Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SIXTEENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219*

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

Diy, M.E.S., Chairperson

- versus - Quimpo-Sale, A.M.W., and
**Ruiz II, A.C., JJ.

SHI QING TIAN @ “ANGELO Promulgated:

SANTILLAN y ROSALES” and
January 31, 2023
__________________
“WILLIAM”,
Accused-Appellant.
x- - - – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION

Quimpo-Sale, J.

On appeal is the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch

116, Pasay City in Criminal Cases Nos. R-PSY-16-11371-CR and R-
PSY-16-11372-CR finding accused-appellant Shi Qing Tian guilty
of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

* This case was re-raffled to the ponente on October 18, 2021.

** Acting Third Member per Office Order No. 24-23-RSF dated January 18, 2023.
1
Decision, December 18, 2018, penned by Judge Racquelen Abary-Vasquez, Rollo, pp. 67-90.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 2 of 35
====================
THE FACTS

In two (2) separate informations, accused-appellant and

accused Li Shao Xiong (accused Xiong) were charged with
violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165. The informations
read as follows:

Criminal Case No. R-PSY-16-11371-CR:

“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses LI

SHAO XIONG and SHI QING TIAN a.k.a. “ANGELO
SANTILLAN y ROSALES”/”WILLIAM” of Violation of
SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165, as
committed as follows:

That on or about the 17th day of February 2016, in Pasay

City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the
authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell and deliver to another 2,003.53 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”2

Criminal Case No. R-PSY-16-11372-CR:

“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses LI

SHAO XIONG and SHI QING TIAN a.k.a. “ANGELO
SANTILLAN y ROSALES”/”WILLIAM” of Violation of
SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165, as
committed as follows:

That on or about the 17th day of February 2016, in Pasay

City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the
authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in their possession, custody and control
6,032.01 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug.

2
Information, February 19, 2016, Record, p. 1; Emphasis in the original; Decision, Rollo, p. 68.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 3 of 35
====================
CONTRARY TO LAW.”3

When arraigned, accused-appellant and accused Xiong,

assisted by their counsel de oficio, Atty. Rodelyn L. Panganiban,
pleaded “not guilty” to the above-mentioned charges.4 Preliminary
conference and pre-trial conference were conducted wherein the
parties entered into stipulations and admissions of facts, and
identified their evidence and witnesses.5

Joint trial on the merits ensued and the prosecution

presented ten (10) witnesses, namely: (1) Police Chief Inspector
(PCI) Rendielyn L. Sahagun; (2) Senior Police Officer II (SPO2)
Roberto M. Jovenir; (3) Senior Police Officer I (SPO1) Valentin I.
Dam; (4) Police Officer III (PO3) Ronaldo C. Barrameda; (5) Police
Officer II (PO2) Nemesio Congreso; (6) Barangay Kagawad Resty
R. Parsaligan; (7) Journalist Tricia S. Terada of CNN Philippines;
(8) Police Superintendent (PSUPT) Lorenzo B. Trajano, Jr.; (9)
Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Luis P. Chico; and (10) PO3 Rolly A.
Laureto.6 The testimonies of PCI Sahagun, SPO1 Dam, PO3
Barrameda, PO2 Congreso, Barangay Kagawad Parsaligan,
Journalist Terada, PSUPT Trajano, and PSI Chico were dispensed
with after the prosecution and the defense entered into stipulations
of facts on their testimonies.7

The following documentary and object evidence were also

offered: (1) Joint Affidavit of Apprehension;8 (2) Request for
Laboratory Examination;9 (3) Chemistry Report No. D-14116;10 (4)
3
Information, February 19, 2016, Record, p. 39; Decision, Rollo, p. 68.
4
Order, March 16, 2016, Record, p. 83; Certificate of Arraignment, March 16, 2016, Record, p. 84.
5
Minutes of Preliminary Conference, April 12, 2016, Record, pp. 96-97; Pre-Trial Order, August 15,
2016, Record, pp. 109-111.
6
Laureto had the rank of PO3 at the time of the arrest. However, he was promoted to SPO1 sometime
prior to testifying in court.
7
Pre-Trial Order, August 15, 2016, Record, pp. 109-111; Order, October 9, 2017, Record, pp. 221-223.
8
Exhibit “A”, Record, pp. 241-242.
9
Exhibit “B”, Record, p. 243.
10
Exhibit “C”, Record, p. 244.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 4 of 35
====================
Spot Report;11 (5) Coordination Form;12 (6) Pre-Operation Report;13
(7) Certificate of Inventory of Seized Property/Items;14 (8)
photographs taken during the conduct of the inventory;15 (9) Turn-
Over of Confiscated/Seized Evidence;16 (10) Chain of Custody;17
(11) photocopy of buy-bust money;18 (12) black paper bag and two
(2) self-sealing plastic bags of shabu;19 (13) black Nike bag and six
(6) self-sealing plastic bags of shabu;20 (14) SM paper bag and
boodle money;21 and (15)Turn-Over of Arrested Suspects.22

While the trial was underway, accused-appellant and

accused Xiong filed their respective petitions for bail.23 The trial
court set the hearing for the petitions on the same dates as the main
case.24 After the prosecution manifested that it was adopting the
testimonies of its witnesses as well as the documents submitted as
evidence in the petition for bail as part of its evidence-in-chief,
accused Xiong withdrew his petition for bail.25 Accused-appellant
pursued his petition for bail26 but this was subsequently denied by
the trial court.27

