspicious, JO1 Marshmallows instructed Lady Gaga to remove the
object from her pudendum and hand it over to her. Upon examination, it was
revealed to be a one (1) big size transparent plastic pack containing white
crystalline substance of suspected “shabu,” wrapped and sealed with a scotch
tape.

The qualitative examination conducted on the contents of the sachet that

was seized from Lady Gaga yielded positive result to the test for the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, per Chemistry
Report No. PDEA7-DD018-2366 [Exh. C].

In her demurrer to evidence, Lady Gaga argued that the prosecution

failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense since the apprehending police
officer failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A.
9165.

In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drug, compliance

with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 is required. Apart from showing that
the elements of possession are present, the fact that the items illegally
possessed in the first place are the same items offered in court must likewise be
2
Pls. see Gutib v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 293, 300, 305 (1999).
3
Pls. see Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, G.R. No. 189754, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 521, 538.
4
Pls. see People v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 174504, March 21, 2011, citing Dayap v.
Sendiong, G.R. No. 177960, January 29, 2009, 577 SCRA 134, 147 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: March 27, 2015

2
established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty
verdict. In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden
of proving the elements of the crime, but also of proving the corpus delicti or
the body of the crime.5 People vs. Briones6 emphasized that “(i)n cases
involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the offense7 and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment
of conviction.8 It is essential, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the
seized drugs be established with moral certainty.9 To remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must
definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug
actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession
or for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails. 10 The chain of custody rule
performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.11 This is done through the monitoring
and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the
police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.12

Under the chain of custody rule, the marking after seizure is the
starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized
contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the
specimens will use the markings as reference.13 The marking of the evidence
serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or
related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are
disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching,
“planting,” or contamination of evidence.14

In the present case, JO1 Marshmallows declared that the marking,

physical inventory and photographing of the seized evidence were conducted
at the Intelligence and Investigation Office (I and I Office), and not at the
searching room where the item was confiscated.15 Accordingly, since the
dangerous drug that was seized from Lady Gaga was not properly marked
when transported from the search room to the I and I Office, it could not,

5
Pls. see People vs. Musor, G.R. No. 231843, November 07, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: March 14, 2019].
6
G.R. No. 239077, March 20, 2019 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: June 17, 2019].
7
People vs. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225, 240.
8
Derilo v. People, G.R. No. 784 Phil. 679, 686 (2016).
9
People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, January 10, 2018, p. 9.
10
People vs. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 19, 2010, 627 SCRA 309, 318.
11
People vs. Havana, G.R. No. 198450, January 11, 2016.
12
Pls. see People v. Villojan, Jr., G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: November 27, 2019]; See People v. Ditona, et al. 653 Phil. 529, 533 (2010), citing People v. Sitco,
et al. 634 Phil. 627, 640 (2010), People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 144 (2010).
13
Pls. see People v. Nuarin, G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015.
14
See People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 279, 289-290.
15
TSN, 6 December 2022, at 12.

3
therefore, be determined how this unmarked item was handled. 16 Evidently,
alteration of the seized item was a possibility absent immediate marking.17

The immediate marking upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous

drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and
evidentiary value.18 As expressed in People vs. Laxa,19 the failure to mark the
corpus delicti immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt
on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal of the accused on reasonable
doubt. Lopez vs. People,20 on the other hand, emphasized that it has been
consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized
drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and
suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties. Failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the
accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on
reasonable doubt.21 The marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of
the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of
their integrity and evidentiary value.22

Generally, there are four links that must be established to comply with
the chain of custody rule, to wit: “first, the seizure and making, if practicable,
of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.23 The prosecution has the burden to show “every link in
the chain, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized from the accused
until the time it is offered in court as evidence.” 24 People vs. Hementiza25
stressed that every person who touched the item must describe his or her
receipt thereof, what transpired while the same was in his or her possession,
and its condition when delivered to the next link.

16
Pls. see People v. Patricio, G.R. No. 202129, July 23, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: October 03, 2018].
17
Ibid., citing People v. Doria, 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015), at 233.
18
Pls. see Derilo vs. People, G.R. No. 190466, April 18, 2016; see also People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417,
April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123, 134.
19
G.R. No. 138501, July 20, 2001.
20
Pls. see Derilo vs. People, G.R. No. 190466, April 18, 2016; see also People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417,
April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123, 134.
21
People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 339; San Juan v. People, G.R. No.
177191, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 300, 316-317; People v. Cureche, G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009, 596
SCRA 350, at 357-358.
22
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123, 134.
23
Pls. see People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: March 20, 2019].
24
People v. Manabat, et al., G.R. No. 230615, March 04, 2019, citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634
(2016) [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: April 12, 2019].
25
G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017.

