G.R. No.

188698 July 22, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
SONIA BERNEL NUARIN, Appellant.

DECISION

BRION, J.:

We decide the appeal filed by appellant Sonia Bemel Nuarin (appellant) from the April 28, 2009
decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02886.

The appealed decision affirmed the May 25, 2007 joint decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 80, Quezon City, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section
5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.

Background Facts

The prosecution charged the appellant with violation of Sections 53 and 11,4 respectively, of R.A. No.
9165 before the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-114918 and Q-03-114919. The
appellant was duly arraigned; she pleaded not guilty to the charges laid. The prosecution presented
Police Officer 1 (PO1) Roberto Manalo at the trial on the merits that followed, while the parties
stipulated5 the testimony of Forensic Chemist, Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. Insp.) Bernardino
Banac. The appellant took the witness stand for the defense.

PO1 Manalo testified that on February 2, 2003, members of the District Drug Enforcement Group of
the Central Police District, composed of himself, PO1 Filnar Mutia, PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO3
Eduardo Datul, and PO3 Rommel Bautista went to Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City, to conduct a
buy-bust operation against the appellant.6 When they arrived there at around 12:30 p.m., the
informant introduced PO1 Manalo to the appellant. PO1 Manalo told the appellant that he wanted to
buy P100.00 worth of shabu. The appellant handed a sachet containing white crystalline substances
to PO1 Manalo who, in turn, gave him the marked money. Immediately after, PO1 Manalo made the
prearranged signal to his companions.7 The other members of the entrapment team rushed to the
scene and introduced themselves as policemen; PO1 Mutia searched the appellant and found two
other plastic sachets inside the appellants coin purse. Thereafter, the police brought the appellant
and the seized items to the police station.8

The defense presented a different picture of the events. The appellants testimony was aptly
summarized by the CA as follows:

On February 2, 2003, at about 12:30 in the afternoon, accused-appellant was at home with her son
John Bernel and friends Jan Ticson and Rebecca Agana. They had just finished eating lunch and
accused appellant was, then, washing the dishes when she heard a knock on the door. At the door
were PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO1 Filnar Mutia and two others. They were looking for a certain
Bogart. When accused-appellant said that she did not know where Bogart was, the police officers
entered the house and searched the premises for about an hour. When the search did not yield
anything incriminatory, the police brought accused-appellant and the other occupants of the house to
Camp Karingal In Quezon City. There, the police extorted P40,000.00 in exchange of accused-
appellants release. When the money was not produced, accused-appellant was charged by the
police officers.9
In its joint decision10 of May 25, 2007, the RTC found the appellant guilty of the illegal sale of 0.03
gram of shabu penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC held that the
prosecution was able to prove, through testimonial and documentary evidence, that an illegal sale of
drugs took place between the appellant and the poseur-buyer, PO1 Manalo. It added that the police
were presumed to have regularly performed their official duties in the absence of any evidence to
rebut this presumption. The RTC likewise found no merit in the appellants defenses of denial and
extortion as she failed to substantiate these. Accordingly, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment, and ordered her to pay a P500,000.00 fine. The RTC, however,
acquitted the appellant of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114919
for insufficiency of evidence.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA held that the prosecution successfully
proved all the elements of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It further
ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu had been preserved. The CA
also disregarded the appellants denial in the light of the positive identification made by PO1 Manalo.

In her brief on appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court gravely erred in convicting her of the
crime charged despite the prosecutions failure to establish that a buy-bust operation took place. She
also maintained that the chain of custody over the seized shabu had been broken. For the State, the
office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the prosecution was able to establish that the sale
of shabu between the appellant and the poseur-buyer was consummated. It also maintained that the
nonpresentation in court of the original marked money, the forensic chemist, the informant, and the
original marked money was not fatal in the prosecution for illegal drugs.

Our Ruling

After due consideration, we resolve to acquit the appellant for the prosecutions failure to prove her
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation
of evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the
transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and the existence of the corpus delicti.

In securing or sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of
evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have
been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drugs unique characteristic that
renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution
either by accident or otherwise.

Thus, to remove any doubt 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-appellant.11 It is in this respect that the prosecution failed.

The Marking Requirement vis--vis the Chain of Custody Rule

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines
chain of custody as "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction."
A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they are seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized.
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. 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.12

In the present case, the prosecutions lone witness, PO1 Manalo, gave conflicting statements as to
who marked the seized sachets. In his direct testimony, he claimed that it was the desk officer who
marked the sachets, thus:

PROSECUTOR JOSEPHUS ASIS:

Q: After you were able to arrest the accused and while going travelling (sic) to your office[,] who was
holding the drug that you were able to buy from the accused?

PO1 MANALO:

A: I, Sir.

Q: After the recovered money by PO1 Mutia and after you arrived at the station[,] what did you do?

A: We turned it over to the desk officer and the desk officer put the initial RM.

Q: After the marking[,] what happened next?

A: The investigator prepared a request to the crime laboratory and brought the drug to the crime lab.

Q: Who brought it if you know?

A: I can no longer remember.13

In the latter part of his direct examination, however, PO1 Manalo claimed that he was the one who
marked the sachets. To directly quote from the records:

PROSECUTOR JOSEPHUS ASIS:

Q: Now you mentioned that you were able to purchase drug from the accused. If the drug will be
shown to you[,] would you be able to identify it?

PO1 MANALO:

A: I have my marking there[,] sir.

Q: Will you please go over the same and tell me what is the relation of the said sachet with the
substance with the one you were able to buy (sic)?
Q: This is the same stuff that I bought, this is my marking.

PROS ASIS:

Witness identified the sachet previously marked Exhibit "F-3." May we request that the marking
placed by the witness in the sachet be marked as Exhibit "F-3-B."

xxxx

Q: How sure are you that the sachet that you have just identified is also the sachet that you
recovered during the operation?

A: Nobody held it except me.

Q: How did you identify the sachet?

A: The marking that I made.14 [emphasis supplied]

In his cross-examination, PO1 Manalo again stated that he was the one who marked the confiscated
plastic sachets with "RM."

We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the initial markings as reference. If at
the first instance or opportunity, there are already doubts on who really placed the markings on the
seized sachets (or if the markings were made in accordance with the required procedure), serious
uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that the prosecution introduced into
evidence.

In addition, the records do not show that the sachets were marked in the presence of the appellant.
In People v. Sanchez,15 we explained that the "marking" of the seized items to truly ensure that they
are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be
done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.16 We
explained therein that [t]his step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious
and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits
based on planting of evidence under Section 29and on allegations of robbery or theft.

Significantly, PO1 Manalo and PO1 Mutia did not even mention that they marked the seized plastic
sachet in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest.

In People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna,17 the Court acquitted the accused for the
prosecutions failure to clearly establish the identity of the person who marked the seized drugs; the
place where marking was made; and whether the marking had been made in the accuseds
presence.

As to the subsequent links in the chain of custody, PO1 Manalo stated that he handed the seized
plastic sachets to the desk officer at the police station. Curiously, the identity of this desk officer was
1w phi 1

never revealed during trial. This is particularly significant since no reference was ever made as to the
person who submitted the seized specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. PO1
Manalo, in fact, testified that he could not remember the person who brought the seized plastic
sachets to the crime laboratory. Notably, the specimen was forwarded to the crime laboratory only at
10:35 p.m. It was not clear, therefore, who had temporary custody of the seized items when they left
the hands of PO1 Manalo until they were brought to the crime laboratory for qualitative analysis.
The stipulation on the testimony of the forensic chemist does nothing to help fill the gap as regards
the custody and possession of the sachets from the police station to the crime laboratory. To recall,
the parties merely stipulated that P/Sr. Insp. Banac received a request for laboratory examination,
together with the specimen to be examined; that he recorded the receipt of the sachets in the
logbook and conducted a physical, chemical, and confirmatory test on the submitted specimen; that
he found them positive for the presence of shabu; and that he put his markings on the sachet and
placed it in an improvised envelope before forwarding it to the evidence custodian. Notably, the RTC
held that P/Sr. Insp. Banac "has no personal knowledge from whom the subject specimen presented
before this court was taken (sic)."18 Simply put, the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemical
officer has no bearing on the question of whether the specimen submitted for chemical analysis and
subsequently presented in court were the same as that seized from the appellant.

The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21

of Article II of R.A. No. 9165

The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph
1,Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:

1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof. [emphasis ours]

This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
No. 9165, which reads:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these 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 of and custody over said items;
[emphasis ours]

This procedure, however, was not shown to have been complied with by the members of the buy-
bust team, asPO1 Manalo himself admitted that the police did not make an inventory and
photograph the seized items either at the place of seizure or at the police station. In addition, the
police did not offer any acceptable reason why they failed to do a basic requirement like a physical
inventory of the seized drugs, considering that there were only three (3) sachets taken from the
appellant.

In the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Rosalinda Casabuena,19 we acquitted the accused
for failure of the police to make an inventory and to photograph the seized shabu. We explained that
strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique
characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration,
or substitution either by accident or otherwise.

No Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties

The courts a quo erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity in performance that a police
officer enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to
falsify his testimony. The regularity of the performance of the police officers duties leaves much to
be desired in this case given the lapses in their handling of the allegedly confiscated shabu. The
totality of all the procedural lapses we previously discussed effectively produced serious doubts on
the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame up and
extortion. We have previously held that these lapses negate the presumption that official duties have
been regularly performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole
performance and should make the presumption unavailable.20 We also entertain serious doubts on
PO1 Manalos claim that they coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
before the buy-bust operation, as he admitted that there was no pre-operation report or coordination
sheet prepared by the police. Significantly, PO1 Manalo likewise admitted that the police did not
coordinate with the barangay officials of the subject area. To our mind, these circumstances vis--vis
the lapses made in the handling and safekeeping of the alleged sachets of shabu puts in doubt the
claim of the police that they had conducted a legitimate buy-bust operation.