The prosecution established that on February 17, 2016, a

Filipino-Chinese confidential informant reported to the Southern

11
Exhibit “D”, Record, p. 245.
12
Exhibit “E”, Record, p. 246.
13
Exhibit “F”, Record, p. 247.
14
Exhibit “G”, Record, p. 248.
15
Exhibit “H”, Record, pp. 249-252.
16
Exhibit “I”, Record, p. 253.
17
Exhibit “J”, Record, p. 254.
18
Exhibit “K”, Record, p. 255.
19
Exhibit “L”.
20
Exhibit “M”.
21
Exhibit “N”.
22
Exhibit “O”, Record, p. 256.
23
Entry of Appearance with Petition for Bail, August 18, 2017, Record, pp. 190-193; Supplemental
Petition for Outright Admission to Bail, October 28, 2017, Record, pp. 262-273.
24
Order, September 25, 2017, Record, p. 199.
25
Order, February 19, 2018, Record, pp. 361-362.
26
Manifestation and Motion to Admit accused Shi Quin (sic) Tian’s Counter Sworn Statement with
Countercharge and Urgent Motion to Resolve Pending Petition for Bail, February 20, 2018, Record,
pp. 366-368.
27
Order, May 15, 2018, Record, pp. 386-389.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 5 of 35
====================
Police District (SPD) Office located at Lawton Avenue, Fort
Bonifacio, Taguig City that a certain William, later identified as
accused-appellant, was a big-time dealer of illegal drugs. The
confidential informant said that he could directly buy or refer
customers to William. Consequently, PSUPT Trajano instructed
PSI Chico to form a team to conduct a buy-bust operation.
Coordination was made with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) at 3:31 p.m. on the same day. A briefing was
conducted where SPO2 Jovenir was designated as the poseur-
buyer while SPO1 Dam, PO3 Barrameda, and PO2 Congreso were
designated as his immediate back-up. SPO2 Jovenir then ordered
the confidential informant to call accused-appellant and inform
him that he found a buyer who wanted to purchase two kilograms
(2 kgs) of methamphetamine hydrochloride. After the call, the
confidential informant told the team that accused-appellant
wanted two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000.00)
for the drugs and that the sale was to be made at 8:30 p.m. that day
at the Jollibee fast-food restaurant located at the corner of
Macapagal and Buendia Avenues, Pasay City.28

Accordingly, PSUPT Trajano provided the team eight (8)

pieces of five-hundred-peso (P500.00) bills bearing serial numbers
AQ507410, MB972422, CK647752, GG669327, FV546986,
MT759924, MH768039, and KB880723, respectively; each were
marked with the initials “RJ” at their lower right portion. After, the
team prepared twelve (12) bundles of boodle money made of
newspapers and beige colored bond papers, four (4) of which were
implanted with the eight (8) marked buy-bust money, the buy-bust
and boodle money were then placed inside a white paper bag. As
for their pre-arranged signal of the consummation of the sale, the

28
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 4-6; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; Paragraph 1
of the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 241; Coordination Form, Exhibit “E”,
Record, p. 246.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 6 of 35
====================
team agreed that SPO2 Jovenir would turn on the hazard lights of
either his car or accused-appellant’s car, depending on which car
the sale was going to be consummated.29

The team’s preparations took a few hours to complete.

Thereafter, the team left the office on board three (3) separate
vehicles – one (1) for SPO2 Jovenir and the confidential informant,
another for the immediate back-ups, and a third vehicle for PSI
Chico and the other operatives. At around 8:30 p.m., SPO2 Jovenir
and the confidential informant arrived at the Jollibee parking lot
while the other operatives positioned themselves nearby. The
confidential informant called accused-appellant and, while
speaking in the Chinese language, informed the latter that they
arrived at Jollibee. Accused-appellant responded that he was near
Jollibee. About five (5) minutes passed when a dark tinted orange
Honda Civic with plate number WKS 777 parked a few meters
away from the left side of SPO2 Jovenir’s car. Moments later, the
confidential informant received a call from accused-appellant with
instructions that they board the orange Honda Civic car. SPO2
Jovenir and the confidential informant complied. They got out
from their vehicle, carried the white paper bag, and boarded the
orange Honda Civic where they found two (2) people on board –
the driver, herein accused-appellant, and sitting beside him was an
unidentified male passenger later known as accused Xiong. SPO2
Jovenir sat behind the driver while the confidential informant sat
behind the passenger. The confidential informant then introduced
to accused-appellant SPO2 Jovenir as the buyer and accused-
appellant promptly asked for the money. SPO2 Jovenir refused and
demanded to see the merchandise first. Acceding thereto, accused-

29
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 6-7; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN, February
17, 2017, pp. 3-4; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; Paragraph 2 of the Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 241; Photocopy of buy-bust money, Exhibit “K”,
Record, p. 255.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 7 of 35
====================
appellant talked to accused Xiong and pointed to something on the
floor beside the latter’s feet. Consequently, accused Xiong picked
up from beside his feet a black paper bag and gave it to the driver.
Accused-appellant then gave the black paper bag to SPO2 Jovenir
who received it and, in turn, handed the white paper bag to
accused-appellant. SPO2 Jovenir quickly checked the contents of
the black paper bag and found two (2) resealable plastic bags each
containing white crystalline substance.30

Before accused-appellant or accused Xiong could discover

that the white paper bag contained mere boodle money, SPO2
Jovenir immediately leaned over and pressed the hazard button at
the dashboard of the Honda Civic, alerting his immediate back-
ups. Upon seeing the signal, SPO1 Dam, PO3 Barrameda, and PO2
Congreso rushed towards the Honda Civic. SPO1 Dam and PO3
Barrameda apprehended accused-appellant while PO2 Congreso
assisted SPO2 Jovenir in apprehending accused Xiong. Then, SPO2
Jovenir, with the help of the confidential informant as interpreter,
introduced themselves as police officers, informed the
apprehended men of their offense, and apprised them of their
constitutional rights. SPO2 Jovenir then retrieved the white paper
bag containing the buy-bust and boodle money. After being
ordered by SPO2 Jovenir, accused-appellant opened the trunk of
the car where they found a black bag with the brand name “Nike”
inside the trunk. Accused-appellant then opened the Nike bag,
revealing to SPO2 Jovenir, six (6) resealable plastic bags each
containing white crystalline substance. SPO2 Jovenir retrieved the
black Nike bag from the trunk, went to the front portion of the

30
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 8-11; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN, October
11, 2017, pp. 10-11; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination; Paragraph 3 of the Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 241.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 8 of 35
====================
Honda Civic, and placed the contents of the black Nike bag and the
black paper bag on the hood of the car.31

