SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 255947. March 28, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARIEL

ESCASURA y ALORIA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 28 March 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255947 (People of the Philippines v. Ariel Escasura y
Aloria). — This is an appeal 1 from the August 26, 2020 Decision 2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10764. The CA affirmed the
October 27, 2017 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba
City, Branch 37, in Criminal Case Nos. 27103-2016-C and 27104-2016-C,
finding Ariel Escasura y Aloria (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs under
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 or the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Informations both dated July 22, 2016 alleged as follows:
Criminal Case No. 27103-2016-C:
That on or about July 20, 2016 in Bay, Laguna and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without any authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously possess Three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride having a total
weight of 0.13 gram, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. 27104-2016-C:
That on or about July 20, 2016 in Bay, Laguna and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without any authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell and deliver to a police poseur-buyer One (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
During his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the
charges. 7 Thereafter, joint trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Forensic Chemist
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Police Chief Inspector Grace Plantilla-Bombasi (FC Bombasi), Police Officer
(PO) 1 Erwin Bayangan (PO1 Bayangan), PO1 John Simon Sarne (PO1 Sarne),
and PO3 Aldin Hernandez (PO3 Hernandez). 8
The RTC dispensed with the testimony of FC Bombasi in an Order 9
dated September 28, 2016 in view of the defense's admission of the
following stipulations:
1) Expertise and qualification of the Forensic Chemist in the
field of Forensic Chemistry;
2) That on July 21, 2016, she received a Request for
Laboratory Examination and attached therewith are the specimen[s]
indicated in the said request for laboratory examination which were
brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination by Police Officer
Erwin Bayangan and received thereat by Police Officer Sibal as
reflected in the Request for Laboratory Examination;
3) That she received the letter request together with the
specimen mentioned therein from Police Officer Sibal;
4) That pursuant to said request, she conducted forensic
examination on the specimen;
5) That she reduced the result of her forensic examination
into writing;
6) The genuineness, existence, due execution and the
correctness of the findings in Chemistry Report No. LD-896-16
marked as Exhibit "B" with qualification that the said witness has no
personal knowledge as to where the specimen subjected to forensic
examination were taken by the police;
7) The ability of the said witness to identify the specimen
which she examined and the steps she took to preserve the integrity
of the specimen from the time of her examination to the turn-over of
the specimen to the evidence custodian; CAIHTE