In fine, the totality of evidence presented in the instant case does not support the appellant's
conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. We reiterate that the prosecutions failure
to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of
this Act, compromised the identity of the item seized, which is the corpus delicti of the crime charged
against appellant. Following the constitutional mandate, when the guilt of the appellant has not been
proven with moral certainty, as in this case, the presumption of innocence prevails and his
exoneration should be granted as a matter of right.21

A final note.

We are mindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are lingering maladies that
destroy families and relationships, and engender crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies
concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma.
Regardless of our desire to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by the
Constitution, most particularly on the presumption of innocence bestowed on the appellant. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce moral certainty that would
convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this
constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of
the crime charged, which in this case is the corpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than
an acquittal.22

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the April 28, 2009 decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02886. Sonia Bemel Nuarin is hereby ACQUITTED for
the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered
immediately RELEASED from detention unless she is confined for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women,
Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution
for Women is directed to report the action she has taken to this Court within five (5) days from
receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

G.R. No. 212196 January 12, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
RAMIL DORIA DAHIL and ROMMEL CASTRO y CARLOS, Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This is an appeal from the September 27, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 05707, which affirmed the July 17, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
57, Angeles City (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. DC 02-376, DC 02-377 and DC 02-378, finding
accused Ramil Doria Dahil (Dahil) and Rommel Castro (Castro) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.

The Facts

On October 1, 2002, Dahil and Castro were charged in three (3) separate Informations before the
RTC. In Criminal Case No. DC 02-376, Dahil and Castro were charged with violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale of 26.8098 grams of marijuana in the Information which reads:

That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating and
mutually helping one another, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or
deliver to a poseur buyer six (6) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY SIX
GRAMS AND EIGHT THOUSAND NINETY EIGHT TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (26.8098),
which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

In Criminal Case No. DC 02-377, Dahil was charged with possession of 20.6642 grams of marijuana
in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads: That on or about
the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and custody and control Five (5) tea bags of dried marijuana
fruiting tops weighing TWENTY GRAMS AND SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN
THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (20.6642), which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4
In Criminal Case No. DC 02-378, Castro was charged with possession of 130.8286 grams of
marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads: That
on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and custody and control One (1) brick in form
wrapped in masking tape of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing ONE HUNDRED THIRTY
GRAMS and EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A
GRAM (130.8286), which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

On November 14, 2002, Castro was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Dahil, on the other hand,
filed a motion for reinvestigation and his arraignment was deferred. Trial ensued and the prosecution
presented PO2 Arieltino Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz)and SPO1 Eliseo Licu (SPO1 Licu), as witnesses.

On August 6, 2009, the RTC discovered that Dahil was never arraigned through inadvertence.6 The
RTC informed the parties of the situation and the defense counsel did not interpose any objection to
the reopening of the case and the arraignment of Dahil. The latter was then arraigned and he
pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the public prosecutor manifested that he was adopting all the
evidence already adduced.

Version of the Prosecution

Evidence of the prosecution tended to show that, for a couple of weeks, the agents of the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing operations relative
to the information they received that a certain alias "Buddy" and alias "Mel" were trafficking dried
marijuana in TB Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. On September
29, 2002, the Chief of PDEA formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was
composed of four (4) police officers, namely, Sergeant Juanito dela Cruz (Sergeant dela Cruz), as
team leader; and PO2 Corpuz, SPO1 Licu and PO2 Javiar, as members. PO2 Corpuz was
designated as the poseur-buyer while SPO1 Licu was assigned as his back-up.

The team proceeded to the target place at around 8:00 oclock in the evening. Upon arriving, PO2
Corpuz together with the informant went to the house of Dahil which was within the TB Pavillon
compound. When PO2 Corpuz and the informant were in front of the house, they met Dahil and
Castro. The informant then introduced PO2 Corpuz as the buyer of marijuana. Dahil asked PO2
Corpuz how much would he be buying and the latter answered that he would buy P200.00 worth of
marijuana. At this juncture, Dahil took out from his pocket six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana and
handed them to PO2 Corpuz. After checking the items, PO2 Corpuz handed two (2) P100.00
marked bills to Castro.

Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to signal that the sale had been consummated.
The rest of the buy-bust team then rushed to their location and arrested Castro and Dahil. PO2
Corpuz frisked Dahil and recovered from his possession another five (5) plastic sachets containing
marijuana while SPO1 Licu searched the person of Castro and confiscated from him one (1) brick of
suspected marijuana.

Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were then brought by the buy-bust team
to the PDEA office. There, the seized items were marked by PO2 Corpuz and SPO1Licu. First, the
six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana which were sold by Dahil to PO2 Corpuz were marked with "A-1"
to "A-6" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML." Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered
from Dahil were marked with "B-1" to "B-5" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML." Finally, the
marijuana brick confiscated from Castro was marked "C-RDRC." Sergeant dela Cruz then prepared
the request for laboratory examination, affidavits of arrest and other pertinent documents. An
inventory of the seized items7 was also prepared which was signed by Kagawad Pamintuan.
Thereafter, PO2 Corpuz brought the confiscated drugs to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory for examination, which subsequently yielded positive results for marijuana.

The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the essential contents of the prospective
testimony of the forensic chemist, to wit:

1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by PO3 Dela Cruz;

2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent to the PNP Crime
Laboratory,Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;

3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;

4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance subject of the
letter request with qualification that said request was not subscribedor under oath and that
the forensic chemist has no personal knowledge as from whom and where said substance
was taken;

5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-
0518-2002; and

6. The findings and conclusion thereof.8

The prosecution was ordered to formally offer its evidence on March 7, 2007.9 After much delay, the
public prosecutor was finally able to orally submit his formal offer of exhibits after almost two years,
or on January 6, 2009.10 He offered the following documentary evidence: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest,
(2) Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Photocopy of the marked money, (4) Brown envelope
containing the subject illegal drugs, (5) Inventory of Property Seized, (6) Laboratory Examination
Request, and (7) Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002.

Version of the Defense

In his defense, Dahil claimed that on September 29, 2002, a tricycle driver came looking for him after
he had arrived home. He saw the tricycle driver with another man already waiting for him. He was
then asked by the unknown man whether he knew a certain Buddy in their place. He answered that
there were many persons named Buddy. Suddenly, persons alighted from the vehicles parked in
front of his house and dragged him into one of the vehicles. He was brought to Clark Air Base and
was charged with illegal selling and possession of marijuana.

For his part, Castro testified thaton September 29, 2002, he was on 4th Street of Marisol, Barangay
Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City, watching a game of chess when he was approached by some men who
asked if he knew a certain Boy residing at Hardian Extension. He then replied that he did not know
the said person and then the men ordered him to board a vehicle and brought him to Clark Air Base
where he was charged withillegal possession of marijuana.

RTC Ruling
In its Decision,11 dated July 17, 2012, the RTC found both accused liable for violating Sections 5 and
11 of R.A. No. 9165, and imposed upon them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of P500,000.00 each for the crime of illegal sale of marijuana;Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day,
as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00
each for the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.

The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the case of selling and possession
of illegal drugs against the accused. All the elements of the crimes were established. To the trial
court, the evidence proved that PO2 Corpuz bought marijuana from Dahil. The latter examined the
marijuana purchased and then handed the marked money to Castro.

The marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers, but the RTC ruled that the same
was not fatal considering that a photocopy of the marked money was presented and identified by the
arresting officers.12 It did not give credence to the defense of frame-up by Dahil and Castro
explaining that it could easily be concocted with no supporting proof.

CA Ruling

The accused then appealed to the CA. In their Brief for the Accused-Appellants,13 they argued that
there were irregularities on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal items
seized from them. The prosecution witnesses exhibited gross disregard of the procedural safeguards
which generated clouds of doubts as tothe identity of the seized items presented in evidence.14

In its Brief for the Appellee,15 the OSG contended that the prosecution was able to prove all the
elements of the crime of illegal sale and possession of marijuana. As to the chain of custody
procedure, it insists that the prosecution witnesses were able to account for the series of events that
transpired, from the time the buy-bust operation was conducted until the time the items were
presented in court.

The CA denied the appeal in its Decision, dated September 27, 2013. In its view, the prosecution
was able to establish that the illegal sale of marijuana actually took place. As could be gleaned from
the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, there was an actual exchange as Dahil took out from his pocket six (6)
sachets containing marijuana, while PO2 Corpuz handled out the two (2) P100.00 marked bills, after
they agreed to transact P200.00 worth of the illegal drug.16 The charge of illegal possession of
marijuana, was also thus established by the prosecution.17Another five (5) plastic sachets of
marijuana were recovered from Dahils possession while one (1) brick of marijuana from Castros
possession.18

It was likewise proven that the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused during the buy-bust
operation were the same drugs presented before the RTC. As testified to by PO2 Corpuz, the six (6)
plastic sachets of marijuana, which were sold by Dahil toPO2 Corpuz were marked "A-1" to "A-6"
and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC"and "EML," the five (5) plastic sachets recovered in the possession
of Dahil were marked "B-1" to "B-5" and with the initials "ADGC" and "EML," while the marijuana
brick confiscated from Castro was marked "C-RDRC."19

It was also held that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody. PO2 Corpuz and
SPO1 Licu testified that the said drugs were marked at the police station. An inventory of the seized
items was made as shown by the Inventory Report of Property Seized, duly signed by Kagawad
Pamintuan. The Request for Laboratory Examination revealed that the confiscated drugs were the
same items submitted to the PNP crime laboratory for examination. On the other hand, Chemistry
Report No. D-0518-2002 showed that the specimen gave positive results to the test of marijuana.
The accused failed to show that the confiscated marijuana items were tampered with, or switched,
before they were delivered to the crime laboratory for examination.20

Hence, this appeal.

