PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, the course of safekeeping and use in court as
vs.
RAMIL DORIA DAHIL and ROMMEL CASTRO y
CARLOS, Accused-Appellants.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Buy-Bust
Operations; A buy-bust operation is susceptible
to police abuse, the most notorious of which is
its use as a tool for extortion.—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 to police abuse, the most
notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.
Same; Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; The
identity of the dangerous drugs should be
established beyond doubt by showing that the
items offered in court were the same
substances bought during the buy-bust
operation.—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
bought during the buy-bust operation. This
rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165
as the chain of custody, performs the function of
ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases;
“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.—Although R.A. No. 9165
does not define the meaning of chain of custody,
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board 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
evidence, and the final disposition.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Section 21 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 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/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.—Although the
prosecution offered in evidence 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/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the
DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Notwithstanding
the failure of the prosecution to establish the
rigorous requirements of Section 21 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, jurisprudence
dictates that substantial compliance is
sufficient; Section 21 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (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.—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 arrest of the
accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated
from him inadmissible. The issue of noncompliance
with the said section is not of admissibility, but of
weight to be given on the evidence. 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Marking; Words and
Phrases; “Marking” means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of
his/her initials and signature on the items
seized.—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
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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It must be
noted that marking is not found in Republic
Act (RA) No. 9165 and is different from the
inventory-taking and photography under
Section 21 of the said law.—It must be noted
that marking is not 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; There are
cases when the 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.—There
are cases when the 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. 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.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure;
Presumption of Regularity; Presumption of
Innocence; The presumption of regularity will
never be stronger than the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused.—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. 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.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
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 o’clock 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 ₱200.00 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) ₱100.00 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 that on 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 with illegal 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
₱500,000.00 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 ₱300,000.00
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 to
the identity of the seized items presented in
evidence.14
In its Brief for theAppellee,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) ₱100.00 marked
bills, after they agreed to transact ₱200.00 worth
of the illegal drug.16 The charge of illegal
possession of marijuana, was also thus established
by the prosecution.17 Another five (5) plastic
sachets of marijuana were recovered from Dahil’s
possession while one (1) brick of marijuana from
Castro’s 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 Court’s 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 to police 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
bought during the buy-bust operation. This
rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165
as the chain of custody, performs the function of
ensuring that unnecessary 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 gaps in 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 Drugs Board 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
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.
Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
No. 9165 enumerates the procedures to be
observed by the apprehending officers to confirm
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 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
The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 was not complied with.
Although the prosecution offered in evidence 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/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the DOJ, and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
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 excuse that 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 Cruz who prepared the said
document.27 PO2 Cruz on the other hand, testified
that it was their investigator who prepared the
document while SPO1 Licu’s 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, ma’am
Q: Were pictures taken on the alleged
seized items together with Ramil Dahil?
A: No, ma’am.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, ma’am.
Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at
the time you conduct the inventory?
A: No, ma’am.
Q: Were pictures taken on them including
the alleged seized items?
A: Pictures were taken on the accused,
ma’am.
[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 arrest of the accused illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.30 The
issue of non-compliance with the said section is
not of admissibility, but of weight to be given on
the evidence.31Moreover, 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, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the
court.
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
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.35
It must be noted that marking is not 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 when the 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
were to 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 to the 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 to effectively 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, ma’am.
Q: When did you bring the marijuana to the crime