8) In connection with this case, she retrieved the specimen

in the same condition as when she turned-over the same to the
evidence custodian after she conducted the forensic examination. 10
The combined testimonies of the prosecution witnesses tended to
establish the following:
At around 6:45 p.m. on July 20, 2016, PO1 Bayangan of the Philippine
National Police, Bay, Laguna, received a report from a confidential informant
(CI) that accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug activities. Upon
confirmation of the information, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Marlon M.
Calonge (PSI Calonge) organized a buy-bust team, with PO1 Bayangan as the
poseur buyer, and PO3 Hernandez and his team, as perimeter security. 11
The planned entrapment operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Region 4-A, through a Coordination Report, 12
and Pre-Operation Report, 13 both dated July 20, 2016. The PDEA in turn
issued Control Number 10005-072016-1021. 14
After arranging a transaction with accused-appellant, the buy-bust
team, together with the CI, proceeded to the target area. Upon arrival
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 thereat, the CI introduced PO1 Bayangan to accused-appellant as the buyer
of shabu. Upon receipt of the money, accused-appellant gave a small plastic
sachet to PO1 Bayangan. Having ascertained that the plastic sachet
contained suspected shabu, PO1 Bayangan touched accused-appellant's arm
to signal the rest of the team that the sale had been consummated. 15
PO1 Bayangan conducted a body search and recovered from the
possession of accused-appellant three more plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substances suspected to be shabu, as well as the marked money
and two P100.00 bills. 16
At the place of seizure, PO1 Bayangan marked the plastic sachet sold
to him with "AE-BB," and those recovered in accused-appellant's possession
with "AE-1," "AE-2," and "AE-3." A physical inventory of the seized items was
conducted in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Captain Lauro
Lopez (Captain Lopez) of Barangay San Isidro, Bay, Laguna, and media
representative Levy Tatad (Tatad) of The Tribune Post. Both witnesses
signed the Receipt/Inventory of Evidence Seized and were given copies
thereof. After the inventory, PO1 Bayangan placed the seized evidence
inside an evidence bag or stapled transparent plastic marked with BAY MPS,
07-20-2016. 17 Photographs of both accused-appellant and the seized items,
together with the witnesses, were also taken during the inventory. 18
At the police station, PO1 Bayangan presented the seized evidence to
the duty investigator. A Request for Laboratory Examination 19 of the drug
specimens, as well as a Request for Drug Test Examination 20 on the urine
sample of accused-appellant, were prepared by PO1 Bayangan, which he
personally delivered to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4-A. 21 Police
Officer Sibal received the specimen, 22 and turned them over FC Bombasi,
whose examination revealed positive results for shabu as per Chemistry
Report No. LD-896-16. 23
The testimonies of PO1 Sarne and PO3 Hernandez were dispensed in
view of the stipulation of the parties that if presented, they would
corroborate PO1 Bayangan's testimony. 24
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him and interposed the
defenses of denial and frame-up. At around 5:30 p.m. of July 20, 2016, he
was on his way home from the market when four police officers suddenly
blocked his way for no reason. The said persons allegedly brought him to the
Municipal Hall where he was detained. 25 He had no prior encounter with the
police officers who arrested him.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its Judgment dated October 27, 2017, the RTC handed a guilty
verdict against accused-appellant. It gave credence to the testimony of PO1
Bayangan who positively identified accused-appellant as the person who sold
him a plastic sachet which contained shabu . The defense failed to prove any
ill motive on the part of PO1 Bayangan to falsely testify against accused-
appellant. In fine, the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The dispositive portion
reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , in Criminal Case No. 27103-
2016-C, the Court likewise (sic) finds accused ARIEL ESCASURA y
ALORIA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY , as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE OF THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (PHP300,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 27104-2016-C, the Court likewise finds the
accused in Criminal Case No. 27103-2016-C, GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act 9165. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (PHP500,000.00) PESOS.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn-over the
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) subject of this case for
proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 26 DETACa

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment. The
appellate court concurred with the trial court's assessment that the
prosecution, through the testimony of PO1 Bayangan, had successfully
established the elements of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Possession of
Dangerous Drugs. It was also convinced that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the drug seized from accused-appellant were preserved by the
prosecution. The decretal portion of the Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, absent error on the part of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 37, Calamba City, we DISMISS the appeal, and
AFFIRM the Judgment dated 27 October 2017, and the Amended
Order dated n 14 February 2018, in Criminal Case Numbers 27103-
2016-C and 27104-2016-C.
SO ORDERED. 27

Unsatisfied, accused-appellant appealed before this Court. 28 The

parties opted not to file supplemental briefs with this Court and instead
adopted their discussions in their briefs filed with the CA.
Issue
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the CA
correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant for violating Sections 5
and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
Elements of Illegal Sale of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Dangerous Drugs.
To successfully prosecute the offense of Sale of Illegal Drugs under
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be present: (1)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. 29
In this case, PO1 Bayangan, the poseur buyer, positively identified
accused-appellant as the person who sold him a sachet of shabu for
P300.00. Thus, the prosecution sufficiently established that the Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs was consummated. In People v. Alunan, 30 this Court ruled
that the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of
the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the
entrapment officers and the accused. The crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated.
Elements of Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs.
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be established:
(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. 31
Here, after accused-appellant's arrest in flagrante delicto, PO1
Bayangan conducted a body search on accused-appellant which yielded
more sachets of shabu . Accused-appellant was not authorized to possess the
dangerous drugs and possession of which constitutes a prima facie evidence
of knowledge or animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused
in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. 32 Indeed,
the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs are likewise present
in this case.
Anent accused-appellant's argument that the lack of a prior
surveillance casts doubt on the existence of the buy-bust operation, suffice it
to state that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust
operations, and the selection of appropriate and effective means of
entrapping drug traffickers is best left to the discretion of police officers.
Thus, the absence of a prior surveillance does not affect the regularity of a
buy-bust operation, especially when the buy-bust team was accompanied to
the scene by the informant, 33 which is exactly what happened in the instant
case. aDSIHc