This appeal involves the sole issue of whether or not the law enforcement officers substantially
complied with the chain of custody procedure required by R.A. No. 9165.

The Courts Ruling

Let it be underscored that appeal incriminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is
the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment
whether they are assigned or unassigned.21 Considering that what is at stake here is no less than the
liberty of the accused, this Court has meticulously and thoroughly reviewed and examined the
records of the case and finds that there is merit in the appeal. The Court holds that that there was no
unbroken chain of custody and that the prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the
crime charged.

A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to
be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in
secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the
framers of the law. It is susceptible topolice abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion.22

The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in
every prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the
dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court
were the same substances boughtduring the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known
under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring thatunnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.23 In People v. Catalan,24 the Court said:

To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti.That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On the other
hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are
substantial gapsin the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court.

Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous
DrugsBoard Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, explains the said
term as follows:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition.

As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165
specifies that:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photographthe 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.

Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)of R.A. No.
9165 enumeratesthe procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers toconfirm the chain of
custody, to wit:

xxx

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrantis served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further that non-compliance with these 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 of and custody over said items;

xxx

The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with.

Although the prosecution offered inevidence the Inventory of the Property Seized signed by the
arresting officers and Kagawad Pamintuan, the procedures provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
were not observed. The said provision requires the apprehending team, after seizure and
confiscation, to immediately (1) conduct a physically inventory; and (2) photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/orseized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official who shall be required tosign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

First,the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after seizure and confiscation as it
was only done at the police station. Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR allows the inventory
to be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team whichever
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. In this case, however, the prosecution did not even
claim that the PDEA Office Region 3 was the nearest office from TB Pavilion where the drugs were
seized. The prosecution also failed to give sufficient justification for the delayed conduct of the
inventory. PO2 Corpuz testified, to wit:

Q: What documents did you ask Kgd. Abel Pamintuan to sign?

A: The inventory of the property seized, sir.

Q: And did he sign that?

 A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where was he when he signed that?

A: In our office, sir.

Q: Already in your office?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Who prepared the inventory of the property seized?

A: Our investigator, sir.

Q: And that was prepared while you were already at your office?

A: Yes, sir, because we did not bring with us the material or equipment for the preparation of
the documents so, we invited him to our office.25

PO2 Corpuz gave the flimsy excusethat they failed to immediately conduct an inventory because
they did not bring with them the material or equipment for the preparation of the documents. Such
explanation is unacceptable considering that they conducted a surveillance on the target for a couple
of weeks.26 They should have been prepared with their equipment even before the buy-bust
operation took place.

Second,there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property
Seized. According to the CA decision, it was Sergeant dela Cruzwho prepared the said
document.27 PO2 Cruz on the other hand, testified that it was their investigatorwho prepared the
document while SPO1 Licus testimony was that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their
investigator.28

Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in the presence
of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ,
and any elected public official. During the cross-examination, PO2 Corpuz testified: Q: After you
arrested Ramil Dahil,did you conduct the inventory of the alleged seized items?

A: Yes, sir (sic).

Q: Where did you conduct the inventory?

A: In our office, maam

Q: Were pictures takenon the alleged seized items together with Ramil Dahil?

A: No, maam.29

[Emphases supplied]

SPO1 Licu when cross-examined on the same point, testified this was:
 Q: After you conducted the alleged buy-bust operation, did you conduct an inventory of the
alleged seized items?

A: Yes, maam.

Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at the time you conduct the inventory?

A: No, maam.

Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items?

A: Pictures were takenon the accused, maam.

[Emphasis supplied]

In other words, when questioned on the conduct of the inventory, PO2 Corpuz testified that no
pictures of the seized items were taken while SPO1 Licu said that pictures of the accused were
taken. From the vague statements of the police officers, the Court doubts that photographs of the
alleged drugs were indeed taken. The records are bereft of any document showing the photos of the
seized items. The Court notes that SPO1 Licu could have misunderstood the question because he
answered that "pictures were taken on the accused" when the question referred to photographs of
the drugs and not of the accused.

The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
preserved.

Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous requirements of Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly
comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrestof the accused illegal or the items seized
or confiscated from him inadmissible.30The issue of non-compliance with the said section is not of
admissibility, but of weight to be given on the evidence.31 Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires
"substantial" and not necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven that the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.32

To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the proper
chain of custody of the seized items must be shown. The Court explained in People v. Malillin33 how
the chain of custody or movement of the seized evidence should be maintained and why this must
be shown by evidence, viz:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
In People v. Kamad,34 the Court identified the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, ifpracticable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized bythe 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.

First link: Marking of the Drugs Recovered from the Accused by the Apprehending Officer

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized.
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
markingsas reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the markedevidence 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.35

It must be noted that marking isnot found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking
and photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165,
however, this Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the
seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.36

In the present case, PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu claimed that they had placed their initials on the
seized items. They, however, gave little information on how they actually did the marking. It is clear,
nonetheless, that the marking was not immediately done at the place of seizure, and the markings
were only placed at the police station based on the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, to wit: Q: So, after
recovering all those marijuana bricks and plastic sachets of marijuana and the marked money from
the accused, what else did you do?

A: We brought the two (2) suspects and the evidence and marked money to our office, sir.

Q: So, in your office, what happened there?

A: Our investigator prepared the necessary documents, sir, the request for crime lab examination,
joint affidavit of arrest, booking sheet, and all other documents necessary for the filing of the case
against the two (2), sir.

xxx

Q: What about the marijuana, subject of the deal, and the one which you confiscated from the
accused, what did you do with those?

A: Before sending them to Olivas, we placed our markings, sir.37

Hence, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office Region 3, the seized items were not
marked. It could not, therefore, be determined how the unmarked drugs were handled. The Court
must conduct guesswork on how the seized drugs were transported and who took custody of them
while in transit. Evidently, the alteration of the seized items was a possibility absent their immediate
marking thereof.
Still, there are cases whenthe chain of a custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the
seized items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as
long as it is done in the presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases.38 Even a less stringent
application of the requirement, however, will not suffice to sustain the conviction of the accused in
this case. Aside from the fact that the police officers did not immediately place their markings on the
seized marijuana upon their arrival at the PDEA Office, there was also no showing that the markings
were made in the presence of the accused.

PO2 Corpuz testified that they only placed their markings on the drugs when they were about to
send them to Camp Olivas for forensic examination. This damaging testimony was corroborated by
the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution. The following documents were made at the
PDEA Office: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Inventory of Property
Seized, and (4) Laboratory Examination Request. Glaringly, only the Laboratory Examination
Request cited the markings on the seized drugs. Thus, it could only mean that when the other
documents were being prepared, the seized drugs had not been marked and the police officers did
not have basis for identifying them. Considering that the seized drugs wereto be used for different
criminal charges, it was imperative for the police officers to properly mark them at the earliest
possible opportunity. Here, they failed in such a simple and critical task. The seized drugs were
prone to mix-up at the PDEA Office itself because of the delayed markings.

Worse, not all of the seized drugs were properly marked. As noted by the RTC, Exhibit B-3 RC
RD,39 Exhibit A-5 RC RD and Exhibit A-6 RD RC40 did not have the initials of the apprehending
officers on the back. Bearing in mind the importance of marking the seized items, these lapses in the
procedure are too conspicuous and cannot be ignored. They placed uncertainty as to the identity of
the corpus delicti from the moment of seizure until it was belatedly marked at the PDEA Office.

Similarly, in People v. Garcia,41 the Court considered the belated marking of the seized drug by the
apprehending officer in acquitting the accused in the case. The officer testified that he marked the
confiscated items only after he had returned tothe police station. Such admission showed that the
marking was not done immediately after the seizure of the items, but after the lapse of a significant
intervening time.

Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating Officer

The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance
turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for
testing.42 This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer
who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing
criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to
properly prepare the required documents.

The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin.43 Surprisingly, there was no testimony
from the witnesses as to the turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly
improbable for an investigator in a drug-related case toeffectively perform his work without having
custody of the seized items. Again, the case of the prosecution is forcing this Court to resort to
guesswork as to whether PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin
as the investigating officer or they had custody of the marijuana all night while SPO4 Jamisolamin
was conducting his investigation on the same items.

In People v. Remigio,44 the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of
custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The
apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he
transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to
the acquittal of the accused in the said case.

Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic Chemist

From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist. Once the seized
drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the
nature of the substance. In this case, it was only during his cross-examination that PO2 Corpuz
provided some information on the delivery of the seized drugs to Camp Olivas, to wit:

Q: How about the alleged marijuana, you stated that the same was brought to the crime laboratory,
who brought the same to the crime lab?

A: Me and my back-up, maam.

Q: When did you bring the marijuana to the crime lab for examination?

A: I think it was the following day, maam.45

As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, very little detail was offered on how the
seized marijuana was handled and transferred from the PDEA Office in Angeles City to the crime
laboratory in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz kept possession of the seized
drugs overnight without giving detailson the safekeeping of the items. The most palpable deficiency
of the testimony would be the lack of information as to who received the subject drugs in Camp
Olivas.

Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran, the forensic chemist who conducted the tests on the subject drugs, did not
appear in court despite the numerous subpoenas sent to her.46 Instead, the prosecution and the
defense agreed to stipulate on the essential points of her proffered testimony. Regrettably, the
stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist failed to shed light as to who received the subject drugs
in Camp Olivas. One of the stipulations was "that said forensic chemist conducted an examination
on the substance of the letter-request with qualification that said request was not subscribed or
under oath and that forensic chemist has no personalknowledge as from whom and where said
substance was taken."47 This bolsters the fact that the forensic chemist had no knowledge as to who
received the seized marijuana at the crime laboratory.