lab for examination?
A: I think it was the following day, ma’am. 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 details on 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
personal knowledge 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 in the 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. 190321 April 25, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee,
vs.
SAMMY UMIPANG y ABDUL, Accused-Appellant.
Criminal Law; Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs A1ct of 2000 (R.A. No. 9165); Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); Congress
introduced another complementing safeguard
through Section 86 of R.A. 9165, which
requires the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), Philippine National Police (PNP), and
Bureau of Customs (BOC) to maintain close
coordination with Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) in matters of illegal drug-
related operations.—Congress introduced
another complementing safeguard through Section
86 of R.A. 9165, which requires the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Philippine National
Police (PNP), and Bureau of Customs (BOC) to
maintain close coordination with PDEA in matters
of illegal drug-related operations: Section 86.
Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All
Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA
and Transitory Provisions.—x x x. x x x x x x
x x x Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution
of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP
on all other crimes as provided for in their
respective organic laws: Provided, however, That
when the investigation being conducted by the
NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is
found to be a violation of any of the provisions of
this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The
NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately
transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further,
That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs
shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA
on all drug related matters.
Same; Same; Buy-Bust Operations; Chain of
Custody Rule; Although the Supreme Court has
ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses
in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not
ipso facto fatal to the prosecution’s cause, so
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items have been preserved, courts
must still 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 drawn by the
law.—Given the nature of buy-bust operations and
the resulting preventive procedural safeguards
crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully
before giving full credit to the testimonies of those
who conducted the operations. Although we have
ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in
the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso
facto fatal to the prosecution’s cause, so long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items have been preserved, courts must still
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 drawn by the
law. Consequently, Section 21(a) of the IRR
provides for a saving clause in the procedures
outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which
serves as a guide in ascertaining those procedural
aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable
grounds.
Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity;
Despite the presumption of regularity in the
performance of the official duties of law
enforcers, the Supreme Court stresses that the
step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A.
9165 is a matter of substantive law, which
cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple
procedural technicality.—Despite the
presumption of regularity in the performance of the
official duties of law enforcers, we stress that the
step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is
a matter of substantive law, which cannot be
simply brushed aside as a simple procedural
technicality. The provisions were crafted by
Congress as safety precautions to address
potential police abuses, especially considering that
the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment.
Same; Same; Minor deviations from the
procedures under R.A. 9165 would not
automatically exonerate an accused from the
crimes of which he or she was convicted;
However, when there is gross disregard of the
procedural safeguards prescribed in the
substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious
uncertainty is generated about the identity of
the seized items that the prosecution
presented in evidence.—Minor deviations from
the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not
automatically exonerate an accused from the
crimes of which he or she was convicted. This is
especially true when the lapses in procedure were
“recognized and explained in terms of [their]
justifiable grounds.” There must also be a showing
“that the police officers intended to comply with
the procedure but were thwarted by some
justifiable consideration/reason.” However, when
there is gross disregard of the procedural
safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A.
9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the
identity of the seized items that the prosecution
presented in evidence. This uncertainty cannot be
remedied by simply invoking the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, for
a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the
procedural safeguards effectively produces an
irregularity in the performance of official duties.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 190321 April 25, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee,
vs.
SAMMY UMIPANG y ABDUL, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal from the 21 May
2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA)1 affirming the 24 July 2007 Joint Decision of
the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Criminal Cases No. 14935-D-TG and No. 14936-D-
TG.2 The RTC Decision convicted Sammy Umipang
y Abdul (Umipang) for violation of Sections 5 and
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165),
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
Facts
The pertinent facts, as determined by the CA, are
quoted as follows:
Acting on a tip from a confidential informant that a
person named Sam was selling drugs along
Cagayan de Oro Street in Maharlika Village, Taguig
City, a buy-bust team from the [Station Anti-Illegal
Drugs – Special Operation Task Force (SAID-
SOTF)] of the Taguig City Police was dispatched on
April 1, 2006 at around 6:00 in the evening. [Police
Officer (PO) 2] Gasid was assigned to act as poseur
buyer and he was given a ₱ 500.00 marked money.
The operation was coordinated with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
Upon arrival at the area, PO2 Gasid and the
confidential informant sauntered the length of the
street while the other members of the team
strategically positioned themselves. The
confidential informant saw the man called Sam
standing near a store. The confidential informant
and PO2 Gasid then approached Sam. Straight off,
the confidential informant said "Sam, pa-iskor