Compliance with the Chain of

Custody Rule.
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs 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 offense. 34 First, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 35
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 seized drugs.
What is more, the inventory and photography must 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. 36
In the instant case, the Court holds that the police operatives strictly
complied with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as well as its Implementing
Rules and Regulations.
Seizure and marking (1st Link):
On the first link, immediately after seizure and confiscation of the
illegal drugs from accused-appellant, PO1 Bayangan marked, inventoried
and photographed the seized items at the place of arrest and in the
presence of accused-appellant and the required witnesses — Captain Lopez
and media representative Tatad. Since the buy-bust operation took place in
2016 or after the effectivity of RA 10640 on July 15, 2014, the presence of
the two witnesses during the inventory constitutes sufficient compliance with
the rule.
Moreover, contrary to accused-appellant's assertion that the required
witnesses should have been present at the time of his actual warrantless
arrest, We stress that the presence of the said witnesses is needed only
during the actual conduct of inventory and photography of the seized items,
and not during the seizure thereof. A careful reading of Section 21, Article II
of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, shows that only the conduct of
inventory and photography should be done in the presence of the required
witnesses and not during the actual seizure of the dangerous drugs. The
aforementioned law clearly requires that the inventory and photography of
the seized items should be done immediately after seizure and
confiscation and not during seizure or confiscation of the contraband. 37
In a further attempt to impugn the prosecution's case, accused-
appellant questions the identities of the two witnesses for the alleged failure
of the police operatives to require them to present a proof of identification.
We are not swayed.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 If the defense honestly believed that the identities of Captain Lopez
and media representative Tatad were questionable, it could have impeached
the credibility of the said witnesses by presenting evidence to disprove their
qualification as such. This, the defense failed to do.
Thus, We hold that there was no breach in the first link in the chain of
custody.
Turn over to investigating officer
(2nd Link).
Accused-appellant asserts that PO1 Bayangan failed to observe the
second link in the chain of custody because he merely presented the seized
evidence to the duty investigator. Appellant harps on the fact that the duty
investigator was merely presented with the seized drugs and did not have
actual possession thereof, hence, the breach in the second link.
Accused-appellant's argument fails to persuade.
The presentation of the seized drugs to the duty investigator was
sufficient compliance with the second link as he had actual view of the same
during the conduct of the investigation and the preparation of the necessary
documents for the developing criminal case. According to PO1 Bayangan, he,
together with the investigator, prepared the request for laboratory
examination of the seized drugs. 38 Thus, it was justified that PO1 Bayangan
remained in possession thereof during the preparation of the required
documents as he participated in the process. What is important is that the
investigator was shown the illicit drugs. Accordingly, there was no break in
the second link. ETHIDa

Turn over for laboratory examination

(3rd Link).
The third link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs
from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist in the crime laboratory.
39