The recent case of People v. Beran48 involved irregularities in the third link. The police officer, who
both served as apprehending and investigating officer, claimed that he personally took the drug to
the laboratory for testing, but there was no showing who received the drug from him. The records
also showed that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining
how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. All those facts raised serious doubt that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised. Hence, the
accused inthe said case was also acquitted.

Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the Court.

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. No testimonial or documentary evidence was given
whatsoever as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until it was
transferred to the court. The forensic chemist should have personally testified on the safekeeping of
the drugs but the parties resorted to a general stipulation of her testimony. Although several
subpoenae were sent to the forensic chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs
arrived in court.49 Sadly, instead of focusing on the essential links in the chain of custody, the
prosecutor propounded questions concerning the location of the misplaced marked money, which
was not even indispensable in the criminal case.

The case of People v. Gutierrez50 also had inadequate stipulations as to the testimony of the forensic
chemist. No explanation was given regarding the custody of the seized drug in the interim - from the
time it was turned over to the investigator up to its turnover for laboratory examination. The records
of the said case did not show what happened to the allegedly seized shabu between the turnover by
the investigator to the chemist and its presentation in court. Thus, since there was no showing that
precautions were taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of that object and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof, the accused therein was
likewise acquitted.

In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed, there was no compliance with
the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical
inventory and the lack of photography of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro.
No explanation was offered for the non-observance of the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the
saving mechanism of Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably failed to prove
that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The four links
required to establish the proper chain of custody were breached with irregularity and lapses.

The Court cannot either agree with the CA that the evidentiary rule involving the presumption of
regularity of the performance of official duties could apply in favor of the police officers. The
regularity of the performance of duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the police officers
because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses.51 The presumption stands when
no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty.
And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption
of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the
constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed innocent.52

Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identity of the seized marijuana that
the prosecution presented as evidence before the Court. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully
prove the elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the
accused.53

For said reason, there is no need to discuss the specific defenses raised by the accused.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 27, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05707 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants, Ramil Doria
Dahil and Rommel Castro y Carlos, are ACQUITTED of the crime charged against them and ordered
immediately RELEASED from custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this decision and to inform this
Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from
receipt of copy.

SO ORDERED.
Chain of custody of evidence in drugs cases; strict interpretation applied

THIRD DIVISION

The appeal is meritorious.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of
prohibited drugs, to wit:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

xxx

The provisions of Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic
Act No. 9165 provide:

xxx

(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with
these 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 of and custody over said items;

xxx

A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by Republic Act No. 9165
and its IRR was not followed. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. To
start with, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did not
immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Relato and
witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items being made at
the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Relato or his
chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or
any elected official attended the taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory.

Under the foregoing rules, the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the custodial
link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use the markings as
reference. It further serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar and
related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of
the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.11 It is crucial in
ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody, which is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,12 thus:

b. Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition;

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not
every case of non-compliance irreversibly prejudices the States evidence, it is significant to note that
the application of the saving mechanism to a situation is expressly conditioned upon the State rendering
an explanation of the lapse or lapses in the compliance with the procedures.13 Here, however, the
Prosecution tendered no explanation why the buy-bust team had failed to mark the seized
shabuimmediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming that marking the shabu at the scene of
the crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible for the buy-bust team to do, the
saving mechanism would still not be applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any effort
undertaken by the buy-bust team to keep the shabu intact while in transit to the police station.

The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty about the identity
and integrity of the shabu admitted as evidence against the accused.14 They highlighted the failure of
the Prosecution to establish the chain of custody, by which the incriminating evidence would have been
authenticated. An unavoidable consequence of the non-establishment of the chain of custody was the
serious doubt on whether the shabu presented as evidence was really the shabusupposedly seized from
Relato.

In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under

Republic Act No. 9165,15 the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the
offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not
discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that
the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution
is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave
doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court.16 Any gap
renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.17 Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of
frame-up became plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecutions evidence of guilt.

Background facts:

[1] A police team arrested Nicolas Gutierrez during a buy-bust operation on June 16, 2003 in Pasig
City. The team allegedly seized from Gutierrez five centigrams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu) and drug paraphernalia.

Gutierrez was charged under R.A. 9165 with illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession of
paraphernalia.

[2] Gutierrez pleaded not guilty during his arraignment. He claimed that he was merely having
dinner with his family when four unidentified armed men barged into his house and arrested him.
[3] During the pre-trial, Gutierrezs lawyer stipulated that:

a. the specimen (alleged shabu) exists,

b. the arresting officers requested for its examination,
c. a forensic chemist examined the specimen, and
d. it tested positive for methyl amphetamine hydrochloride.

[4] During the hearing, the fiscal presented some of the police officers who arrested Gutierrez. The
officers identified the buy-bust money paid to Gutierrez and the shabu bought from him. PO1
Espares testified on the marking and eventual turnover of the seized sachet of alleged shabu to the
investigator.

[5] The Pasig City Regional Trial Court found Gutierrez guilty of the illegal sale of shabu. But the
RTC acquitted him of the charge of illegal possession of paraphernalia.

Gutierrez questioned the RTCs ruling before the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed the RTCs
decision. Gutierrez then brought his case up to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

The prosecution failed to show what happened to the shabu from the time the arresting officers gave
it to the investigator up to its turnover for laboratory examination. The case records also do not show
what happened to the shabu between its turnover by the chemist to the investigator and its
presentation in court. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the shabu allegedly seized from
Gutierrez was the same shabu presented in court, should Gutierrez be acquitted?

Supreme Court ruling:

Gutierrez should be acquitted because the prosecution failed to show an unbroken chain of custody
of the alleged shabu.

Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements necessary in a prosecution for the illegal
sale of shabu are:

the identity of the buyer and the seller;

the object and the consideration; and
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.

The prosecution must prove that the sale of shabu took place. The corpus delicti the body or
substance of the crime which establishes the fact that acrime has actually been committedmust
also be presented in court. In cases involving narcotics, the illegal drug itself constitutes the corpus
delicti of the offense. The existence of the illegal drug is vital for the court to find the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of custody rule ensures that unnecessary doubts on the
identity of the evidence are removed.

In Malillin v. People, the Supreme Court explained how it expects the chain of custody or
movement of the seized evidence to be maintained. There must be testimony about every link in
the chain, from the moment the object seized was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence.
Every person who touched the object must describe

how and from whom it was received, where it was, and what happened to it
while in the witnesss possession,
the condition in which it was received, and
the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.

These witnesses must describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been
1. no change in the condition of the object and
2. no opportunity for someone not in the chain to possess the object.

PO1 Espares, one of the arresting officers, testified on the marking and eventual turnover of the
allegedly seized sachet of shabu to the investigator. But no explanation was given on its custody in
the interim from the time it was turned over to the investigator to its turnover for laboratory
examination. The case records also do not show what happened to the allegedly seized shabu
between the turnover by the chemist to the investigator and its presentation in court.

Highlights of the Supreme Courts decision / clarifications:

[1] The Supreme Court also ruled that Gutierrez should be acquitted because the arresting
officers failed to comply with the rule on the custody and disposition of confiscated
drugs (Section 21, Paragraph 1 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165). The officers did not physically
inventory and take pictures of the shabu allegedly confiscated from Gutierrez. The officers also did
not explain why they did not follow the rule.

[2] Because of the built-in danger of abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by
specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs.

By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of
shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be
planted in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably
shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great.

Courts must be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the
unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.

[3] What about the stipulations made by Gutierrezs lawyer during the pre-trial?

These stipulations have no bearing on the question of chain of custody. The Court said:

These stipulations, which merely affirm the existence of the specimen, and the request for laboratory
examination and the results thereof, were entered into during pre-trial only in order to dispense with
the testimony of the forensic chemist and abbreviate the proceedings. That such is the intention of
the parties is clear from the additional stipulations that the forensic chemist had no personal
knowledge as to the source of the alleged specimen; and that the defense was reserving its right to
object to the pieces of evidence marked by the prosecution. Clearly, the stipulations do not cover the
manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and
after it left her possession.

To interpret the stipulations as an admission that appellant was the source of the specimen would be
to bind him to an unceremonious withdrawal of his plea of not guilty a reading not supported by the
records which creates a dangerous precedent.

Posted by Atty. Gerry T. Galacio at Tuesday, October 08, 2013

G.R. No. 212196 January 12, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
RAMIL DORIA DAHIL and ROMMEL CASTRO y CARLOS, Accused-Appellants.

MENDOZA, J.:

This is an appeal from the September 27, 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
05707, which affirmed the July 17, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City (RTC)
in Criminal Case Nos. DC 02-376, DC 02-377 and DC 02-378, finding accused Ramil Doria Dahil (Dahil) and
Rommel Castro (Castro) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

On October 1, 2002, Dahil and Castro were charged in three (3) separate Informations before the RTC. In
Criminal Case No. DC 02-376, Dahil and Castro were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 for the sale of 26.8098 grams of marijuana in the Information which reads:

That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating and mutually
helping one another, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver to a poseur
buyer six (6) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY SIX GRAMS AND EIGHT
THOUSAND NINETY EIGHT TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (26.8098), which is a dangerous drug,
without authority whatsoever.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

In Criminal Case No. DC 02-377, Dahil was charged with possession of 20.6642 grams of marijuana in
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads: That on or about the 29th day
of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and
custody and control Five (5) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY GRAMS AND SIX
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (20.6642), which is a
dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

In Criminal Case No. DC 02-378, Castro was charged with possession of 130.8286 grams of marijuana in
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads: That on or about the 29th day
of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and
custody and control One (1) brick in form wrapped in masking tape of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing
ONE HUNDRED THIRTY GRAMS and EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX TEN
THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (130.8286), which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

On November 14, 2002, Castro was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Dahil, on the other hand, filed a
motion for reinvestigation and his arraignment was deferred. Trial ensued and the prosecution presented PO2
Arieltino Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz)and SPO1 Eliseo Licu (SPO1 Licu), as witnesses.