kami." Sam replied "Magkano ang iiskorin nyo?"
The confidential informant said "Five hundred
pesos." Sam took out three (3) plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance with various
price tags–500, 300, and 100. After making a
choice, PO2 Gasid handed the marked ₱ 500.00 to
Sam who received the same.
Upon receipt by Sam of the marked money, PO2
Gasid took off his cap as the pre-arranged signal
that the sale had been consummated. Sensing
danger, Sam attempted to flee but PO2 Gasid
immediately grabbed and arrested Sam. In a few
seconds, the rest of the buy-bust team [comprised
of their team leader, Police Senior Inspector
(PS/INSP.) Obong, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1
Mendiola, PO3 Hajan, PO3 Maglana, PO3 Salem,
and PO1 Ragos] joined them. PO1 Ragos
handcuffed Sam. Five (5) more plastic sachets
containing the same white crystalline substance
were recovered from Sam. PO2 Gasid marked the
items with the initials "SAU" [which stood for
Sammy A. Umipang, the complete name, including
the middle initial, of accused-appellant]. Sam was
forthwith brought to the police station where he
was booked, investigated and identified as
accused-appellant Sammy Umipang y Abdul. PO2
Gasid then brought the confiscated items to the
crime laboratory for testing. The specimens all
tested positive for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride, popularly known as "shabu," a
dangerous drug.
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-
appellant himself and his brother Nash Rudin
Umipang. According to them:
In the evening of April 1, 2006, while they were
sleeping, accused-appellant and his family were
awakened by loud knocking on the door. The
persons outside shouted "Mga pulis kami. Buksan
mo ang pinto kung hindi gigibain namin ito."
Accused-appellant obliged and opened the door.
Five (5) policemen barged into his house and
pointed a gun at him. Against his will and amid the
screams of his wife, accused-appellant was
brought to a waiting vehicle and brought to the
police headquarters. At the Taguig Police station,
PO2 Gasid tried to extort from him ₱ 100,000.00
for his release. He denied the charges and that the
alleged evidence were all "planted" by the police.3
Consequently, the following charges were brought
against Umipang:
That on or about the 1st day of April 2006, in the
City of Taguig, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without having been authorized
by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly sell deliver and give away to poseur
buyer PO2 Ruchyl Gasid, one heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of
white crystalline substance, which substance was
found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride also known as "shabu" a dangerous
drug, in consideration of the amount of ₱ 500.00,
in violation of the above-cited law.
That on or about the 1st day of April 2006, in the
City of Taguig, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without having been authorized
by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly possess and have in his custody
and control five (5) heat sealed transparent plastic
sachets, each containing 0.05 gram, 0.05 gram,
0.05 gram, 0.04 gram and 0.04 gram with a total
weight of 0.23 gram of white crystalline substance,
which substances were found positive to the tests
for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride also known
as "shabu" a dangerous drug, in violation of the
above-cited law.
RTC Ruling
In its 24 July 2007 Joint Decision, the Pasig City
RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violating
Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration,
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals)
and Section 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs),
Article II of R.A. 9165. The RTC gave more weight
to the testimonies of the arresting officers on how
they conducted the buy-bust operation than to
accused-appellant’s claim of frame-up by the
police. Thus, for violating Section 5 (Criminal Case
No. 14935-D-TG), Umipang was sentenced to
suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱
500,000. For violating Section 11 (Criminal Case
No. 14936-D-TG), he was sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen
(14) years one (1) day as maximum and to pay a
fine of ₱ 300,000.
CA Ruling
In its 21 May 2009 Decision, the CA affirmed in
toto the 24 July 2007 Joint Decision of the RTC.
According to the appellate court, the elements
necessary for the prosecution of the illegal
possession and sale of dangerous drugs were
present and established. Thus, it no longer
disturbed the RTC’s assessment of the credibility of
the prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the CA
found that there was no showing of improper
motive on the part of the police officers. With the
presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties, it ruled against the denials of
accused-appellant, and his defense of frame-up.
We have consistently declared that a review of the
factual findings of the lower courts is not a
function that is normally undertaken in appeals
before this Court. However, after a careful scrutiny
of the CA Decision, we find it proper to reevaluate
the factual issues surrounding the present case,
especially since it is not clear from the Decision
whether the proper implementation of the strict
procedural safeguards laid down in R.A. 9165 was
established.
Issue
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in
finding that the testimonial evidence of the
prosecution witnesses were sufficient to convict
accused-appellant of the alleged sale and
possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride,
which are violations under Sections 5 and 11,
respectively, of R.A. 9165.
Discussion
Accused-appellant argues4 that since there were
two versions presented during trial – one, that of
the prosecution; and the other, that of the accused
– the latter version must be adopted, because the
presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties should not take precedence over the
presumption of innocence of the accused. He also
contends that a surveillance of just 30 minutes
was insufficient to establish that Umipang was
engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. Lastly,
accused-appellant claims that the fact of
possession of the confiscated plastic sachets was
not clearly established, and that the evidence
allegedly confiscated from him was merely
planted.5 Alluding to the testimony of PO1 Ragos,
he points out that the former did not see him
holding the drugs, and that the sachet was shown
only to PO1 Ragos by PO2 Gasid.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) prays for the affirmation of the RTC
Joint Decision in all respects, as it was decided in
accord with law and evidence.6 The OSG
argues7 that the necessary elements to convict a
person under Sections 5 and 11 were proven
beyond reasonable doubt. It then contends that,
absent independent proof and substantiated
evidence to the contrary, accused-appellant’s bare-
faced denial should be deemed merely as a self-
serving statement that does not hold merit. Finally,
the OSG asserts that, where there is no evidence of
improper motive on the part of the prosecution
