DRAFTING CASE DECISION

Submitted by:
PRINCESS P. CARIÑO
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

EVANGELINE BUENAVENTURA G.R. No. 221234

Y Olivares,
Petitioner,

- versus –

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:

Respondent MAY 5, 2017

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

CARIÑO, CJ:

Before this Court is an appeal on the November 9, 2016

Decision of the Court of Appeals, Fifth Division, which affirmed
the March 2, 2015 Decision issued by Branch 4, Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila City in convicting the accused-
appellant for illegal possession of drug under Section 11(3),
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002.

ANTECEDENT FACTS

Version of the Prosecution

On January 24, 2013, at around 11:20 in the morning,

SPO3 Agapito Yadao, Jr. and PO2 Juan Paulo Libiano,
accompanied by their confidential informant, proceeded to
Daang Bakal, near corner Maria Guison Street, Tondo Manila,
as directed by their Chief, DAID-SOTG, Police Senior Inspector
Marlon Mallorca for a surveillance to verify on the alleged
illegal drug trade activities of certain alias “Ana”.

While posted on the said area, they saw Ana, more or

less 4 to 5 meters away from them, examining one plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance and then
sealed the same with the use of disposable lighter. When they
got closer, Ana noticed them and tried to elude arrest. They
successfully apprehended her and recover to her the
possession of the plastic sachet and the lighter.

After seizing the items, SPO3 Yadao Jr. informed Ana of

her Constitutional Rights and immediately proceeded to the
nearest Barangay. In the Barangay Hall, the police officers
called the attention of the Barangay chairman and Barangay
Tanod to witness the seized evidence. They also took
photography and put their names and signatures on the
inventory.

After the inventory, they immediately proceeded to their

office, DAID-SOTG, Manila Police District and immediately
turned over the recovered evidence and Ana to the Duty
Investigator, PO3 Elmer Revita. After turning the custody, PO3
Revita immediately took the mug shot of Ana and made a
request for laboratory. SPO3 Yadao Jr. and PO3 Revita then
brought the request for laboratory, as evidenced by the
Chain of Custody Form.

Upon receipt of the positive result of the laboratory

examination for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),
weighing 0.068 gram, PO3 Revita immediately made the Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension and made a referral for inquest and
booking sheet. The accused-appellant was then formally
charged with the violation of Section 11(3), Article II of RA
9165, under the following Information:

“That on or about January 24, 2013 in the City of

Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having
been authorized by law to possess any
dangerous drug did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession
and under her custody and control one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet with marking
'EB' containing ZERO POINT ZERO SIX EIGHT (0.068)
gram of white crystalline substance commonly
known as Shabu containing Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law."

During the pre-trial, the defense and the prosecution

stipulated on the qualification and competence of PO1
Abraham Verde Tecson as a Forensic Chemist and
his testimony was dispensed within view of the admission by
the defense of the genuineness and due execution of the
documents and specimen/evidence he brought to the court.
 At the trial, the prosecution presented as their
witnesses PO3 Revita and SPO3 Yadao while appellant
solely testified on her defense.

PO3 Revita testified that he investigated the accused-

appellant, who was arrested by SPO3 Yadao and received
from the latter one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance and one disposable lighter with
markings placed thereon by SPO3 Yadao, together with the
Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized. He also identified and
submitted to the court the Chain of Custody Form, Request for
Laboratory Examination, Joint Affidavit of Arrest, Pre-
Operation Report, Authority to Operate, Referral for Inquest,
Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, and photograph of the
appellant, all were marked as exhibits for the prosecution.
He likewise identified in court the appellant. PO3 Revita also
admitted he has no personal knowledge of the actual
arrest of appellant and neither did he participate in the
inventory/report. But he confirmed that it was SP03 Yadao
and him who brought the evidence (plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance and disposable lighter)
to the crime laboratory for examination. SPO3 Yadao
was also with him while he was investigating the accused-
appellant who was not assisted by counsel at that time.

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant is 42 years old, single, vendor and a

resident at No. 783 Interior 29, Maria Guison St., Tondo, Manila,
alias “Raby”. Her source of income before the arrest was
selling chicks in different color and in different places if there
are fiestas. She earns P200.00 to P250.00 a day. She has 6
children: 2 are married, the second is working as maid, the
third is also married, the fourth was given to the aunt of
accused’s former live-in partner, and the two other children
are still elementary students.

At the time of the alleged arrest, accused-appellant was

at her house alone when four male persons suddenly entered
and looked for a certain Ana. Upon answering that she did
not know who Ana was and that her name is Raby, the four
men, while poking their guns on her, said that if she was not
Ana, she will have to go with them for some questions. After
that, the accused-appellant was brought to the Barangay
Hall, which, according to her, have no jurisdiction over them
because it was far from her place. She added that they went
to the Barangay Hall by just walking for about 10 minutes and
then boarded in the men’s car.
 At the barangay hall, they took photograph of her and
brought out something which they said, are evidence against
her. She was then brought to the DAID police precinct and
she beg that she be allowed to go home. However, she was
told that for her to go home, she will need to give them
P50,000.00.

The accused-appellant, upon query by the prosecution

on how the four men entered the house, answered that the
door was opened. According to her, the door was usually
opened in the morning because they have no electricity. She
added that despite her inquiry on why those men entered her
house and answering that no Ana lives there, those men did
not leave but insisted that she was Ana while poking a gun on
her. She was brought outside of the house while holding her
arm. She said that she was not able to resist and shouted for
help because of the guns and that she was told to keep silent.
She also added that the four men were not wearing anything
to identify them as policemen. When at the barangay hall,
she asked for help that she was told not to talk.