4
 After a punctilious evaluation of the pieces of evidence that were
presented by the prosecution in this case, the court finds that the first, second
and fourth links were not established. Notably, when asked whose handwriting
was in the Certificate of Inventory, JO1 Marshmallows identified JO3
Batolome Reasol (JO3 Reasol) as the one who made the entries thereon and
that she (JO1 Marshmallows) merely affixed her signature below it.26

While the requirements of Section 21 may be dispensed with, the

prosecution must however prove that the presence of the required witnesses
was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance
was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety
during the inventory and photographs of the seized drugs was threatened by an
immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in
his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the
presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within
the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile
through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged
with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug
operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law
enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the
offenders could escape.27

Here, JO1 Marshmallows reasoned that the marking, physical inventory

and photographing of the seized item were not immediately conducted in the
place of recovery in order to avoid delay, because there were many visitors
queuing outside the searching room.28 Obviously, this justification is not
among, indeed not even analogous, to the foregoing circumstances wherein the
vital requirement of the law may be dispensed with. Likewise, JO1
Marshmallows failed to state the steps she took in order to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug from the time of
its recovery up to the time that it was inventoried at the I and I Office. It should
have been imperative especially because, as declared by JO3 Reasol, three
visitors were arrested on the same day, including Lady Gaga, 29 and all three
were brought to the I and I Office for investigation. Clearly, without a marking
previously made, the identity and integrity of the seized drug from Lady Gaga
is placed in serious doubt.

Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 plainly requires the

apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the
26
Id. at 15.
27
Pls. see People vs. Lim, G.R. no. 23189, March 19, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created:
August 22, 2018].
28
TSN, 6 December 2022, at 12.
29
TSN, 16 February 2023, at 29.

5
photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. 30 In
addition, the inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of
the accused, his counsel, or representative, a representative of the DOJ,
the media, and an elected public official, who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.31 The phrase “immediately
after seizure and confiscation” means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately
after, or at the place of apprehension.32 And only if this is not practicable, the
IRR as amended, allows that the inventory and photographing could be done as
soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team.33

With the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10640,34 Section 21 of

R.A. No. 9165 now only requires two (2) witnesses to be present during the
conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items,
namely: (a) an elected public official; and (b) either a representative from the
National Prosecution Service or the media.35 Thusly, the witness to the
inventory must either be: i) an elected public official and a representative from
the DOJ; or ii) an elected public official and a representative from the media.
Although the amendatory law provides as an alternative the presence of the
representative from the DOJ and the representative from the media, 36 the
presence of an elected public official remains indispensable.

In the instant case, the physical inventory and photographing of the

seized item was conducted in the presence of an elected official only –
Barangay Kagawad Marie Jean Guinto. Indeed, upon clarification by the court,
JO3 Reasol revealed that media representative Virgilio Salde, Jr. (Salde) was
not present during the inventory.37 Thusly, Salde merely affixed his signature
on the certificate of inventory and did not witness the actual conduct of the
physical inventory of the seized item.

This is not compliant with the vital requirement of the law. People vs.
Bintaib38 stressed that the “(m)ere signature or presence of the insulating
witness at the time of signing is not enough to comply with what is required
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. What the law clearly mandates is that
they be present while the actual inventory and photographing of the seized
30
Pls. see People vs. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: August 16, 2018].
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Approved on 15 July 2014.
35
Pls. see People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created:
August 22, 2018].
36
People v. Cornel, G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018.
37
TSN, 16 February 2023, at 33.
38
G.R. No. 217805, April 2, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: July 4, 2018].

6
drugs are happening. If we were to allow such circumvention of this
requirement, we would open the floodgates to more mistaken drug convictions
especially when planting evidence is a common practice.39

Lastly, the court finds that the chain of custody of the seized items was
not fully established.

Generally, there are four links that must be established to comply with
the chain of custody rule, to wit: “first, the seizure and making, if practicable,
of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.40 The prosecution has the burden to show “every link in
the chain, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized from the accused
until the time it is offered in court as evidence.” 41 People vs. Hementiza42
stressed that every person who touched the item must describe his or her
receipt thereof, what transpired while the same was in his or her possession,
and its condition when delivered to the next link.