On August 6, 2009, the RTC discovered that Dahil was never arraigned through inadvertence. 6 The RTC
informed the parties of the situation and the defense counsel did not interpose any objection to the reopening of
the case and the arraignment of Dahil. The latter was then arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the
public prosecutor manifested that he was adopting all the evidence already adduced.

Version of the Prosecution

Evidence of the prosecution tended to show that, for a couple of weeks, the agents of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing operations relative to the
information they received that a certain alias "Buddy" and alias "Mel" were trafficking dried marijuana in TB
Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. On September 29, 2002, the Chief of
PDEA formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of four (4) police officers,
namely, Sergeant Juanito dela Cruz (Sergeant dela Cruz), as team leader; and PO2 Corpuz, SPO1 Licu and
PO2 Javiar, as members. PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-buyer while SPO1 Licu was assigned as
his back-up.

The team proceeded to the target place at around 8:00 oclock in the evening. Upon arriving, PO2 Corpuz
together with the informant went to the house of Dahil which was within the TB Pavillon compound. When PO2
Corpuz and the informant were in front of the house, they met Dahil and Castro. The informant then introduced
PO2 Corpuz as the buyer of marijuana. Dahil asked PO2 Corpuz how much would he be buying and the latter
answered that he would buy P200.00 worth of marijuana. At this juncture, Dahil took out from his pocket six (6)
plastic sachets of marijuana and handed them to PO2 Corpuz. After checking the items, PO2 Corpuz handed
two (2) P100.00 marked bills to Castro.

Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to signal that the sale had been consummated. The rest of
the buy-bust team then rushed to their location and arrested Castro and Dahil. PO2 Corpuz frisked Dahil and
recovered from his possession another five (5) plastic sachets containing marijuana while SPO1 Licu searched
the person of Castro and confiscated from him one (1) brick of suspected marijuana.

Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were then brought by the buy-bust team to the
PDEA office. There, the seized items were marked by PO2 Corpuz and SPO1Licu. First, the six (6) plastic
sachets of marijuana which were sold by Dahil to PO2 Corpuz were marked with "A-1" to "A-6" and with letters
"RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML." Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered from Dahil were marked with "B-1"
to "B-5" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML." Finally, the marijuana brick confiscated from Castro was
marked "C-RDRC." Sergeant dela Cruz then prepared the request for laboratory examination, affidavits of
arrest and other pertinent documents. An inventory of the seized items7 was also prepared which was signed by
Kagawad Pamintuan. Thereafter, PO2 Corpuz brought the confiscated drugs to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, which subsequently yielded positive results for marijuana.

The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the essential contents of the prospective testimony
of the forensic chemist, to wit:

1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by PO3 Dela Cruz;

2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory,Camp
Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;

3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;

4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance subject of the letter request
with qualification that said request was not subscribedor under oath and that the forensic chemist has
no personal knowledge as from whom and where said substance was taken;

5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002;
and

6. The findings and conclusion thereof.8

The prosecution was ordered to formally offer its evidence on March 7, 2007.9 After much delay, the public
prosecutor was finally able to orally submit his formal offer of exhibits after almost two years, or on January 6,
2009.10 He offered the following documentary evidence: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation
Report, (3) Photocopy of the marked money, (4) Brown envelope containing the subject illegal drugs, (5)
Inventory of Property Seized, (6) Laboratory Examination Request, and (7) Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002.

Version of the Defense

In his defense, Dahil claimed that on September 29, 2002, a tricycle driver came looking for him after he had
arrived home. He saw the tricycle driver with another man already waiting for him. He was then asked by the
unknown man whether he knew a certain Buddy in their place. He answered that there were many persons
named Buddy. Suddenly, persons alighted from the vehicles parked in front of his house and dragged him into
one of the vehicles. He was brought to Clark Air Base and was charged with illegal selling and possession of
marijuana.

For his part, Castro testified thaton September 29, 2002, he was on 4th Street of Marisol, Barangay Ninoy
Aquino, Angeles City, watching a game of chess when he was approached by some men who asked if he knew
a certain Boy residing at Hardian Extension. He then replied that he did not know the said person and then the
men ordered him to board a vehicle and brought him to Clark Air Base where he was charged withillegal
possession of marijuana.

RTC Ruling

In its Decision,11 dated July 17, 2012, the RTC found both accused liable for violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A.
No. 9165, and imposed upon them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 each for the
crime of illegal sale of marijuana;Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years of
Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00 each for the crime of illegal possession of
marijuana.

The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the case of selling and possession of illegal
drugs against the accused. All the elements of the crimes were established. To the trial court, the evidence
proved that PO2 Corpuz bought marijuana from Dahil. The latter examined the marijuana purchased and then
handed the marked money to Castro.

The marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers, but the RTC ruled that the same was not fatal
considering that a photocopy of the marked money was presented and identified by the arresting officers. 12 It
did not give credence to the defense of frame-up by Dahil and Castro explaining that it could easily be
concocted with no supporting proof.

CA Ruling

The accused then appealed to the CA. In their Brief for the Accused-Appellants,13 they argued that there were
irregularities on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal items seized from them. The
prosecution witnesses exhibited gross disregard of the procedural safeguards which generated clouds of
doubts as tothe identity of the seized items presented in evidence.14

In its Brief for the Appellee,15 the OSG contended that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the
crime of illegal sale and possession of marijuana. As to the chain of custody procedure, it insists that the
prosecution witnesses were able to account for the series of events that transpired, from the time the buy-bust
operation was conducted until the time the items were presented in court.

The CA denied the appeal in its Decision, dated September 27, 2013. In its view, the prosecution was able to
establish that the illegal sale of marijuana actually took place. As could be gleaned from the testimony of PO2
Corpuz, there was an actual exchange as Dahil took out from his pocket six (6) sachets containing marijuana,
while PO2 Corpuz handled out the two (2) P100.00 marked bills, after they agreed to transact P200.00 worth of
the illegal drug.16 The charge of illegal possession of marijuana, was also thus established by the
prosecution.17Another five (5) plastic sachets of marijuana were recovered from Dahils possession while one
(1) brick of marijuana from Castros possession.18

It was likewise proven that the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused during the buy-bust operation were the
same drugs presented before the RTC. As testified to by PO2 Corpuz, the six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana,
which were sold by Dahil toPO2 Corpuz were marked "A-1" to "A-6" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC"and
"EML," the five (5) plastic sachets recovered in the possession of Dahil were marked "B-1" to "B-5" and with the
initials "ADGC" and "EML," while the marijuana brick confiscated from Castro was marked "C-RDRC."19

It was also held that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody. PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu
testified that the said drugs were marked at the police station. An inventory of the seized items was made as
shown by the Inventory Report of Property Seized, duly signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. The Request for
Laboratory Examination revealed that the confiscated drugs were the same items submitted to the PNP crime
laboratory for examination. On the other hand, Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002 showed that the specimen
gave positive results to the test of marijuana. The accused failed to show that the confiscated marijuana items
were tampered with, or switched, before they were delivered to the crime laboratory for examination.20

Hence, this appeal.

This appeal involves the sole issue of whether or not the law enforcement officers substantially complied with
the chain of custody procedure required by R.A. No. 9165.

The Courts Ruling

Let it be underscored that appeal incriminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of
the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned.21 Considering that what is at stake here is no less than the liberty of the accused, this Court has
meticulously and thoroughly reviewed and examined the records of the case and finds that there is merit in the
appeal. The Court holds that that there was no unbroken chain of custody and that the prosecution failed to
establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged.

A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an
effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust
operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is
susceptible topolice abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. 22

The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in every
prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the dangerous
drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court were the same
substances boughtduring the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165 as the
chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring thatunnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.23 In People v. Catalan,24 the Court said:

To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti.That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On the other hand, the
Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gapsin the
chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence
presented in court.

Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous
DrugsBoard Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, explains the said term as
follows:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies
that:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photographthe 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.

Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)of R.A. No. 9165
enumeratesthe procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers toconfirm the chain of custody, to wit:

xxx

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrantis served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these 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 of and custody over said items;

xxx

The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with.

Although the prosecution offered inevidence the Inventory of the Property Seized signed by the arresting
officers and Kagawad Pamintuan, the procedures provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not observed.
The said provision requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately (1) conduct a
physically inventory; and (2) photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/orseized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required tosign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof.

First,the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after seizure and confiscation as it was only
done at the police station. Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR allows the inventory to be done at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures. In this case, however, the prosecution did not even claim that the PDEA Office Region 3
was the nearest office from TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The prosecution also failed to give
sufficient justification for the delayed conduct of the inventory. PO2 Corpuz testified, to wit:

Q: What documents did you ask Kgd. Abel Pamintuan to sign?

A: The inventory of the property seized, sir.

Q: And did he sign that?

 A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where was he when he signed that?

A: In our office, sir.

Q: Already in your office?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Who prepared the inventory of the property seized?

A: Our investigator, sir.

Q: And that was prepared while you were already at your office?

A: Yes, sir, because we did not bring with us the material or equipment for the preparation of the
documents so, we invited him to our office.25

PO2 Corpuz gave the flimsy excusethat they failed to immediately conduct an inventory because they did not
bring with them the material or equipment for the preparation of the documents. Such explanation is
unacceptable considering that they conducted a surveillance on the target for a couple of weeks. 26 They should
have been prepared with their equipment even before the buy-bust operation took place.

Second,there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized.
According to the CA decision, it was Sergeant dela Cruzwho prepared the said document. 27 PO2 Cruz on the
other hand, testified that it was their investigatorwho prepared the document while SPO1 Licus testimony was
that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their investigator.28

Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of the
accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official. During the cross-examination, PO2 Corpuz testified: Q: After you arrested Ramil Dahil,did you
conduct the inventory of the alleged seized items?