THE RTC RULING

On March 2, 2015, the RTC convicted the accused-

appellant beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The decision was based on the evaluation of the testimonies
of the prosecution’s witnesses, which according to the court,
have no improper motive to implicate the accused-appellant
in such a serious charge. It further ruled that the chain of
custody, pursuant to Section 21 of RA 9165 was also unbroken,
rendering the accused-appellant’s arrest legal the seizure of
items admissible as evidence. Lastly, it ruled that the positive
identification by the accused-appellant of the prosecution
witnesses as the persons who apprehended her disputes her
allegations the she was framed up because such
identification prevails over her denials of the crimes charged
against her.

RTC ruled:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding

accused Evangeline Buenaventura y Olivares
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as
minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum,
and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.

The specimens are forfeited in favor of the

government and the Branch Clerk of Court,
accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to
turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said
 specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance
with the law and rules.

SO ORDERED."

THE CA RULING

On November 9, 2016, the Court of Appeals dismissed

the accused-appellant and affirmed the RTC’s ruling.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The

Decision dated March 2, 2015 of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4 in Criminal Case
No. 13-294513 is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the
SOLE MODIFICATION that the indeterminate
sentence prescribed on the illegal possession of
shabu as defined and penalized under Section
11(3) of R.A. No. 9165 is 12 years, as minimum, to
17 years and four months, as maximum, and a
fine of Php300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.

ISSUE

Accused appellant argues that CA in affirming the RTC’s

decision in convicting her of the crime charged for the
following reasons:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS SUFFIENT TO JUSTIFY
BREACH OF GUIDELINES UNDER SECTION 21 OF RA 9165;
AND
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
CORPUS DELICTI WAS ESTABLISHED BEYOND RESONABLE
DOUBT
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE
WAS NO EXTORTION/FRAME-UP IN THE CASE.

The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether the

accused-appellant is guilty of illegal possession of the illegal
drugs under Section 11(3) of RA 9165.

THE COURT RULING

The petition is bereft of merit.

On procedural matters (Unbroken

chain of custody)
 Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the guidelines
on the proper custody and disposition of confiscated, seized,
and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, which is also known as
the chain of custody rule. In the case of People v. Habana1
this Court discussed the proper procedure for the custody of
seized or confiscated items in dangerous drug cases to ensure
their identity and integrity. In that case, this Court ruled that:

“Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance

turns it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by
courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is
unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand
a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the
substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic
container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape
that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic
container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized
substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its
integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.

If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should

put it in one and seal the same. In this way, the substance
would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it
was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory
technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the
container, he should put his own mark on the plastic container
and seal it again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal
has been broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe
the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was
handed to him and testify on the procedure he took
afterwards to preserve its integrity.

If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the
prosecution would have to present every police officer,
messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the
entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession
has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance,
although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted
while in his care”

In addition, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further elaborates for the possible
non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, which
provides:

(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:

1 G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 433

 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.

Accordingly, in the case of People v. Martinez (2010)2

this Court ruled that non-compliance with the prescribed
procedural requirements will not necessarily invalidate the
seizure and custody of the items. However, mere non-
compliance shall not be used by the police officers to justify
the same for the law expressly provides that for it to be valid,
there should be a (i) justifiable ground for such non-
compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved. As the Office of the
Solicitor-General correctly puts out in their comment, the
important matter is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will utilized in
the determination of her guilt or innocence.

In this case, the arresting officers substantially complied

with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 despite the
absence of a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ). The police officers were
conducting a surveillance and caught the appellant in
flagrante delicto holding a plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, which she sealed with a disposable
lighter. The confidential informant pinpointed the accused-
appellant as the alias "Ana" subject of their surveillance for
illegal drug trade activities, the police officers immediately her
and coordinated with the Barangay officials on the spot. The
Barangay Chairman and a Barangay Tanod witnessed the
inventory of the confiscated drug at the barangay hall just
across the place of arrest, and signed the Receipt of
Property/Evidence Seized. After inventory was made, the
seized items were turned over to the duty investigator and a
request letter for laboratory examination was made.
Thereafter, the seized items as well as the request letter were
brought to the PNP crime laboratory for examination. Clearly,
each link in the chain of custody is duly accounted for.
Therefore, no blatant breach of the guidelines under Section
21 of RA 9165 was made.

2 G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 791

Illegal possession of drugs

Section 11, Article II of RA 9175 provides for the penalties

for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, which provides:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of

life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug
in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of
purity thereof:
xxxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs
are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin,
cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu", x x x x.

In the recent case of Palo v. People (2016),3 this court

ruled that to be convicted of the crime of illegal possession of
drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the
accused was in possession of an item or object, which is
identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. The
prosecution established the presence of all the elements of
the crime. As to the first element, the accused was caught in
flagrante delicto holding a plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, which she sealed with a disposable
lighter. As to the second element, the accused-appellant’s
possession of the illegal drug was not authorized by law. Lastly,
the accused-appellant is also freely and consciously
possessing the dangerous drug when apprehended.

Frame-Up and Extortion

In the case of People v. Capalad (2009),4 this Court ruled

that the defense of extortion and frame-up are often put up
in drug cases I order to cast doubt on the credibility of the
police officers. Such is a serious imputation that require clear
and convincing evidence to support the same. In this case,
the CA correctly ruled that the accused-appellant failed to
prove her allegations on frame-up and extortion as she merely

3 G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016

4 G.R. No. 184174, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 717
provided her testimonies without any support of other
evidence. Hence presumption of regularity on the part of the
police officers shall prevail over the accused-appellant’s bare
denials and allegations.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated

November 9, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, Fifth Division in a
CA-G.R. CR No. 37338 is hereby AFFIRMED.

So ordered.