Subsequently, PSI Chico ordered PO2 Congreso to look for a

barangay official, a representative from the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and a member of the media to witness the inventory of the
seized items. While waiting for the requested witnesses, SPO2
Jovenir proceeded to mark the evidence which were placed on the
hood of the car. After a few hours, Barangay Kagawad Parsaligan
and Journalist Terada of CNN Philippines arrived at the scene.
Their arrival and presence prompted SPO2 Jovenir to conduct the
inventory of the seized items. The witnesses then signed the
Certificate of Inventory of Seized Properties/Items. Meanwhile,
photographs of the inventory were taken during the inventory and
signing of documents.32

With the inventory and marking completed, SPO2 Jovenir

took the seized items and items subject of the sale from the hood of
the Honda Civic and placed them in the trunk of his vehicle. The
team transported the seized items, items subject of the sale, and
persons to the SPD Office for documentation. Upon arrival,
at around 2:20 a.m., SPO2 Jovenir turned over the seized items,
items subject of the sale, and persons over to PO3 Laureto who
prepared the Spot Report, Chain of Custody, and Request for
Laboratory Examination of the seized items. At 3:20 a.m., PO3
Laureto turned over the seized and sold items to PSI Sahagun of

31
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 11-13; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN,
October 11, 2017, pp. 11-14; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination; Order, October 9,
2017, Record, p. 223; Stipulated testimonies of SPO1 Dam, PO3 Barrameda, and PO2 Congreso;
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 242.
32
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 13-14; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN,
October 11, 2017, p. 16; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination; Paragraph 6 of the Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 242; Order, October 9, 2017, Record, p. 221;
Stipulated testimony of Brgy. Kagawad Parsaligan and Journalist Terada; Certificate of Inventory of
Seized Properties/Items, Exhibit “G”, Record, p. 248; Photographs taken during inventory, Exhibit
“H”, Record, pp. 249-252.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 9 of 35
====================
the Crime Laboratory Office in Makati City for laboratory
examination. After testing, it was confirmed that all eight (8)
resealable plastic bags contained methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.33

The prosecution formally offered its documentary and object

evidence, and rested its case.34

For its part, the defense for accused Xiong presented two (2)
witnesses: (1) accused Xiong himself; and (2) Deep Becharpa, a
street vendor who corroborated accused Xiong’s testimony.
Accused Xiong also presented the following documentary
evidence: (1) Alien Certificate of Registration Identification Card;35
(2) Itinerary of Tour from Agency;36 (3) Certification from the
Bureau of Immigration;37 (4) photographs taken while accused
Xiong and his family were on vacation;38 and (5) photocopy of
accused Xiong’s Visa.39

The defense for accused Xiong established that on October

25, 2015, accused Xiong and his wife arrived in the Philippines to
tour the country and visit their friends. They were supposed to stay
for only two (2) months, or until December 2015, but they decided
to extend their stay to wait for their daughter who was going to the

33
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 14-15; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN,
October 11, 2017, p. 17; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination; TSN, October 23, 2017,
pp. 6-10; Testimony of PO3 Laureto on direct examination; TSN, October 23, 2017, pp. 11-16;
Testimony of PO3 Laureto on cross-examination; Paragraph 6 of the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension,
Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 242; Pre-Trial Order, August 15, 2016, Record, p. 110; Stipulated testimony
of PSI Sahagun; Request for Laboratory Examination, Exhibit “B”, Record, p. 243; Laboratory
Examination Results, Exhibit “C”, Record, p. 244; Spot Report, Exhibit “D”, Record, p. 245; Turn-
over of Confiscated/Seized Evidence, Exhibit “I”, Record, p. 253; Chain of Custody Form, Exhibit
“J”, Record, p. 254; Turn-over of Arrested Suspects, Exhibit “O”, Record, p. 256.
34
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence, October 24, 2017, Record, pp. 236-240.
35
Exhibit “1”, Record, pp. 429-430.
36
Exhibit “2”, Record, p. 431.
37
Exhibit “3”, Record, p. 432.
38
Exhibit “4”, Record, pp. 433-438.
39
Exhibit “5”, Record, p. 439.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 10 of 35
====================
Philippines in January 2016 while on her winter break. Their visa
was to expire on January 23, 2016 but then was extended to
February 23, 2016.40

On February 16, 2016, accused Xiong spent the night at a

friend’s home in Kalaw Avenue while his wife and daughter were
at Ongpin Dalian Hotel. The next day, February 17, 2016, at around
9:00 a.m., accused Xiong was waiting along Kalaw Avenue for his
wife and daughter as they were to go on a tour of a volcano.
However, two (2) men approached accused Xiong – one (1) from
his front, and another from his back – and they pushed him into a
vehicle that stopped in front of him. Inside, accused Xiong noticed
that there were four (4) men in the car including the two (2) persons
who approached him. The men took his personal belongings and
covered his face with his shirt. They were talking to him, but he
could not understand what they were saying except for the word
“money”. While demanding for money, the men hit accused Xiong
and electrocuted him with a stun gun.41

After several hours, they stopped at an unknown location

that had a lot of trees. Accused Xiong was then transferred to an
orange car with accused-appellant already inside. Both of them
were seated at the back of the vehicle – accused-appellant was at
the left seat behind the driver while accused Xiong was at the right.
Accused Xiong heard the men seated in front talking to each other.
After twenty (20) minutes, they drove off to a nearby Jollibee fast-
food restaurant. Once parked, one of the men ordered the two (2)
accused to transfer to the front of the vehicle. After complying,
accused-appellant and accused Xiong were handcuffed and

40
TSN, January 19, 2018, pp. 5-6; Testimony of accused Xiong on direct examination; TSN, February
2, 2018, pp. 12-14; Testimony of accused Xiong on cross-examination.
41
TSN, January 19, 2018, pp. 5-8; Testimony of accused Xiong on direct examination; TSN, January
19, 2018, pp. 16-19; Testimony of accused Xiong on re-direct examination; TSN, February 9, 2018,
pp. 4-5; Testimony of Becharpa on direct examination.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 11 of 35
====================
subdued by armed police officers who had photographers in tow.
Accused Xiong then saw some people writing on documents while
some were taking pictures. The police then brought the two (2)
accused to a precinct.42