A: Yes, sir (sic).

Q: Where did you conduct the inventory?

A: In our office, maam

Q: Were pictures takenon the alleged seized items together with Ramil Dahil?

A: No, maam.29

[Emphases supplied]

SPO1 Licu when cross-examined on the same point, testified this was:

Q: After you conducted the alleged buy-bust operation, did you conduct an inventory of the alleged
seized items?

A: Yes, maam.
 Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at the time you conduct the inventory?

A: No, maam.

Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items?

A: Pictures were takenon the accused, maam.

[Emphasis supplied]

In other words, when questioned on the conduct of the inventory, PO2 Corpuz testified that no pictures of the
seized items were taken while SPO1 Licu said that pictures of the accused were taken. From the vague
statements of the police officers, the Court doubts that photographs of the alleged drugs were indeed taken.
The records are bereft of any document showing the photos of the seized items. The Court notes that SPO1
Licu could have misunderstood the question because he answered that "pictures were taken on the accused"
when the question referred to photographs of the drugs and not of the accused.

The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the law
does not necessarily render the arrestof the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible.30The issue of non-compliance with the said section is not of admissibility, but of weight to be given
on the evidence.31 Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect
adherence," as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 32

To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the proper chain of
custody of the seized items must be shown. The Court explained in People v. Malillin 33 how the chain of custody
or movement of the seized evidence should be maintained and why this must be shown by evidence, viz:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it
to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how
and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition
of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

In People v. Kamad,34 the Court identified the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in
a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, ifpracticable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized bythe
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.

First link: Marking of the Drugs Recovered from the Accused by the Apprehending Officer

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately
after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the
poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. 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 markingsas reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate
the markedevidence 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.35

It must be noted that marking isnot found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking and
photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this
Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast
reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.36

In the present case, PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu claimed that they had placed their initials on the seized items.
They, however, gave little information on how they actually did the marking. It is clear, nonetheless, that the
marking was not immediately done at the place of seizure, and the markings were only placed at the police
station based on the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, to wit: Q: So, after recovering all those marijuana bricks and
plastic sachets of marijuana and the marked money from the accused, what else did you do?

A: We brought the two (2) suspects and the evidence and marked money to our office, sir.

Q: So, in your office, what happened there?

A: Our investigator prepared the necessary documents, sir, the request for crime lab examination, joint affidavit
of arrest, booking sheet, and all other documents necessary for the filing of the case against the two (2), sir.

xxx

Q: What about the marijuana, subject of the deal, and the one which you confiscated from the accused, what
did you do with those?

A: Before sending them to Olivas, we placed our markings, sir.37

Hence, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office Region 3, the seized items were not marked. It could
not, therefore, be determined how the unmarked drugs were handled. The Court must conduct guesswork on
how the seized drugs were transported and who took custody of them while in transit. Evidently, the alteration
of the seized items was a possibility absent their immediate marking thereof.

Still, there are cases whenthe chain of a custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items
is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the
presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases.38 Even a less stringent application of the requirement, however,
will not suffice to sustain the conviction of the accused in this case. Aside from the fact that the police officers
did not immediately place their markings on the seized marijuana upon their arrival at the PDEA Office, there
was also no showing that the markings were made in the presence of the accused.

PO2 Corpuz testified that they only placed their markings on the drugs when they were about to send them to
Camp Olivas for forensic examination. This damaging testimony was corroborated by the documentary
evidence offered by the prosecution. The following documents were made at the PDEA Office: (1) Joint
Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Inventory of Property Seized, and (4) Laboratory
Examination Request. Glaringly, only the Laboratory Examination Request cited the markings on the seized
drugs. Thus, it could only mean that when the other documents were being prepared, the seized drugs had not
been marked and the police officers did not have basis for identifying them. Considering that the seized drugs
wereto be used for different criminal charges, it was imperative for the police officers to properly mark them at
the earliest possible opportunity. Here, they failed in such a simple and critical task. The seized drugs were
prone to mix-up at the PDEA Office itself because of the delayed markings.

Worse, not all of the seized drugs were properly marked. As noted by the RTC, Exhibit B-3 RC RD,39 Exhibit A-
5 RC RD and Exhibit A-6 RD RC40 did not have the initials of the apprehending officers on the back. Bearing in
mind the importance of marking the seized items, these lapses in the procedure are too conspicuous and
cannot be ignored. They placed uncertainty as to the identity of the corpus delicti from the moment of seizure
until it was belatedly marked at the PDEA Office.

Similarly, in People v. Garcia,41 the Court considered the belated marking of the seized drug by the
apprehending officer in acquitting the accused in the case. The officer testified that he marked the confiscated
items only after he had returned tothe police station. Such admission showed that the marking was not done
immediately after the seizure of the items, but after the lapse of a significant intervening time.

Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating Officer

The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a
supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. 42 This is a
necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper
investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the
investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.

The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin. 43 Surprisingly, there was no testimony from the
witnesses as to the turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly improbable for an
investigator in a drug-related case toeffectively perform his work without having custody of the seized items.
Again, the case of the prosecution is forcing this Court to resort to guesswork as to whether PO2 Corpuz and
SPO1 Licu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the investigating officer or they had custody of the
marijuana all night while SPO4 Jamisolamin was conducting his investigation on the same items.

In People v. Remigio,44 the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as the
apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept
the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The
deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.

Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic Chemist

From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist. Once the seized drugs arrive
at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of the substance.
In this case, it was only during his cross-examination that PO2 Corpuz provided some information on the
delivery of the seized drugs to Camp Olivas, to wit:

Q: How about the alleged marijuana, you stated that the same was brought to the crime laboratory, who
brought the same to the crime lab?

A: Me and my back-up, maam.

Q: When did you bring the marijuana to the crime lab for examination?

A: I think it was the following day, maam.45

As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, very little detail was offered on how the seized
marijuana was handled and transferred from the PDEA Office in Angeles City to the crime laboratory in Camp
Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz kept possession of the seized drugs overnight without giving
detailson the safekeeping of the items. The most palpable deficiency of the testimony would be the lack of
information as to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas.

Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran, the forensic chemist who conducted the tests on the subject drugs, did not appear in
court despite the numerous subpoenas sent to her.46 Instead, the prosecution and the defense agreed to
stipulate on the essential points of her proffered testimony. Regrettably, the stipulated testimony of the forensic
chemist failed to shed light as to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas. One of the stipulations was
"that said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance of the letter-request with qualification
that said request was not subscribed or under oath and that forensic chemist has no personalknowledge as
from whom and where said substance was taken."47 This bolsters the fact that the forensic chemist had no
knowledge as to who received the seized marijuana at the crime laboratory.

The recent case of People v. Beran48 involved irregularities in the third link. The police officer, who both served
as apprehending and investigating officer, claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing,
but there was no showing who received the drug from him. The records also showed that he submitted the
sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody
thereof overnight. All those facts raised serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item
have not been fatally compromised. Hence, the accused inthe said case was also acquitted.

Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the Court.

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. No testimonial or documentary evidence was given whatsoever as to how the
drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until it was transferred to the court. The forensic
chemist should have personally testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a general
stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoenae were sent to the forensic chemist, only a brown
envelope containing the seized drugs arrived in court.49 Sadly, instead of focusing on the essential links in the
chain of custody, the prosecutor propounded questions concerning the location of the misplaced marked
money, which was not even indispensable in the criminal case.

The case of People v. Gutierrez50 also had inadequate stipulations as to the testimony of the forensic chemist.
No explanation was given regarding the custody of the seized drug in the interim - from the time it was turned
over to the investigator up to its turnover for laboratory examination. The records of the said case did not show
what happened to the allegedly seized shabu between the turnover by the investigator to the chemist and its
presentation in court. Thus, since there was no showing that precautions were taken to ensure that there was
no change in the condition of that object and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession
thereof, the accused therein was likewise acquitted.

In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed, there was no compliance with the
procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical inventory and the
lack of photography of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro. No explanation was offered
for the non-observance of the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of Section 21 of the
IRR of R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items were preserved. The four links required to establish the proper chain of custody were breached
with irregularity and lapses.

The Court cannot either agree with the CA that the evidentiary rule involving the presumption of regularity of
the performance of official duties could apply in favor of the police officers. The regularity of the performance of
duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the police officers because the records were replete with indicia
of their serious lapses.51 The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the
regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never
be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will
defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed innocent.52

Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identity of the seized marijuana that the
prosecution presented as evidence before the Court. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements
of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused. 53

For said reason, there is no need to discuss the specific defenses raised by the accused. WHEREFORE, the
appeal is GRANTED. The September 27, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05707
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants, Ramil Doria Dahil and Rommel Castro y Carlos, are
ACQUITTED of the crime charged against them and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless
they are being held for some other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this decision and to inform this Court of
the date of the actual release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from receipt of copy.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

G.R. No. 199901 October 9, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
GARYZALDY GUZON, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

REYES, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated June 29 2010 of the Court of Appeals CA) in CA-G.R. CR
HC No. 02890, which affirmed the Decision2 dated June 15, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court RTC) of
Laoag City, Branch 13 in Criminal Case No. 11968-13, finding accused-appellant Garyzaldy Guzon
Guzon) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of shabu.