witness to testify falsely against accused-appellant,
the testimony must be given full faith and
credence.
Substantive law requires strict observance of the
procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. 9165
At the outset, we take note that the present case
stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by
the SAID-SOTF. We thus recall our pronouncement
in People v. Garcia:
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 to police abuse,
the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself
recognized that "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
pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial
hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all
drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus,
courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in
trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made
to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
offenses." Accordingly, specific procedures relating
to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid
down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to
strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce
evidence that these procedures have been followed
in proving the elements of the defined
offense.8(Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 delineates the mandatory
procedural safeguards9 that are applicable in cases
of buy-bust operations:
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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon
confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, the same shall be
submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory
for a qualitative and quantitative
examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, which shall be done
under oath by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued within twenty-
four (24) hours after the receipt of the
subject item/s: Provided, That when the
volume of the dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled
precursors and essential chemicals does
not allow the completion of testing within
the time frame, a partial laboratory
examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That
a final certification shall be issued on the
completed forensic laboratory examination
on the same within the next twenty-four
(24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the
Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours,
conduct an ocular inspection of the
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, including the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, and through the
PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours
thereafter proceed with the destruction or
burning of 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 DOJ,
civil society groups and any elected public
official. The Board shall draw up the
guidelines on the manner of proper
disposition and destruction of such item/s
which shall be borne by the
 offender: Provided, That those item/s of
lawful commerce, as determined by the
Board, shall be donated, used or recycled
for legitimate purposes: Provided, further,
That a representative sample, duly weighed
and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn
certification as to the fact of destruction or
burning of the subject item/s which,
together with the representative sample/s
in the custody of the PDEA, shall be
submitted to the court having jurisdiction
over the case. In all instances, the
representative sample/s shall be kept to a
minimum quantity as determined by the
Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her
representative or counsel shall be allowed
to personally observe all of the above
proceedings and his/her presence shall not
constitute an admission of guilt. In case the
said offender or accused refuses or fails to
appoint a representative after due notice in
writing to the accused or his/her counsel
within seventy-two (72) hours before the
actual burning or destruction of the
evidence in question, the Secretary of
Justice shall appoint a member of the
public attorney's office to represent the
former; x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Congress introduced another complementing
safeguard through Section 86 of R.A. 9165, which
requires the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
Philippine National Police (PNP), and Bureau of
Customs (BOC) to maintain close coordination with
PDEA in matters of illegal drug-related operations:
Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration
of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA
and Transitory Provisions. – x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the
investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all
other crimes as provided for in their respective
organic laws: Provided, however, That when the
investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or
any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a
violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the
PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or
any of the task force shall immediately transfer the
same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI,
PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain
close coordination with the PDEA on all drug
related matters. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, the 2002 Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. 9165 (IRR) set the following
procedure for maintaining close coordination:
SECTION 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration
of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA
and Transitory Provisions. — x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
(a) Relationship/Coordination between PDEA and
Other Agencies — The PDEA shall be the lead
agency in the enforcement of the Act, while the
PNP, the NBI and other law enforcement agencies
shall continue to conduct anti-drug operations in
support of the PDEA: Provided, that the said
agencies shall, as far as practicable, coordinate
with the PDEA prior to anti-drug
operations; Provided, further, that, in any case,
said agencies shall inform the PDEA of their anti-
drug operations within twenty-four (24) hours from
the time of the actual custody of the suspects or
seizure of said drugs and substances, as well as
paraphernalia and transport equipment used in
illegal activities involving such drugs and/or
substances, and shall regularly update the PDEA
on the status of the cases involving the said anti-
drug operations; Provided, furthermore, that raids,
seizures, and other anti-drug operations conducted
by the PNP, the NBI, and other law enforcement
agencies prior to the approval of this IRR shall be
valid and authorized; Provided, finally, that
nothing in this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the NBI,
other law enforcement personnel and the personnel
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from
effecting lawful arrests and seizures in consonance
with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied.)
Given the nature of buy-bust operations and the
resulting preventive procedural safeguards crafted
in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before