The defense for accused Xiong formally offered its

documentary evidence, and rested its case.43

On the other hand, the defense for accused-appellant

presented accused-appellant himself as its lone witness and
presented two (2) documentary evidence: (1) Counter Sworn
Statement with Incorporated Countercharge;44 and (2)
Investigation Form.45

Accused-appellant established that at around 7:00 a.m. of

February 17, 2016, he was about to enter the Aristocrat Restaurant
in Roxas Boulevard to have his breakfast when suddenly, he was
grabbed by about six (6) armed men and forcibly pushed inside a
vehicle. The men then put handcuffs on accused-appellant and
covered his head with a hood before proceeding to take his
personal belongings. Every time he tried to move, he was pushed
towards the floor of the vehicle. The vehicle roamed for about five
(5) hours before stopping in a place with trees by the sea.
Thereafter, accused-appellant was transferred to another vehicle
where he saw a Chinese-looking man who was also handcuffed
and with a hood over his head. The said person acted as an
interpreter for the armed men who demanded ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) from accused-appellant. The men threatened
accused-appellant that if he failed to heed their demands, he would

42
TSN, January 19, 2018, pp. 9-12; Testimony of accused Xiong on direct examination; TSN, January
19, 2018, pp. 20-21; Testimony of accused Xiong on re-direct examination.
43
Formal Offer of Exhibits, November 15, 2018, Record, pp. 425-428.
44
Exhibit “2-SQT”, Record, pp. 370-372.
45
Exhibit “1-SQT”, Record, p. 369.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 12 of 35
====================
be charged in court. Nevertheless, accused-appellant refused to
pay his captors as he did not have the money, and more so, had
done nothing wrong or unlawful. Thereafter, the interpreter was
taken away.46

At around midnight, the accused-appellant was taken to

another location with a lot of trees. There, he boarded another
vehicle where he saw accused Xiong for the first time. A few hours
later, both captives were brought to the Jollibee in Pasay City.
Waiting for them there were members of the media who started
taking photographs of accused-appellant and accused Xiong as
soon as they alighted their vehicle. They also took photographs of
the bundles of money found at the location.47

On February 9, 2018, accused-appellant filed administrative

and criminal cases against the police operatives involved in the
buy-bust operation.48

Accordingly, the defense for accused-appellant rested its

case.

The trial court, after receiving the evidence from all sides,
rendered a Decision on December 18, 2018 finding accused-
appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 10591
while acquitting his co-accused, Li Shao Xiong, of the same
charges. Accordingly, the court disposed of the case as follows:

46
TSN, October 3, 2018, pp. 5-9; Testimony of accused-appellant on direct examination; TSN, October
3, 2018, pp. 14-18; Testimony of accused-appellant on cross-examination; TSN, October 3, 2018, p.
31; Testimony of accused-appellant on re-direct examination.
47
TSN, October 3, 2018, pp. 10-11; Testimony of accused-appellant on direct examination; TSN,
October 3, 2018, pp. 19-20; Testimony of accused-appellant on cross-examination.
48
TSN, October 3, 2018, pp. 12-13; Testimony of accused-appellant on direct examination; Sworn
Statement with Countercharge, Exhibit “2-SQT”, Record, pp. 370-372; Investigation Form, Exhibit
“1-SQT”, Record, p. 369.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 13 of 35
====================
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, LI SHAO XIONG, is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes
charged in the two Informations.

However, with regard to SHI QING TIAN a.ka. Angelo

Santillana Y Rosales/William, this Court finds him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of RA 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty
for each violation, of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine
of PHP1,000,000.00 for each violation.

The Jail Warden of MMDJ, Taguig is hereby ordered to

immediately release from his custody, LI SHAO XiIONG (sic),
the accused in this case, unless he is being detained thereat for
some other lawful cause or offense.

The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit

to the PDEA, the representative samples of shabu containing the
aggregate quantity of 26.43 grams subject of these cases for its
proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.”49

Aggrieved, accused-appellant moved for reconsideration of

the decision,50 but this was subsequently denied.51

Hence, accused-appellant filed the instant appeal.52

THE ISSUES

Accused-appellant raises the following errors:

“I.

THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING

THE THEORY OF BUY BUST BY THE PROSECUTION WHILE

49
Rollo, p. 90.
50
Motion for Reconsideration, January 3, 2019, Record, pp. 499-512; Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration, January 30, 2019, Record, pp. 530-535.
51
Order, May 20, 2019, Rollo, pp. 91-94.
52
Notice of Appeal, June 3, 2019, Record, pp. 558-559.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 14 of 35
====================
ACQUITTING CO-ACCUSED LI SHAO XIONG.

II.

THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING

THAT THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSES ARE INEXTANT

III.

THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING

THAT THE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS WERE
NOT MET.

IV.

THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT

THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”53

The alleged errors revolve around the question of whether

the trial court correctly found accused-appellant guilty of violation
of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, despite the
acquittal of accused Xiong.

THIS COURT’S RULING

The appeal is without merit.

Criminal Case No. R-PSY-16-11371-CR

Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 punishes the sale of dangerous

drugs as follows:

“Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,

Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred

53
Appellant’s Brief, November 11, 2019, Rollo, pp. 40-41.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 15 of 35
====================
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 sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or
shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. X x x.”

The following are elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment.54

In this case, the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove,

albeit partially, the first element, i.e., the identity of the buyer and
seller, and the consideration. SPO2 Jovenir testified that he was
designated as poseur-buyer for the buy-bust operation.55 In open
court, he identified accused-appellant, also known as William, as
the seller.56 He likewise testified that the consideration for their
transaction was the amount of two million four hundred thousand
pesos (P2,400,000.00), and identified in open court the buy-bust
and boodle money used during the transaction.57

With respect to the identity of the object of the sale, SPO2

Jovenir testified that the object of their transaction was two
kilograms (2 kgs) of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, which he received from the accused-appellant.58
He also identified the bags wherein they were found and their
resealable plastic bags.59 Further, the drugs themselves were

54
People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, September 18, 2019.
55
TSN, November 25, 2016, p. 5; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination.
56
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 15-16; Ibid.
57
TSN, February 17, 2017, pp. 6-8; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; Buy-bust
Money, Exhibit “K”, Record, p. 255; Boodle Money, Exhibit “N-1”.
58
TSN, November 25, 2016, p. 6; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; Paragraph 1 of
the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 241.
59
TSN, February 17, 2017, pp. 9-11; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; Exhibits “L-
1” to “L-2”.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 16 of 35
====================
presented, identified, and confirmed to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, during the extraction
proceedings conducted in open court.60 However, regarding the
question of whether the two (2) plastic bags of drugs subject of the
sale are the very same drugs presented and identified in court, the
requirements in the chain of custody must be established.

As to the second element, i.e., the delivery of the thing sold and
payment, SPO2 Jovenir, testified that during the buy-bust
operation, accused-appellant handed to him 2 kgs of
methamphetamine hydrochloride in exchange for P2,400,000.00
worth of buy-bust and boodle money.61

Hence, the elements of sale of dangerous drugs, save for the

identity of the object which will be discussed further, were duly
established.

Criminal Case No. R-PSY-16-11372-CR

Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 penalizes the possession of

dangerous drugs as follows:

“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:

Xxx xxx xxx

60
Order, October 10, 2016, Record, p. 136.
61
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 8-11; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN, October
11, 2017, pp. 10-11; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination; Paragraph 3 of the Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 241.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 17 of 35
====================
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or “shabu”; X x x.”

The elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under

Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 require: (1) the possession by the
accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or
dangerous drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law;
and (3) that accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.62

Possession has two (2) aspects, actual and constructive.

Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate
physical possession of the accused. On the other hand, constructive
possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control
of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found.63 Exclusive possession or
control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his
right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the
drug is located, is shared with another.64

In this case, the prosecution established the first element, i.e.,

possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a
prohibited or dangerous drug. SPO2 Jovenir testified that after the
buy-bust operation, he directed the accused-appellant to open the
trunk of the latter’s car.65 Upon opening the trunk, SPO2 Jovenir
discovered a black bag with the brand name “Nike” which had six
(6) resealable plastic bags inside, each containing about one

62
People v. Rangaig, G.R. No. 240447, April 28, 2021 citing People v. Pavia, G.R. No. 202687, January
14, 2015.
63
Estores v. People, G.R. No. 192332, January 11, 2021; People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February
19, 2020 citing People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004.
64
Ibid.
65
TSN, November 25, 2016, p. 13; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN, October
11, 2017, pp. 13-14; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination; Order, October 9, 2017,
Record, p. 223; Paragraph 4 of the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 242.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 18 of 35
====================
kilogram (1 kg) of white crystalline substance.66 The substances
were later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.67 The drugs’ containers, the six (6) resealable
plastic bags, were identified by SPO2 Jovenir in open court68 while
the drugs contained therein were presented and identified during
the extraction proceedings.69 As accused-appellant had the right to
exercise control and dominion over the car, he had constructive
possession over the seized drugs.

As to the second element, i.e., possession of the drugs was not

authorized by law, this was proven by the prosecution as accused-
appellant did not show any permit to possess dangerous drugs.
Possession of the illicit drugs is malum prohibitum and the burden
of proof is upon the accused to prove that they have a permit or
clearance to possess the prohibited drugs.70

The third element that accused freely and consciously

possessed the drugs is likewise present in this case considering that
the accused-appellant’s possession of the subject drugs was on the
same occasion as when he was apprehended for the illegal sale of
prohibited drugs.

However, similar to the discussion on the first element of

illegal sale of dangerous rugs, the element of object of the

66
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 11-13; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN,
October 11, 2017, pp. 11-14; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination; Paragraph 4 of the
Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 242.
67
Chemistry Report No. D-141-16, Exhibit “C”, Record, p. 244; Order, October 10, 2016, Record, p.
136.
68
TSN, February 17, 2017, pp. 15-17; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; Exhibits “M-
1” to “M-6”.
69
Order, October 10, 2016, Record, p. 136.
70
People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020, citing Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
135270, December 30, 2003.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 19 of 35
====================
possession shall be established after compliance with the chain of
custody has been ascertained.

Criminal Cases Nos. R-PSY-16-

11371-CR and R-PSY-16-11372-CR
Proper identification of the drugs
under the Chain of Custody Rule

While the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the

aforementioned elements, still, to sustain a conviction for the
offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs
under R.A. No. 9165, it is of utmost importance to establish with
moral certainty the identity of the confiscated drug. To remove any
doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized
drug, it must be shown that the substance illegally possessed or
sold by the accused-appellant is the same substance offered and
identified in court. This requirement is known as the chain of
custody rule under R.A. No. 9165, as amended, created to
safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs.
Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized
movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from
the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory
for examination until it is presented to the court.71

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

71
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 20 of 35
====================
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.72

In relation to the foregoing, the prosecution must establish

the following links in the chain of custody:

(1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug

recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
(2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
(3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug
to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
(4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized by the forensic chemist to the court.73

A review of the records shows that all four (4) links were
sufficiently established.

First Link

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,

which took effect in 2014, before the incident subject of these cases
occurred in 2016, provides the procedure to preserve the integrity
of the seized items as follows:

72
Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008.
73
People v. Kendo, G.R. No. 247713, June 23, 2021.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 21 of 35
====================
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 dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

The foregoing provision requires the apprehending team,

after seizure and confiscation, to immediately conduct a physical
inventory of, and photograph, the seized drugs in the presence of:
(a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (b)
an elected public official; and (c) a representative from the DOJ or
the media. Further, the physical inventory and photograph taking
shall be conducted: (1) at the place where the search warrant is served;
(2) at the nearest police station or (3) at the nearest office of the
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 22 of 35
====================
apprehending officer or team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures.

The police officers implementing R.A. No. 9165, as amended,

must strictly comply with the procedure laid out. However, failure
to strictly do so does not, ipso facto, render the seizure and custody
over the illegal drugs as void and invalid if: (a) there is justifiable
ground for such noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved.74

The evidence shows that the police complied with the

requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by
R.A. No. 10640, i.e., the physical inventory and photograph of the
seized items and items subject of the sale were conducted (a) in the
presence of the accused and two (2) mandatory witnesses; and (b)
at place of seizure.

After seizing the two (2) plastic bags of drugs subject of the
buy-bust and discovery of the six (6) plastic bags of drugs in the
trunk, SPO2 Jovenir was in custody of the same for the entire
duration of the operation.75 While waiting for the mandatory
witnesses to arrive, SPO2 Jovenir, in the presence of accused-
appellant and accused Xiong, marked the evidence which were
placed on the hood of the accused-appellant’s car.76 And when the
two (2) mandatory witnesses, namely, Barangay Kagawad
Parsaligan and Journalist Terada, arrived at the crime scene, they
proceeded with the inventory, taking photographs of the items,

74
People v. Del Rosario, supra.
75
TSN, Octoner 11, 2017, pp. 11-16; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination.
76
TSN, October 11, 2017, p. 16; Ibid.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 23 of 35
====================
and signing of the documents, all done in the presence of accused-
appellant.77

It is noted that the marking of the drugs was done before the
mandatory witnesses arrived and that the police had to wait a few
hours for their arrival to conduct the physical inventory and
photograph taking of the drugs. A careful examination of the
prosecution evidence shows that it took three (3) to four (4) hours
for the witnesses to arrive, based on the following:

(1) The buy-bust operation was completed between

8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on February 17, 2016 and it was only
after the buy-bust that a member of the arresting team went
to request for the mandatory witnesses;78

(2) When the witnesses arrived at the scene, the

inventory was conducted as shown by photographs of the
accused, witnesses, and dangerous drugs taken during said
inventory79 and the signing of the Certificate of Inventory of
Seized Properties/Items.80 The Certificate does not state the
time when physical inventory was conducted.

(3) At about 2:00 a.m., SPO2 Jovenir and his team

arrived at their office in Lawton Avenue, Fort Bonifacio,
Taguig City to prepare the documents, i.e., the Turn-Over of
Confiscated/Seized Evidence81 and Turn-Over of Arrested
77
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 13-14; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; Paragraph
6 of the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 242; Order, October 9, 2017,
Record, p. 221; Stipulated testimony of Brgy. Kagawad Parsaligan and Journalist Terada; Certificate
of Inventory of Seized Properties/Items, Exhibit “G”, Record, p. 248; Photographs taken during
inventory, Exhibit “H”, Record, pp. 249-252.
78
Paragraph 3 of the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, pp. 241-242; Certificate of
Inventory of Seized Properties/Items; Exhibit “G”, Record, p. 248; TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 12-
13; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination.
79
Photographs taken during physical inventory; Exhibit “H”, Record, pp. 249-251.
80
Certificate of Inventory of Seized Properties/Items, Exhibit “G”, Record, p. 248.
81
Exhibit “I”, Record, p. 253.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 24 of 35
====================
Suspect82 before the evidence and accused were turned over
to PO3 Laureto at 2:20 a.m.83

From the foregoing, it is clear that it was at 9:00 p.m. that the
buy-bust operation was completed and at 2:00 a.m. when the buy-
bust team arrived at their office and the team went to their office
after completion of the inventory. Since it usually takes about thirty
(30) minutes by car to travel from corner Buendia and Macapagal
Avenues in Pasay City to the police office in Lawton Avenue,
Taguig City, this means that the inventory was conducted between
9:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. In other words, the inventory was
conducted approximately three (3) hours after the arrest of
accused-appellant and his co-accused.

While approximately three (3) hours lapsed before the

inventory, the Court finds that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the evidence were preserved. SPO2 Jovenir was steadfast in his
testimony that he was in custody of the subject items after receiving
the items subject of the sale and confiscating the items subject of
possession from accused-appellant until their turnover to PO3
Laureto, the investigating officer.84 A careful examination of his
testimony shows that it is clear, categorical, credible, and
consistent; and it remained credible and consistent even during
and after cross-examination. Moreover, the Court accords great
weight to the trial court's factual findings, particularly as regards
the credibility of witnesses, for it had the opportunity to observe
first-hand the deportment and demeanor of the witnesses and it

82
Exhibit “O”, Record, p. 256.
83
Chain of Custody, Exhibit “J”, Record, p. 254.
84
TSN, November 25, 2016, pp. 11-15; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN,
October 11, 2017, pp. 11-17; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 25 of 35
====================
was in a position to discern whether or not they were telling the
truth.

Furthermore, SPO2 Jovenir’s testimony is corroborated by

the testimonies of the arresting team – SPO1 Dam, PO3 Barrameda,
and PO2 Congreso.85 The testimonies of these three (3) witnesses
were subject to stipulations and while it was stipulated that they
did not have personal knowledge of the source, origin, and
ownership of the drugs subject of the buy-bust operation as SPO2
Jovenir, the poseur-buyer, was the only police operative actually
involved during the sale in the buy-bust operation, there was no
stipulation on the source, origin, and ownership of the drugs
subject of the search subsequent to the said operation. When SPO2
Jovenir pressed the hazard button of the Honda Civic signifying
consummation of the sale, the arresting team immediately rushed
to the scene and assisted SPO2 Jovenir who was then effecting the
arrest of the accused. It was after this arrest that SPO2 Jovenir
conducted a search of the vehicle, particularly its trunk, where he
found a black “Nike” bag and inside were six (6) plastic bags of
shabu weighing one kilogram (1 kg) each. He placed all these six (6)
bags of shabu and the two (2) plastic bags of shabu subject of the sale
on top of the hood of the Honda Civic and marked them
accordingly at the place of seizure and sale, and in the presence of
accused-appellant. It appears that these bags remained there until
the witnesses arrived and the physical inventory was made in the
presence of the accused and mandatory witnesses while
photographs were simultaneously being taken.86

85
Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, pp. 241-242; Order, Record, p. 223; Stipulated
testimonies of SPO1 Dam, PO3 Barrameda, and PO2 Congreso.
86
Paragraph 5 and 6 of the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 242; TSN,
November 25, 2016, pp. 11-13; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; TSN, October 11,
2017, pp. 11-14; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 26 of 35
====================
Clearly, the police officers complied with the requirement
under Section 21, i.e., that the physical inventory and photograph
must be taken in the presence of the accused and mandatory
witnesses, and these should be done at the place of seizure.