Here, the fourth links were not proven.

Records provide that the testimony of the forensic chemist (Ma. Jonah
Pinanonang, RCh [Pinanonang]) was dispensed with by the parties due to
stipulation of facts.43

The case of People vs. Ubungen,44 citing the earlier case of People vs.
Pajarin,45 ruled that in case of stipulation by the parties to dispense with the
attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that
the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps
required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
item, thus: (1) the forensic chemist received and seized article as marked,
properly sealed, and intact; (2) he resealed it after examination of the content;
and (3) he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be
tampered pending trial.

39
Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934, 956 (2007); People v, Dela Cruz, 666 Phil. 593, 619 (2011); Arcilla v.
Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 914-925 (2003); People v. Pagaura, 334 Phil. 683, 689-690 (1997).
40
Pls. see People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: March 20, 2019].
41
People v. Manabat, et al., G.R. No. 230615, March 04, 2019, citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634
(2016) [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: April 12, 2019].
42
G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017.
43
Pls. see Order, dated 18 February 2020.
44
G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: September 25, 2018].
45
654 Phil. 461 (2011).

7
 Here, the stipulation of facts by the parties do not contain the above-
mentioned vital information.46 It was not stated that Pinanonang “received the
seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact” neither was it
stipulated that she “resealed it after examination of the content”. Hence, the
fourth link was not established.

Indubitably, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied
with in this case. Consequently, with the serious lapses committed by the
prosecution in complying with the vital requirements of the law, the court
could no longer determine with reasonable certainty whether the one (1) pack
of shabu [Exh. A] that was presented in court as evidence in this case is the
very same illegal item that was seized from Lady Gaga during her arrest.

It has been repeatedly emphasized that in drugs cases, “what is essential

is ‘the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.”47 When the courts are given reason to entertain
reservations about the identity of the illegal drug item alleged[ly] seized from
the accused, the actual crime charged is put into serious question. Courts have
no alternative but to acquit on the ground of reasonable doubt.”48 Any indicia
of doubt in the evidence of the prosecution that puts into question the
fundamental principles of credibility and integrity of the corpus delicti makes
an acquittal a matter of course.49

It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is a

matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple
procedural technicality.50 People vs. Jamillo51 stressed that “(t)he
requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR are not mere
suggestions or recommendations. x x x. Unjustified deviations from the
prescribed procedure will result to the creation of reasonable doubt as to the
identity and integrity of the illegal drugs and, consequently, reasonable doubt
as to the guilt of the accused.” Even performing actions, which seemingly near
compliance but do not really conform to its requisites, is not enough.52

46
Pls. see Order, dated 4 April 2022.
47
Pls. see People vs. Prajes, G.R. No. 206770, April 02, 2014, citing People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730,
June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 452.
48
Pls. see People v. Galon, G.R. No. 219086, March 19, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: June 07, 2018], citing People v. Miranda, Jr., G.R. No. 206880, June 29, 2016, 795 SCRA 227.
49
Pls. see Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 226053, March 13, 2019 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: May 15, 2019].
50
Pls. see People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017 citing People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794,
808 (2011).
51
G.R. No. 218107, September 09, 2019 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: February 14,
2020].
52
Id.

8
 WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, for insufficiency of the
pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution in this case, the Demurrer to
Evidence of the accused is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, this case is hereby ordered DISMISSED and accused

Lady Gaga Molina Cyrus is hereby ACQUITTED from criminal liability for
Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

In view thereof, the Jailer of accused Lady Gaga Molina Cyrus is hereby
directed to immediately release her from custody, unless valid ground exists
for her continued confinement. Further, the release of accused Lady Gaga
Molina Cyrus should comply with the rules and regulations issued by the
national and local government regarding the release of Persons Deprived of
Liberty during this period of national health emergency.

The dangerous drugs described in Chemistry Report No. PDEA7-

DD018-2366 [Exh. C] is hereby declared FORFEITED and CONFISCATED
in favor of the government. The court hereby orders the DESTRUCTION
without delay of this dangerous drug pursuant to R.A. No. 9165.

SO ORDERED.

Done in chambers this 16th day of March 2023 in XXX City, Philippines.

MORY A. NUEVA
Presiding Judge