The facts

Guzon was accused of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in an Information3 dated November 23, 2005, the
accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about November 22, 2005 at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, in the municipality of San
Nicolas, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat-
sealed plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu", a dangerous
drug, weighing 0.06 gram to a police asset of PNP San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, who posed as buyer in
a buy[-]bust operation without authority to do so.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

Upon arraignment, Guzon entered a plea of "not guilty."5 After pre- trial, trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

PO2 Elyzer Tuzon (PO2 Tuzon) testified for the prosecution. He claimed that on November 22,
2005, at around 11:00 oclock in the morning, he was on duty at the police station of San Nicolas,
Ilocos Norte, when he received a telephone call from an unknown tipper that Guzon was engaged in
drug-pushing activity at Nalupta Street, Barangay 3, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. PO2 Tuzon relayed
the information to Officer-In-Charge Chief Police Inspector Jerico Baldeo (OIC Baldeo), who ordered
PO2 Tuzon and PO3 Cesar Manuel (PO3 Manuel) to verify the report. When PO2 Tuzon and PO3
Manuel failed to find Guzon at Nalupta Street, OIC Baldeo instructed them to seek the aid of an
asset.6

After an unnamed asset identified Guzons location, the police planned a buy-bust operation. PO2
Tuzon gave marked money to the asset designated to be the poseur-buyer of shabu. The asset was
instructed to remove his cap to signal that he had received the shabu from Guzon.7

The buy-bust operation ensued at Nalupta Street, where the asset approached Guzon . From afar,
PO2 Tuzon saw the asset hand three (3) marked P100.00 bills to Guzon, who then handed
something to the asset.8 After the asset removed his cap, the police ran towards Guzon to arrest him
. PO3 Manuel recovered the marked P100 bills from Guzon, while PO2 Tuzon received from the
asset the item purchased from Guzon.9 Guzon was brought to the San Nicolas Police Station, where
PO2 Tuzon prepared a Certification/Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items10, marked the seized
sachet with his initials "EAT",11 and then delivered the sachet to the police crime laboratory for
chemical examination.12 The sachet was received by PO3 Nolie Domingo (PO3 Domingo).13

Given a stipulation by the prosecution and the defense during the pre- trial, PO3 Domingo and
Police Senior Inspector Mary Ann Cayabyab (PSI Cayabyab), the Forensic Chemical Officer of the
Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office who conducted the chemical examination, no longer
testified in court. The RTCs pre-trial Order14 provides:

The parties stipulated on the gist of the testimony of PO3 Nolie Domingo to the effect that as per
request for laboratory examination, he was the one who received the specimen from Elyzer Tuzon
and that he delivered the same to PSI Mary Ann Cayabyab. They also stipulated on the testimony of
PSI Cayabyab to the effect that after receiving the said specimen and found the specimen to be
shabu, thus, she issued her initial report and confirmatory report under Chemistry Report No. D-090-
2005 which were marked as Exhibits F and G, respectively. They further agreed that said forensic
chemical officer and PO3 Domingo could identify the said specimen and the labels as appearing
therein. The defense admitted the proffer without admitting that the specimen came from the
accused. The testimonies of PO3 Nolie Domingo and PSI Mary Ann Cayabyab were therefore
dispensed with. x x x.15

The Initial Laboratory Report16 and Chemistry Report17 referred to in the pre-trial Order both state
that the specimen, weighing 0.06 grams, that was submitted to the crime laboratory for examination
contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.

Version of the Defense

The defense presented the testimonies of Guzon, his friend Jesus Guira, Jr. (Guira) and brother
Edwin Guzon (Edwin).

Guzon denied the charge against him. He claimed that on the early afternoon of November 22,
2005, he had a drinking spree with Guira at the latters house in Barangay San Nicolas, Ilocos
Norte.18 At past 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, his brother Edwin arrived and told him that PO3
Manuel wanted to talk to him. Guzon approached PO3 Manuel, who invited him to the municipal hall
but would not say the reason therefor.19 Guzon insisted that the matter be instead discussed near
Guiras house, but PO3 Manuel declined. Thereafter, PO2 Tuzon arrived20 and upon his prodding,
Guzon agreed to go with them to the municipal hall.21 Only PO2 Tuzon went with Guzon inside the
municipal hall.22

PO2 Tuzon later brought Guzon to a police camp in Laoag City. While on board a patrol car on their
way to the camp, PO2 Tuzon realized that he forgot the shabu in his office drawer so they went back
to the municipal hall. Thereafter, they headed back to the police camp where, upon their arrival, PO2
Tuzon handcuffed Guzon before proceeding to the camps second floor.23

While at the second floor, PO2 Tuzon took a sachet from his pocket then handed it to a desk officer.
Guzon was instructed by a woman to fill a small bottle with his urine. After he complied, PO2 Tuzon
brought him back to San Nicolas.24

On the morning of November 23, 2005, Guzon was brought by PO2 Tuzon, PO3 Manuel and
another policeman to a place south of the City Hall of Laoag, near the corner of the Laoag-Solsona
terminal. There, Guzon saw PO3 Manuel take out three P100.00 bills from his wallet then hand them
to PO2 Tuzon. PO2 Tuzon left and when he returned, he handed photocopies of the P100.00 bills to
PO3 Manuel.25

Guira and Edwin also testified for Guzons defense. Guira claimed that at about 1:00 oclock in the
afternoon on November 22, 2005, he was having a drinking session outside his house with Guzon
and several other persons.26 At around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, Edwin arrived to inform Guzon
that PO3 Manuel was looking for him.27 Guzon then left the place with PO3 Manuel, PO2 Tuzon and
one George.28 Edwins testimony also corroborated the account of Guzon, having testified that on
November 22, 2005, he was asked by PO3 Manuel on the whereabouts of Guzon.29 When he saw
his brother at Guiras house, he approached him to say that PO3 Manuel was looking for him.30

The testimony of one Ronnie Dimaya was dispensed with after the prosecution admitted that the gist
of his testimony would be merely corroborative of the testimonies of Guira and Guzon.31

The RTCs Ruling

On June 15, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision32 finding Guzon guilty as charged. The dispositive
portion of its Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Garyzaldy Guzon GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale of shabu and is therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

The contraband subject hereof is hereby confiscated, the same to be disposed of as the law
prescribes.

SO ORDERED.33

Feeling aggrieved, Guzon appealed to the CA. Notwithstanding the RTCs findings, he denied the
charge against him. He also questioned the credibility of PO2 Tuzon as a witness for the prosecution
and the police officers non-compliance with the chain of custody rule in handling the confiscated
shabu.

The CAs Ruling

On June 29, 2010, the CA rendered its Decision34 denying the appeal. It reasoned that Guzons
defenses of denial and frame-up are common and could easily be fabricated; they could not prevail
over the positive identification of the accused by the police officer who testified for the prosecution.

In affirming Guzons conviction, the CA also cited the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty by the police operatives who conducted the buy-bust operation. As to the issue of chain
of custody, the CA rejected Guzons argument, and maintained that based on the evidence, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu were preserved.

Hence, this appeal.

The Present Petition

Guzon seeks his acquittal mainly on the basis of the prosecutions failure to establish the chain of
custody of the subject drug. He argues35 that: (1) the evidence allegedly seized from Guzon could
have been planted; it was not immediately marked at the place of seizure; (2) there were no
photographs and physical inventory of the confiscated drug; (3) the prosecution failed to offer
justification for the absence of photographs and inventory; (4) the asset who acted as the poseur-
buyer was not identified; and (5) the prosecution failed to establish that the integrity of the seized
item was sufficiently preserved through an unbroken chain of custody.

This Courts Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. The Court acquits Guzon for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. In Reyes v. CA,36 the Court emphasized that a "conviction must stand on
the strength of the prosecutions evidence, not on the weakness of the defense which the accused
put up. Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the
evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of
his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course."37

In the instant case, Guzon was accused of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 which
prohibits the sale of illegal drugs. The elements of the crime include: (a) the identities of the buyer
and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment for the thing.38 The Court explained in People v. Bautista39 that in drug-related
prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving these elements of the offense under
R.A. No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti , the body of the crime. The dangerous drug is
itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.40

"A buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for
apprehending drug peddlers and distributors."41 As in all drugs cases, compliance with the chain of
custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. Chain of custody means the
duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction.42 The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or
recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the
identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a
finding of guilt.43

To eliminate doubt, and even abuse, in the handling of seized substances, some safeguards for
compliance by law enforcement officers are established by law and jurisprudence. For one, Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165, upon which Guzon anchors his appeal, reads in part:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof;

x x x x (Emphasis ours)

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, particularly Section 21 thereof,
further provides the following guidelines in the custody and control of confiscated drugs:

xxxx

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable , in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these 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 of and custody over said items ;

x x x x (Emphasis ours)

The rule includes the proviso that procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs are not ipso
facto fatal to the prosecutions cause, provided that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are preserved. In each case, courts are nonetheless reminded to thoroughly evaluate
and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a
gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by the law44 for the
protection of the corpus delicti. The strict demands and significant value of the chain of custody rule
were emphasized in the oft-cited Malillin v. People45 wherein the Court held:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always
impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the
item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time
of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same
standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination
and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility,
alteration or tamperingwithout regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise notdictates
the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.46(Citations omitted and emphasis
supplied)

As Guzon correctly pointed out in his Supplemental Brief, there were several lapses in the law
enforcers handling of the seized item which, when taken collectively, render the standards of chain
of custody seriously breached. In a line of cases, the Court explained that the failure to comply with
the indispensable requirement of corpus delicti happens not only when it is missing, but also where
there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs which raise doubts on the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court.47 Upon review, the Court has determined that such
lapses and doubt mar the instant case.

First, the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation failed to mark the seized item
immediately after its confiscation from Guzon. The Court explained in People v. Coreche48 the
importance in the chain of custody of the immediate marking of an item that is seized from an
accused, to wit:

Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. 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 at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.49 (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)

Here, instead of immediately marking the subject drug upon its confiscation, PO2 Tuzon marked it
with his initials "EAT" only upon arrival at the police station.50 While the failure of arresting officers to
mark the seized items at the place of arrest does not, by itself, impair the integrity of the chain of
custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence,51 such circumstance, when taken
in light of the several other lapses in the chain of custody that attend the present case, forms part of
a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by the law,52 sufficient
to create reasonable doubt as to the culpability of the accused.