The Supreme Court, in the case of People v. Baterina,87 upheld

the integrity of the evidence and consequently, the conviction of
the accused, who was caught in possession of more than forty-eight
kilograms (48 kgs) of marijuana, even after finding that the police
officers conducted the inventory at the police station, not at the
place of arrest and seizure. To quote:

“Records show that upon seizure of the bags

containing marijuana bricks here, PO2 Olete
immediately marked them in the presence of appellant
and his co-accused right at the place of arrest and
seizure.

After the marking, appellant and the seized

items were brought to San Gabriel, La Union, Police
Station where PO2 Olete did the inventory in the
presence of appellant, his co-accused, Barangay
Captain Estolas, DOJ representative Luciano
Trinidad, and media representative Nestor Ducusin.
Notably, the presence of the required insulating
witnesses served to ensure the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drugs. PO2 Olete also
took photographs of the seized items.”

Moreover, as noted by the trial court,88 the dangerous drugs

involved here were inside eight (8) plastic bags, with each plastic
bag weighing approximately one kilogram (1 kg), with a total
weight of eight thousand thirty-five grams and fifty-four tenths of

87
G.R. No. 236259, September 16, 2020; emphasis supplied.
88
Decision, Rollo, p. 79.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 27 of 35
====================
a gram (8,035.54 g) or more than eight kilograms (8kgs). This is by
no means a miniscule amount which logically precludes the
probability of planting, tampering, or alteration.89

The evidence shows that, while the police were not able to
strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, there
is proof that (1) they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the
procedure mandated therein; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence were preserved.

As such, the first link was sufficiently established.

Second Link

SPO2 Jovenir testified that, after the inventory, he took the

seized items and items subject of the sale from the hood of accused-
appellant’s car and put these in the trunk of his car. Thereafter,
upon arrival at their office, he took the items from his car and
placed these in his locker. Then, he prepared the documents –
Turn-Over of Confiscated/Seized Evidence and Turn-Over of
Arrested Persons.90 Thereafter, at 2:20 a.m. of February 18, 2016, he
surrendered the evidence to PO3 Laureto.91

As shown, SPO2 Jovenir had custody of the seized items from

the crime scene until its eventual turn over to PO3 Laureto, the
investigating officer. While PO3 Laureto could no longer recall the
color or markings of the bags which held the resealable plastic bags
containing the prohibited drugs, the same is not fatal as witnesses

89
People v. Macaspac, G.R. No. 246165, November 28, 2019; People v. Baterina, supra.
90
TSN, October 11, 2017, p. 17; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on cross-examination; Turn-Over of
Confiscated/Seized Items, Exhibit “I”, Record, p. 253; Turn-Over of Arrested Persons, Exhibit “O”,
Record, p. 256.
91
TSN, November 25, 2016, p. 15; Testimony of SPO2 Jovenir on direct examination; Turn-over of
Confiscated/Seized Evidence, Exhibit “I”, Record, p. 253; Chain of Custody, Exhibit “J”, Record, p.
254.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 28 of 35
====================
are not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect
recollection of minor and minute details.92 In any case, what is
important is not the bags that held the prohibited drugs, but the
resealable plastic bags containing the drugs themselves as these are
the subject of the criminal cases against the accused-appellant.
Notably, the parties stipulated that the subject matter of the
Request for Laboratory Examination is the same specimen which
PO3 Laureto received from SPO2 Jovenir.93 There was already an
admission on the part of accused-appellant that the drugs under
the custody of PO3 Laureto, the investigating officer, were the
same drugs turned over by SPO2 Jovenir, the apprehending officer,
to him.

Hence, the second link was intact.

Third Link

The prosecution established when PO3 Laureto received the

evidence from SPO2 Jovenir at 2:20 a.m., the resealable plastic bags
were sealed and marked. After receipt and while preparing the
documents, PO3 Laureto placed the drugs on the table in his
office.94 And in this office, he then prepared the Chain of Custody
Form, Request for Laboratory Examination, and Request for Drug
Test.95 Thereafter, he proceeded to the Crime Laboratory in Makati
City, which is about a thirty (30) to forty (40)-minute drive by car,
and turned over the seized evidence to PSI Sahagun an hour later,
or at 3:20 a.m.96 In other words, when SPO2 Jovenir turned over the
evidence to PO3 Laureto, it took the latter only an hour to prepare

92
Tapdasan v. People, G.R. No. 141344, November 21, 2002.
93
Order, October 9, 2017, Record, p. 222; Stipulated testimony of SPO1 Laureto.
94
TSN, October 23, 2017, pp. 13-14; Testimony of SPO1 Laureto on cross-examination.
95
TSN, October 23, 2017, p. 12; Ibid.
96
TSN, October 23, 2017, pp. 14-15; Ibid; Chain of Custody, Exhibit “J”, Record, p. 254.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 29 of 35
====================
the pertinent documents and turn over the evidence to the forensic
chemist.

As the prosecution established that PO3 Laureto had custody

of the seized evidence coupled by the accused-appellant’s
admission that the specimens subject of the laboratory examination
are the same specimens turned over by SPO2 Jovenir to PO3
Laureto, and that the same evidence was subsequently turned over
to the forensic chemist, the third link was duly proven.

Fourth Link

As a rule, the forensic chemist who examines a seized

substance should ordinarily testify that they received the seized
article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that they resealed it
after examination of the content; and that they placed their own
marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered
pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the
attendance of the forensic chemist, they should stipulate that the
latter would have testified that he took the precautionary steps
mentioned. In other words, if the forensic chemist's testimony is
dispensed with, the parties must agree to stipulate that: (a) the
forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly
sealed, and intact; (b) they resealed it after examination of the
contents; and (c) they placed their own marking on the same to
ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Absent such
stipulations, the fourth link cannot be established, thus, resulting
in acquittal.97

In the instant case, the prosecution initially dispensed with

presenting the forensic chemist, PCI Sahagun, when the parties

97
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 252886, March 16, 2021.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 30 of 35
====================
entered into the following stipulations: (1) the competence,
qualification, and expertise of the chemist who conducted the
laboratory examination of the specimens subject matter of the
cases; (2) the findings of the chemist as embodied in Chemistry
Report No. D-141-16; and (3) forensic chemist has no personal
knowledge of the offense imputed against the accused, as well as
the source, origin, and ownership of the specimen she examined.98

However, it must be noted that while the parties stipulated

on these facts and the prosecution dispensed with her testimony,
PCI Sahagun still appeared before the trial court on October 10,
2016 after the stipulation and she conducted extraction
proceedings in open court and subsequently turned over the seized
items to the court as stated in the court order of October 10, 2016.99
While no transcript of stenographic notes is available for the said
proceedings, the Minutes100 show that the specimens were taken
from the marked resealable plastic bags which were contained in
the marked bags they were initially found and, after testing in open
court, were confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. Hence, the fourth link is unbroken.

With the chain of custody having been duly established, the

element of identity of the object subject of the sale and possession
in Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. No. 9165 was likewise
sufficiently established.

98
Minutes of Preliminary Conference, April 12, 2016, pp. 96-97; Pre-Trial Order, August 15, 2016,
Record, pp. 109-111; Order, October 9, 2017, Record, p. 333; Stipulated testimony of PSI Sahagun.
99
Order, October 10, 2016, Record, p. 136.
100
Minutes, October 10, 2016, Record, p. 137.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 31 of 35
====================
Effect of Accused Xiong’s Acquittal

Accused-appellant asserts that the acquittal of accused Xiong

negated the prosecution’s theory that the accused were working in
conspiracy with each other. Moreover, his acquittal creates a void
in the chain of custody as he was the one who handed the paper
bag containing the drugs subject of the buy-bust operation to
accused-appellant.

However, the latter’s acquittal is of no moment. It merely

meant that the prosecution failed to prove accused Xiong’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt while it succeeded with respect to
accused-appellant. Also, accused Xiong’s acquittal does not harm
the chain of custody because, as admitted by accused-appellant
himself, the chain of custody begins when the officer has seized or
taken into his possession the illegal drugs. As previously stated,
the chain of custody is the duly recorded, authorized movements,
and custody of the seized drugs from the moment of confiscation
to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is
presented to the court.101 The chain does not start prior to the
police’s seizure of the drugs, but upon receipt or confiscation of the
drugs. In this case, the chain of custody began when SPO2 Jovenir
gained possession of the dangerous drugs after receiving them
from accused-appellant.

Penalty

R.A. No. 9165102 imposes the penalty of life imprisonment to

death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos

101
People v. Del Rosario, supra.
102
“Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation
of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – 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,
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 32 of 35
====================
(P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) to any person
who unlawfully sold dangerous drugs, regardless of their quantity
or purity.

When any person shall unlawfully possess fifty (50) grams or

more of methamphetamine hydrochloride, regardless of its purity,
the law103 likewise imposes 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).

Here, the accused-appellant was found to have illegally sold

about 2 kgs of methamphetamine hydrochloride. He was similarly
found to have illegally possessed approximately 6 kgs of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, far exceeding the 50 g threshold
under the law. Hence, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty
of life imprisonment and one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) for each
of the two (2) offenses.

Conclusion

To reiterate, the dangerous drugs involved in this case is

eight thousand thirty-five grams and fifty-four tenths of a gram
(8,035.54 g) or more than eight kilograms (8kgs) which, considering
its tremendous amount, logically precludes the probability of
planting, tampering, or alteration.

shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
103
“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:
Xxx xxx xxx
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu"; X x x.”
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 33 of 35
====================
In People v. Macaspac,104 which involved only almost half a
kilogram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the Supreme Court
stated:

“In any event, the Court keenly notes the large amount of
shabu involved here --- five hundred fifty-two (552) grams or
more than half kilo. In Malillin v. People, the Court stated that
the likelihood of tampering, loss, or mistake with respect to a
seized illegal drug is greatest when the item is small and is one
that has physical characteristics fungible in nature. To repeat,
five hundred fifty-two (552) grams or more than half kilo of
shabu is by no means a miniscule amount, thus, logically
confirming the improbability of planting, tampering, or
alteration.”

The Supreme Court similarly ruled in People v. Baterina:105

“At any rate, the Court, once again, notes the large
amount of marijuana seized by the police officers. We held in
Malillin v. People that the likelihood of tampering, loss, or
mistake with respect to a seized illegal drug is greatest when the
item is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible
in nature. But in People v. Bayang, we specifically pronounced
that strict adherence to Section 21 of RA 9165 is required where
the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is
highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of
evidence.

Applying Malillin and Bayang here, the forty-eight

thousand five hundred sixty-five point sixty eight (48,565.68)
grams or more than forty-eight (48) kilos of marijuana here is by
no means a miniscule amount, logically precluding the
probability of planting, tampering, or alteration.”

As all the elements of the offenses defined under Section 5

and 11 of R.A. 9165 were sufficiently established and the links in
the chain of custody were shown to be intact, the decision of the

104
Supra.
105
Supra; emphasis supplied.
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 34 of 35
====================
trial court must therefore be affirmed in toto.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of

the Regional Trial Court, Branch 116, Pasay City in Criminal Cases
Nos. R-PSY-16-11371-CR and R-PSY-16-11372-CR is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
ALFONSO C. RUIZ II
Associate Justice
 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13219
Decision
Page 35 of 35
====================

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixteenth Division

January 31, 2023