giving full credit to the testimonies of those who
conducted the operations. Although we have ruled
in the past that mere procedural lapses in the
conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso facto
fatal to the prosecution’s cause, so long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items have been preserved,10 courts must still
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 drawn by the
law. Consequently, Section 21(a) of the IRR
provides for a saving clause in the procedures
outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which
serves as a guide in ascertaining those procedural
aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable
grounds, viz:
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. — x x x:
(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 supplied.)
We have reiterated that "this saving clause applies
only where the prosecution recognized the
procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the
cited justifiable grounds" after which, "the
prosecution must show that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been
preserved."11 To repeat, noncompliance with the
required procedure will not necessarily result in
the acquittal of the accused if: (1) the
noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2)
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team.12
Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity
in the performance of the official duties of law
enforcers,13 we stress that the step-by-step
procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of
substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed
aside as a simple procedural technicality. The
provisions were crafted by Congress as safety
precautions to address potential police abuses,
especially considering that the penalty imposed
may be life imprisonment. In People v.
Coreche,14 we explained thus:
The concern with narrowing the window of
opportunity for tampering with evidence found
legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of RA 9165
on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and
paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered
requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of
inventory by imposing on the apprehending team
having initial custody and control of the drugs the
duty to "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
supplied.)
Consequently, in a line of cases,15 we have lain
emphasis on the importance of complying with the
prescribed procedure. Stringent compliance is
justified under the rule that penal laws shall be
construed strictly against the government and
liberally in favor of the accused.16 Otherwise, "the
procedure set out in the law will be mere lip
service."17
Material irregularities in the conduct of the buy-
bust operations
In the recent case of People v. Relato, we reiterated
the following:
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under
Republic Act No. 9165, 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. Any gap renders the case for the State less
than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Relato
deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that
his defense of frame-up became plausible in the
face of the weakness of the Prosecution’s evidence
of guilt.18 (Emphasis supplied and citations
omitted.)
The conduct of the buy-bust operations was
peppered with defects, which raises doubts on the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items from accused-appellant.
First, there were material inconsistencies in the
marking of the seized items. According to his
testimony, PO2 Gasid used the initials of the
complete name, including the middle initial, of
accused-appellant in order to mark the confiscated
sachets. The marking was done immediately after
Umipang was handcuffed. However, a careful
perusal of the testimony of PO2 Gasid would reveal
that his prior knowledge of the complete initials of
accused-appellant, standing for the latter’s full
name, was not clearly established. Thus, doubt
arises as to when the plastic sachets were actually
marked, as shown by PO2 Gasid’s testimony:
A [PO2 Gasid]: We conducted a buy-bust operation
on April 1, 2006.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Against whom did you conduct
this buy-bust operation?
A: Against alias Sam, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What prompted you to conduct
this operation against this alias Sam?
A: We received information from our confidential
informant that one alias Sam is selling shabu at
Cagayan De Oro Street, Maharlika Village, Taguig.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Aside from this information
that you received from your informant, was there
anything more that your informant told you about
the real identity of this alias Sam?
A: Nothing more, sir, he gave us only his alias,
sir.19
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: So, after you have taken the
item and paid alias Sam and then you executed the
pre-arranged signal that you have already
purchased from him, what happened then?
A: After I made the pre-arranged signal, mabilis po
yung mata ni alias Sam, para ho bang balisa,
siguro napansin nya na hindi lang kami dalawa
(2), aakma syang tatakbo, sinunggaban ko na po
sya.
PROSEC. SANTOS: So, you held Sam already
during that time?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened after that?
A: I introduced myself as police officer and at that
time I arrested him.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What about your companions
who serves [sic] as your immediate back up, what
happened to them when you were already hold and
arrested [sic] this alias Sam?
A: I noticed my companions approaching us.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: And what did your colleague
Ragos do when he arrived at your place?
A: When he arrived at the place, after arresting
alias Sam, he was the one who handcuffed him.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Was there anything more that
was done in that place of occurrence during that
time, Officer?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Tell us please?
A: After arresting alias Sam, I frisk [sic] him for the
remaining items he showed me and the buy-bust
money I gave him.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: Was there anything that you
and your team did in the items that you
confiscated from the possession of the accused
during that time and the shabu that you bought
from him?
A: I marked the items I confiscated at the place of
incident.
PROSEC. SANTOS: How did you marked [sic] the
item that you bought from this alias Sam?
A: SAU, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: And what does that stand for?
That SAU?
A: Stands for the initials of alias Sam.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Is that the only thing that you
placed on the plastic sachet containing the shabu
that you bought from this alias Sam during that
time?
A: I marked the shabu I bought as SAU-1.
PROSEC. SANTOS: How about the other five (5) ATTY. HERNANDEZ: When you arrived at the
plastic sachets containing the suspected shabu, place, by the way, where was your target area, Mr.
what happened to that? Witness?