The Court has determined that although a physical inventory of the items seized during the buy-bust
operation forms part of the case records, the buy-bust team failed to fully comply with the
requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for its preparation and execution. Under the law,
the inventory must be made "in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom the items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof." These requirements are reiterated in
Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165. Non-compliant with such rules, however, the
Certification/Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items53 in this case only bears the signatures of PO3
Manuel and PO2 Tuzon as apprehending officers. Although the Certification indicates the name of
Guzon under the section "With Conformity", it includes neither his signature nor of any other person
who is allowed by law to witness the required inventory. There is also no proof that a copy of the
inventory was received by any of the persons enumerated under the law.
Besides these deficiencies in the preparation of the inventory, no photograph of the seized item,
which is also required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, forms part of the case records.

The saving clause in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 fails to remedy the lapses and save the
prosecutions case. We have emphasized in People v. Garcia54 that the saving clause applies only
where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited justifiable
grounds.55 Failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be
adequately explained.56 Equally important, the prosecution must establish that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized item are properly preserved. The prosecution failed in this regard.
Taking into account the several rules and requirements that were not followed by the law enforcers,
there was an evident disregard on their part of the established legal requirements. Their breach of
the chain of custody rule, magnified by the prosecutions failure to explain the deficiencies during the
trial, casts doubt on whether the item claimed to have been sold by Guzon to the police asset was
the same item that was brought for examination by the police crime laboratory and eventually
presented in court as evidence.

As further proof that the chain of custody rule was breached in this case, the Court points out the
discrepancy in the weight of the item that was supposedly seized following the buy-bust operation,
and that examined by PSI Cayabyab. We refer to the inventory prepared by PO3 Manuel and PO2
Tuzon on the items that were confiscated after the buy-bust operation:

One (1) piece small heat[-]sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules believed to be
methamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as "SHABU", weighing more or less .01 gram
including plastic material.

xxxx

The above enumerated and described items were properly marked with capital letters EAT
representing the name Elyzer Agarma Tuzon who was one of the apprehending police officers x x
x.57 (Emphasis ours)

The fact that the item sold by Guzon to the police asset weighed only 0.01 gram is provided in
several other documents: first, in the Joint Affidavit58 dated November 22, 2005 executed by PO3
Manuel and PO2 Tuzon; second, the September 22, 2005 entry in the San Nicolas Municipal Police
Stations Temporary Police Blotter, as provided in a Certification59 dated November 22, 2005 issued
by OIC Baldeo; and third, the Memorandum60requesting for laboratory examination signed by OIC
Baldeo and which reads in part:

EXHIBIT: a) One (1) piece of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline
substance suspected to be shabu weighing more or less .01 gram including plastic sachet marked
hereto as exhibit EAT.61(Emphasis ours)

Clearly, the specimen submitted to the police crime laboratory weighed only 0.01 gram, even
including the plastic sachet that contained the substance.

It appears, however, that the specimen examined by PSI Cayabyab of the police crime laboratory
differed from the specimen allegedly seized by the police and brought for examination. The Initial
Laboratory Report62prepared by PSI Cayabyab indicates that the specimen examined weighed more,
specifically at 0.06 gram, excluding its plastic container. Chemistry Report No. D-090-200563 issued
by PSI Cayabyab likewise provides the following details:

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag with markings containing 0.06 gram of white
crystalline substance. xxx

xxxx

REMARKS:

Weight does not include plastic container. xxx.64 (Emphasis ours)

Clearly from the foregoing, the item that was allegedly obtained by the police from Guzon during the
buy-bust operation differed or, at the very least, was no longer in its original condition when
examined in the crime laboratory. The variance in the weight of the seized item vis--vis the
examined specimen and, ultimately, the detail provided in the Information, remained unaddressed by
the prosecution. The testimony of PO2 Tuzon offered no explanation for the difference. PO3
Domingo and PSI Cayabyab could have provided the clarification, but their testimonies were
dispensed with following the parties agreement during the pre-trial.65 The identity of the item
examined by PSI Cayabyab could have also been verified from the markings "EAT" that was made
by PO2 Tuzon on the plastic sachet. Her reports, however, made no specific reference to such
markings, as they merely described the subject specimen as "one (1)-heat-sealed transparent plastic
bag with markings containing 0.06g of white crystalline substance."66

The Court is mindful of the stipulations that were entered into by the parties during the pre-trial67 to
the effect that: (a) PO3 Domingo received the specimen from PO2 Tuzon and then delivered it to
PSI Cayabyab; (b) PSI Cayabyab received the specimen and when she found the specimen to be
shabu , she issued her initial and confirmatory reports; and (c) PSI Cayabyab and PO3 Domingo
could identify the specimen and the labels appearing thereon. These bare stipulations, however,
merely address the matter of the specimens transfer from one police officer to the next, without
offering any explanation as to the specimens condition during the transfers, how each person made
sure that the item was not tampered with or substituted, and an indication of the safeguards that
were employed to prevent any tampering or substitution. Given the considerable difference between
the specimens weight upon its seizure and its weight at the time of its examination, with the seized
items weight being a mere 16% of the examined specimens weight, the determination in this case
of whether the rationale for the chain of custody rule was duly satisfied necessitated a more
intensive inquiry. The prosecutions failure to do so was fatal to its case. It failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the substance claimed to be seized
during the buy-bust operation was preserved. The doubt is resolved in Guzons favor, as the Court
rules on his acquittal.

In drugs cases, the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been
preserved. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved the seized chemical is
not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted.68 "Proof of
the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires not only the actual existence of the transacted
drugs but also the certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones
seized. This is a condition sine qua non for conviction since drugs are the main subject of the illegal
sale constituting the crime and their existence and identification must be proven for the crime to
exist."69 The flagrant lapses committed in handling the alleged confiscated drug in violation of the
chain of custody requirement even effectively negate the presumption of regularity in the
performance of the police officers duties, as any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance
and should make the presumption unavailable.70

In addition to the foregoing, the Court finds merit in Guzons argument that the non-presentation of
the poseur-buyer to the witness stand was fatal to the prosecutions cause. We emphasize that in a
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must convincingly prove that the
transaction or sale actually transpired.71 In the instant case, the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust
operation, a civilian, was the witness competent to prove such fact, given the testimony of PO2
Tuzon that at time the supposed sale happened, he and PO3 Manuel were positioned about 20
meters away from Guzon and the poseur-buyer. Although PO2 Tuzon testified during the trial on the
supposed sale, such information he could offer was based only on conjecture, as may be derived
from the supposed actions of Guzon and the poseur-buyer, or at most, hearsay, being information
that was merely relayed to him by the alleged poseur-buyer. Given the 20-meter distance, it was
unlikely for PO2 Tuzon to have heard the conversations between the alleged buyer and seller. True
enough, his testimony provided that he and PO3 Manuel merely relied on an agreed signal, i.e., the
poseur-buyers removal of his cap, to indicate that the sale had been consummated. On cross-
examination, PO2 Tuzon even admitted:

ATTY. BALUCIO:

Q And Mr. Witness, when you allegedly arrived at the target place, you were at a distance far away
from the alleged transaction, is it not?

A More or less twenty (20) meters, sir.

Q And that if any transaction have been (sic) transpired at that time, you did not hear it Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you did not also see if what was being handed at that time was shabu Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.72

In the absence of neither the poseur-buyers nor of any eyewitness testimony on the transaction, the
prosecutions case fails. In People v. Tadepa,73 the Court explained that the failure of the prosecution
to present in court the alleged poseur-buyer is fatal to its case. Said the Court in that case, the
1wphi1

police officer, who admitted that he was seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from where the actual
transaction took place, could not be deemed an eyewitness to the crime. The Court held, viz :

In People v. Polizon, we said

We agree with the appellants contention that the non-presentation of Boy Lim, the alleged poseur-
buyer, weakens the prosecutions evidence. Sgt. Pascua was not privy to the conversation between
Lim and the accused. He was merely watching from a distance and he only saw the actions of the
two. As pointed out by the appellant, Sgt. Pascua had no personal knowledge of the transaction that
transpired between Lim and the appellant. Since appellant insisted that he was forced by Lim to buy
the marijuana, it was essential that Lim should have been presented to rebut accuseds testimony.

The ruling in People v. Yabut is further instructive

Well established is the rule that when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2)
or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to support a conviction. In the present case, accused-appellants version of the
circumstances leading to his apprehension constitutes a total denial of the prosecutions allegations.
In this regard this Court has ruled that when there is such a divergence of accounts
x x x it becomes incumbent upon the prosecution to rebut appellants allegation by presenting x x x
the alleged poseur- buyer. This it failed to do giving rise to the presumption that evidence willfully
suppressed would be adverse if produced (Rule 131, Sec. 5 [e]). This failure constitutes a fatal flaw
in the prosecutions evidence since the so-called (poseur-buyer) who was never presented as a
witness x x x is the best witness for the prosecution x x x.74 (Emphasis ours)

The Court also ruled in People v. Olaes75, that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to
the prosecutions case, since the alleged sale transaction happened inside the accuseds house;
hence, it was supposedly witnessed only by the poseur-buyer, who then was the only person who
had personal knowledge of the transaction.76

While the Court, in several instances, has affirmed an accuseds conviction notwithstanding the non-
presentation of the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, such failure is excusable only when the
poseur-buyers testimony is merely corroborative, there being some other eyewitness who is
competent to testify on the sale transaction.77

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated June 29, 2010 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02890, which affirmed the Decision dated June 15, 2007 of
the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No. 11968-13; and ACQUITS
accused-appellant GARYZALDY GUZON of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 11968-13 on
the ground of reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to
immediately release Garyzaldy Guzon from custody, unless he is detained for some other lawful
cause.

SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice