The police conducted a test-buy operation and was able to recover from Pis-an one plastic sachet which

positively tested for shabu. Thereafter, they applied and was issued a search warrant (SW) authorizing
the search of Pis-an’s residence in Dumaguete. The team implemented the SW with Brgy. Kagawad
Dicen and seized 14 pieces of plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and drug
paraphernalia. All the items were carried out to the porch of the house where the POs marked and took
photos of the items seized. Afterwards, an inventory was made in the presence of Pis-an and Brgy.
Kagawad Dicen; together with media practitioner Gallarde and DOJ representative Benlot. The seized
items were brought to the Laboratory for tests. Inspector Llena stated that the 14 sachets had a total
aggregate weight of 9.38 grams and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. She
also found that Pis-an’s urine tested positive for shabu. An amended information was filed for illegal
possession, and included the fact that accused was found positive for shabu. Pis-an denied the charges,
stating that the POs barged through the gates; that the SW was not shown; and that he was not able to
witness the search.

The RTC found him guilty of illegal possession, and imposed the penalty of 20 years and 1 day to life
imprisonment and payment of a fine of Php400K. CA affirmed, stating that the POs observed that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved as each link in the chain of
custody rule was established. In addition, it denied Pis-an’s allegation that no SW was shown, since his
signature appears on the SW.

ISSUE: W/N Pis-an’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING: YES. Illegal possession of a dangerous drug requires that: (1) accused was in possession of an
item identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) possession not authorized by law; and (3) accused was freely
and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. In this case: (i) pursuant to the SW, the POs
recovered 14 sachets containing shabu; (2) possession is not authorized, as admitted by Pis-an; and (3)
prohibited drugs were uncovered from Pis-an’s house which was a prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi. The Court found that the POs duly complied with the chain of custody rule under Art.
II of R.A. 9165 and its IRR. In Dimaala v. People, the Court stated that to establish the identity of the
dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody
form the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. The
marking, physical inventory, and photography of the items must be conducted immediately after seizure
and confiscation of the same. The law also requires that the said inventory and photography be done in
the presence of the accused or the person from whom the item were seized, or his representative or
counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA
10640, a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the
amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the national
Prosecution Service OR the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily “to
ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence.” When Pis-an was arrested, the police officers immediately took custody of
the seized items and marked them right there and then. They also conducted the inventory and
photography in the presence of all 3 witnesses required by law, namely: (1) Brgy. Kagawad Dicen; (2)
Media Practitioner Gallarde; and (3) DOJ representative Benlot. The items were then properly brought
for testing. Thus, Pis-an’s guilt for illegal possession was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment may only be imposed if illegal possession was
committed in a social gathering or in the presence of two or more persons. Absent this, Pis-an can only
be punished for a penalty below life imprisonment.Thus, his penalty is modified to 20 years and one day,
as minimum, to 30 years, as maximum.