A: I marked them as SAU-2, SAU-3, SAU-4, SAU-5 A: Cagayan De Oro Street, Barangay Maharlika,
and SAU-6.20 Taguig City.

xxx xxx xxx ATTY. HERNANDEZ: When you were there, you did
not buy [sic] anybody to buy shabu from the
PROSEC. SANTOS: Now, after you have marked accused?
and inventoried the items that you bought and
confiscated from this alias Sam during that time, A: No, sir.
what else happened?
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, you did not conduct any
A: After the inventory of the evidences, I turn [sic] test buy?
them over to the investigator.
A: No, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Where did you turn these items
to your investigator? ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Nor did you make any inquiry
with Cagayan De Oro Street regarding the
A: At the office, sir. accused?

PROSEC. SANTOS: Who was your investigator A: Not anymore, sir.

during that time?
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: At that moment, you don’t
A: PO1 Alexander Saez, sir. have any idea regarding the identity of the accused
and also whether he was engaged in illegal
PROSEC. SANTOS: When you turn these items to activity?
your investigator, where were you?
A: Regarding the identity, he was described by the
A: At the office, sir. informant.

PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened to these items ATTY. HERNANDEZ: It was only the informant who
that you turn it over [sic] to your investigator? knows the accused?

A: He made a request for laboratory examination of A: Yes, sir.

the items confiscated.21
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also your other members,
xxx xxx xxx they did not know the accused?

PROSEC. SANTOS: Now, Officer, this Sam when
you have already arrested him, were you able to
know his real name?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What was his real name?
A: Yes, sir.23 (Emphasis supplied.)
A clearer picture of what transpired during the
buy-bust operation, from the marking of the
confiscated items to the arrest of accused-
appellant, is provided by the testimony of PO1
Ragos:

A: Sammy Umipang, sir. PROSEC. SANTOS: And what is the effect to you of
the act of Gasid taking off his cap?
PROSEC. SANTOS: Is he present here in Court?
A: That is the sign that he already bought the
shabu.
A: Yes, sir.22
PROSEC. SANTOS: When you saw Gasid acting
xxx xxx xxx that way, being the back up of him during that
time, what did you do?
A: I run [sic] towards them. A: Yes, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: Were you able to go near him PROSEC. SANTOS: And together with this alias
when you run [sic] towards him? Sam?

A: Yes, sir. A: Yes, sir.

PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened? PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened in your office?

A: I saw him holding Sam. A: We turn [sic] over the evidence to the
investigator.
PROSEC. SANTOS: When you saw Gasid already
holding Sam, what did you do? PROSEC. SANTOS: Who was your investigator
during that time?
A: I handcuffed Sam.
A: PO1 Saez.
PROSEC. SANTOS: After that, what happened?
xxx xxx xxx
A: The items confiscated by Gasid were marked
with his initials. PROSEC. SANTOS: So, after the team has turn
[sic] over the evidences to your investigator in the
PROSEC. SANTOS: Did you see Gasid marking person of Officer Saez, was there anything more
those things that he took from this Sam during that transpired in relation to this event, this
that time? incident?

A: Yes, sir. A: We prepared an affidavit of arrest.24

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

PROSEC. SANTOS: What marked [sic] did he put ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And this information
on these plastic sachets? regarding the accused was relayed to you by your
immediate superior?
A: SAU, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Do you know what SAU
connotes? ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And this information was the
first information regarding the accused, is that
A: Yes, sir. correct?

PROSEC. SANTOS: Tell us? A: Yes, sir.

A: Sammy Abdul Umipang.
PROSEC. SANTOS: After that, what happened?
A: He was apprising [sic] of his constitutional
rights.
PROSEC. SANTOS: After this person was apprised
of his rights, was there anything more that was
done?
A: We went back to the office.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: What was told you was that
your target person was alias Sam?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: No photographs of alias Sam
was shown to you?
A: None, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: You have no derogatory
records of this alias Sam in your office?