In this case, it was also PO1 Bayangan who personally brought the
specimens to the crime laboratory together with the Requests for Laboratory
Examination and Drug Test. The samples were received by Police Officer
Sibal, the officer on duty at the crime laboratory, as evidenced by his
signature appearing on the requests. 40 Police Officer Sibal in turn submitted
them to FC Bombasi, 41 who performed the necessary tests thereon. After
the examination, FC Bombasi turned over the specimens to the evidence
custodian prior to their presentation to the court where they were duly
presented, identified, and admitted as evidence. 42
The qualitative examination conducted by FC Bombasi on the drug
specimens yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, which she reduced in writing through
Chemistry Report No. LD-896-16. Certainly, the third link was successfully
demonstrated by the prosecution.
Submission to the court (4th Link).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the
forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal
case. 43
Accused-appellant avers that there n was a break in the fourth link of
the chain of custody rule because the stipulated testimony of FC Bombasi
was limited only to her conduct of examination of the seized drugs and the
result yielded.
We do not agree.
Records show that the specimens subject of this case were transmitted
to the trial court by FC Bombasi herself. 44 In this connection, the parties
resorted to a stipulation of facts regarding the testimony of PC Bombasi. In
particular, the defense admitted the ability of PC Bombasi to identify the
specimen which she examined and the steps she took to preserve the
integrity of the specimen from the time of her examination to the turn-over
of the specimen to the evidence custodian. 45 It was also admitted by the
defense that FC Bombasi retrieved the specimen in the same condition as
when she turned-over the same to the evidence custodian after she
conducted the forensic examination. 46
From the foregoing, it is clear that the stipulations required for the
proper and effective dispensation of the testimony of the forensic chemist
were duly satisfied. Ergo, there were no lapses in the disposition and
handling of the seized items. Simply stated, the prosecution complied with
the standard in handling the evidence and in establishing the chain of
custody.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 26, 2020
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10764, finding
accused-appellant Ariel Escasura y Aloria guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs,
under Section 5 and Section 11, respectively, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, is AFFIRMED. TIADCc

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 23-25.

2. Rollo , pp. 4-22. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and

concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Tita Marilyn
B. Payoyo-Villordon.
3. CA rollo, pp. 77-91.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.
5. Records (Criminal Case No. 27103-2016-C), p. 1.

6. Records (Criminal Case No. 27104-2016-C), p. 1.

7. Records (Criminal Case No. 27103-2016-C), p. 38; (Criminal Case No. 27104-
2016-C), p. 30.

8. Rollo , p. 6.
9. Records (Criminal Case No. 27104-2016-C), pp. 38-39.
10. Id.
11. Records (Criminal Case No. 27103-2016-C), p. 7. Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-
Aresto of PO1 Erwin Bayangan.
12. Id. at 13.

13. Id. at 14.

14. Id. at 13.
15. Id. at 7-8.
16. Id.
17. Records (Criminal Case No. 27103-2016-C), p. 65. RTC Order dated March 17,
2017.
18. Id. at 17-20.

19. Id. at 11.

20. Id. at 12.
21. Id. at 11-12.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 21.

24. Records (Criminal Case No. 27104-2016-C), p. 92. TSN, October 6, 2017, pp. 2-
11.

25. Id. at 99-103. TSN, October 12, 2017, pp. 3-6.

26. CA rollo, pp. 90-91.
27. Rollo , p. 21.
28. Id. at 31-34.
29. People v. Baluyot , G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020, citing People v.
Magalong, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019.
30. G.R. No. 244170, January 25, 2021, citing People v. Encila , 598 Phil. 165, 181
(2009).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 31. People v. Arellaga , G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020, citing Reyes v. Court of
Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012).
32. People v. Alunan , supra.
33. Id.
34. People v. Dejos , G.R. No. 237423, October 12, 2020.
35. Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020, citing People v.
Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 405 (2014).
36. People v. Dejos.
37. (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected
public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
38. TSN, July 14, 2017, p. 8.
39. People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.

40. Records (Criminal Case No. 27103-2016-C), pp. 11-12.

41. Records (Criminal Case No. 27104-2016-C), p. 38. RTC Order dated 28
September 2016.
42. Id. at 39.
43. People v. del Rosario, supra note 39.
44. Records (Criminal Case No. 27104-2016-C), p. 38. RTC Order dated 28
September 2016.
45. Id. at 39.
46. Id.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "date" in the official document.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "that the there" in the official document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com