PROSEC. SANTOS: All the members of the team A: None, sir.

went back to the office?
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: You have no warrant of ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you mentioned
arrest? that it was Officer Saez who delivered the items to
the crime lab?
A: None, sir.
A: No sir, it was Gasid.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: This alias Sam was not
included in your watch list? ATTY. HERNANDEZ: But you were not with him
when he delivered the specimen to the crime
A: No, sir.25 laboratory?

xxx xxx xxx A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, the markings were placed ATTY. HERNANDEZ: No further question, Your
on the plastic sachets? Honor.

A: Yes, sir. PROSEC. SANTOS: No re-direct, Your Honor. x x

x26 (Emphasis supplied.)
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: After that Mr. Witness, you
brought the accused together with the items to The circumstances surrounding the marking of the
your office? seized items are suspect. From their testimonies
during the trial, PO2 Gasid and PO1 Ragos both
PROSEC. SANTOS: Already answered, Your Honor. admitted that they only knew their target by the
We are just repeating the same pattern, Your name "Sam." They both testified that, after
Honor. accused-appellant was handcuffed, frisked, and
read his rights, they immediately brought him to
the police precinct. They then said that it was a
xxx xxx xxx certain PO1 Saez who investigated him. In fact, in
their joint affidavit, PO2 Gasid and PO1 Ragos
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you investigated stated thus:
the accused?
Na dinala namin siya [accused] sa aming opisina
A: No more, it was PO1 Saez who investigated the para sa pagsisiyasat at pagtatanong tungkol sa
accused. detalye ng kaniyang pagkatao at sa layuning
masampahan ng kaukulang reklamo sa paglabag
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, you did not ask the full ng Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165. 27 (Emphasis
name of the accused? supplied.)

A: It was PO1 Saez who investigated him, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: It was PO1 Saez who got his
full name and on you [sic] part, that was the first
time that you were able to learned [sic] the full
name of the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Because you knew him only
as alias Sam?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: How about Officer Gasid, it
was also the first time that he learned the full
name of the accused?
Evidence on record does not establish that PO2
Gasid had prior knowledge of the complete name of
accused-appellant, including the middle initial,
which enabled the former to mark the seized items
with the latter’s complete initials. This suspicious,
material inconsistency in the marking of the items
raises questions as to how PO2 Gasid came to
know about the initials of Umipang prior to the
latter’s statements at the police precinct, thereby
creating a cloud of doubt on the issues of where
the marking really took place and whether the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
were preserved. All that was established was that it
was PO1 Saez who asked accused-appellant about
the latter’s personal circumstances, including his
true identity, and that the questioning happened
when accused-appellant was already at the police
station. We thus reiterate:

A: Maybe not, sir. 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 A: Yes, sir.
custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized
contraband[s] are immediately marked because ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And since this is a drug
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the operation, you are required by law to make a
markings as reference. The marking of the certificate of inventory?
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence
from the corpus of all other similar or related A: Yes, sir.
evidence from the time they are seized from the
accused until they are disposed of at the end of
criminal proceedings, obviating switching, ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And that inventory, you are
"planting", or contamination of evidence. required by law that there should be a signature of
any representative from the media, is that correct?
Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court
has consistently held that failure of the authorities A: Yes, sir.
to immediately mark the seized drugs raises
reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also representative from
delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of the Department of Justice, is that correct?
regularity in the performance of official duties, the
doctrinal fallback of every drug-related A: Yes, sir.
prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa and People v.
Casimiro, we held that the failure to mark the ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also elected official, Mr.
drugs immediately after they were seized from the Witness?
accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence,
warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. These A: Yes, sir.
rulings are refinements of our holdings in People v.
Mapa and People v. Dismuke that doubts on the
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: I’m showing to you Mr.
authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by
Witness your certificate of inventory, do you
the prosecution’s failure to prove that the evidence
confirm that there are no signatures placed by any
submitted for chemical analysis is the same as the
member of the media, representative from the
one seized from the accused suffice to warrant
Department of Justice and any elected official?
acquittal on reasonable doubt.28 (Emphasis
supplied and citations omitted.)
A: Yes, sir, there is none, sir.
It is true that the failure of the arresting officers to
mark the seized items at the place of arrest does ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And there appears to be an
not by itself impair the integrity of the chain of initial of RS above the type written name Sammy
custody and render the confiscated items Umipang, who wrote this initial RS?
inadmissible in evidence.29 We have already
clarified that the marking upon "immediate" A: That stands for refuse [sic] to sign, sir.
confiscation of the prohibited items contemplates
even that which was done at the nearest police ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Who refuse [sic] to sign?
station or office of the apprehending team.30 We
will analyze this possible seed of doubt that has A: Sammy Umipang, sir.31
been planted by the unexplained marking of the
shabu with the complete initials of Umipang,
xxx xxx xxx
together with the other alleged irregularities.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Why was the certificate of
Second, the SAID-SOTF failed to show genuine and
inventory not witnesses [sic] and signed by any
sufficient effort to seek the third-party
members of the media, the DOJ and elected
representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of
officials, Officer?
R.A. 9165. Under the law, the inventory and
photographing of seized items must be conducted
in the presence of a representative from the media, A: That time there is no available representative,
from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and from sir.
any elected public official. The testimony of PO2
Gasid, as quoted below, is enlightening: COURT: How did you exert effort to locate available
representative of those officers or persons in the
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you also made certificate of inventory?
the certificate of inventory, is that correct?
A: The investigator contacted representative from
the media, Your Honor.
COURT: What barangay this incident happened?
A: Barangay Maharlika, Your Honor.
COURT: Did you talk to the barangay captain?
A: No, Your Honor.
COURT: What about the barangay councilman?
A: No, Your Honor.32 (Emphasis supplied.)
Indeed, the absence of these representatives during
the physical inventory and the marking of the
seized items does not per se render the confiscated
items inadmissible in evidence. However, we take
note that, in this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even
attempt to contact the barangay chairperson or
any member of the barangay council. There is no
indication that they contacted other elected public
officials. Neither do the records show whether the
police officers tried to get in touch with any DOJ
representative. Nor does the SAID-SOTF adduce
any justifiable reason for failing to do so –
especially considering that it had sufficient time
from the moment it received information about the
activities of the accused until the time of his arrest.
Thus, we find that there was no genuine and
sufficient effort on the part of the apprehending
police officers to look for the said representatives
pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer
statement that representatives were unavailable –
without so much as an explanation on whether
serious attempts were employed to look for other
representatives, given the circumstances – is to be
regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the
prosecution who has the positive duty to establish
that earnest efforts were employed in contacting
the representatives enumerated under Section
21(1) of R.A. 9165,33 or that there was a justifiable
ground for failing to do so.34
Third, the SAID-SOTF failed to duly accomplish the
Certificate of Inventory and to take photos of the
seized items pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A.
9165. As pointed out by the defense during
trial,35 the Certificate of Inventory did not contain
any signature, including that of PO2 Gasid – the
arresting officer who prepared the certificate36 –
thus making the certificate defective. Also, the
prosecution neither submitted any photograph of
the seized items nor offered any reason for failing
to do so. We reiterate that these requirements are
specifically outlined in and required to be
implemented by Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165.37
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A.
9165 would not automatically exonerate an
accused from the crimes of which he or she was
convicted.38 This is especially true when the lapses
in procedure were "recognized and explained in
terms of [] justifiable grounds."39 There must also
be a showing "that the police officers intended to
comply with the procedure but were thwarted by
some justifiable consideration/reason."40 However,
when there is gross disregard of the procedural
safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A.
9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the
identity of the seized items that the prosecution
presented in evidence.41 This uncertainty cannot be
remedied by simply invoking the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, for
a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the
procedural safeguards effectively produces an
irregularity in the performance of official
duties.42 As a result, the prosecution is deemed to
have failed to fully establish the elements of the
crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the
criminal liability of the accused.43 1âwphi1
For the arresting officers’ failure to adduce
justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the
totality of the procedural lapses committed in this
case that the arresting officers deliberately
disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165.
These lapses effectively produced serious doubts
on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti,
especially in the face of allegations of frame-up.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve
the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, "as every
fact necessary to constitute the crime must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt." 44
As a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling
upon the authorities "to exert greater efforts in
combating the drug menace using the safeguards
that our lawmakers have deemed necessary for the
greater benefit of our society."45 The need to employ
a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the
evidence of the prosecution – especially when the
pieces of evidence were derived from a buy-bust
operation – "redounds to the benefit of the criminal
justice system by protecting civil liberties and at
the same time instilling rigorous discipline on
prosecutors."46
WHEREFORE, the appealed 21 May 2009 CA
Decision affirming the 24 July 2007 RTC Joint
Decision is SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Sammy
Umipang y Abdul is hereby ACQUITTED of the
charges in Criminal Cases No. 14935-D-TG and
No. 14936-D-TG on the ground of reasonable
doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
hereby ORDERED to
immediately RELEASE accused-appellant from
custody, unless he is detained for some other
lawful cause.