SECOND DIVISION

July 10, 2019

G.R. No. 218126

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
DANILO GARCIA MIRANDA, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

The Case

This Appeal assails the following issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC ·No. 05601
entitled "People of the Philippines v. Danilo Garcia Miranda":

1) Decision dated July 25, 2014, affirming the conviction of Danilo Garcia Miranda for
1

violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165); and2

2) Resolution dated October 24, 2014, denying appellant's motion for reconsideration.
3

The Proceedings Before the Trial Court

The Charge

By two (2) separate informations, appellant Danilo Garcia Miranda was indicted for violations of
Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of RA 9165, viz:

Information dated April 15, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 10-0373 for violation of Section 5,
4

Article II of RA 9165:

That on or about the 14th day of April 2010, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfullly, and feloniously sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport one (1) small heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet weighing 0.14 gram to Police Poseur Buyer PO3 FernanAcbang, which contents of
the said plastic sachet when tested was found positive for Methylamphetamine (sic) Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drugs (sic).

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Information dated April 15, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 10-0374 for violation of Section 11,
5

Article II of RA 9165:

That on or about the 14th day of April 2010, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to
possess, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession and under
his control and custody one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance weighing 0.24 gram, which when tested was found positive for Methylamphetamine (sic)
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Both cases were raffled to Regional Trial Court, Branch 259 of Parañaque City.

On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. 6

Prosecution's Evidence

PO3 Fernan Acbang of the Police Community Precinct No. 8, Parañaque City testified that in April
2010, he was assigned at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAIDSOTF)
of the Parafiaque City Police Station. One (1) of his duties was to apprehend violators of RA 9165.
On April 14, 2010, around 3:45 o'clock in the afternoon, he went to the police station because a male
informant had given a tip that a certain Danilo Miranda was selling illegal drugs in Barangay
Baclaran, Parañaque City. 7

The information was relayed to PSI Marlou Besoña who immediately apprised Police Supt. Alfredo
Valdez about it. Police Supt. Valdez, in turn, instructed the team leader to coordinate with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Upon receipt of the PDEA coordination form, the
8

team met for a briefing. He (PO3 Acbang) was designated as poseur-buyer and provided with four
(4) marked 500-peso bills with which to buy shabu. PO2 Domingo Julaton III (PO2 Julaton) was
designated as his back-up. The planned buy-bust operation was also entered into the blotter. 9

The team went in two cars to Brgy. Baclaran. They arrived there around 4:50 o'clock in the
afternoon. He and the informant were in the same car. They alighted on Bagong Silang Street. They
had already walked about 30 steps when the asset pointed to a man wearing a white sando and
bearing many tattoos. They approached the man and the asset talked to the man. The asset
introduced him to the man as a balikbayan. 10

After the introduction, he approached the man and asked "Tay, mayroon ka bang item diyan i-iscore
sana ako (Sir, do you have an item available)?" The man replied "Mayroon pa ako ditong dalawang
kasa, Gusto mo kunin yung isa(I have here two shots. Would you like to take one?)." He handed the
marked money to the man, who, after counting it, slid it in his right pocket. The man took out a small
transparent plastic sachet, containing white crystalline substance from his pocket and handed it to
him (PO3 Acbang). After taking the sachet, he scratched his head: the pre-arranged signal. 11

He held on the man while his back-up PO2 Julaton approached. They both now held the man, who
tried to free himself. Together, they walked until they reached appellant's house which was only eight
steps away from the road. Inside appellant's house, they directed him to empty his pockets.
Appellant produced from his left pocket a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 12

Someone from their team had called for a barangay official. Romero Cantojas, a barangay tanod of
Brgy. Baclaran, arrived at appellant's house around 5:55 in the afternoon. The barangay hall was
just close by. The barangay tanod witnessed the marking of the items. They also took photographs
of the items. He placed his initials "FA" (subject of the sale) and "FA-1" (recovered from appellant's
left pocket) on the two plastic sachets which he recovered. Appellant was sitting in the living room
while the police chief and other police officers were outside.13
He personally prepared the inventory and had it signed by the barangay tanod. After the inventory,
they brought appellant and the seized items to their office and prepared the request for laboratory
examination of the seized items as well as request for appellant's drug test. He was the one who
delivered the request to the crime laboratory in Makati City at 10 o'clock in the evening of April 14,
2010. The plastic sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 14

PO2 Julaton confirmed he was PO3 Acbang's back-up. As back-up, he was positioned 100 meters
from PO3 Ac bang. When appellant got apprehended, he was the one who recovered the buy-bust
money and informed appellant of his Miranda rights. He also confirmed that the inventory was
conducted in appellant's house. After the inventory, they proceeded to the police station for
documentation. The inventory was signed only by PO3 Acbang and witnessed by Barangay Tanod
Romuelo Cantojas because appellant refused to sign it. He also prepared a request for laboratory
15

examination and another request for drug test, booking sheet of the arrested person, and spot
report. During the inventory, he photographed the seized items and appellant. He had the
photographs from his cellphone developed. 16

Insp. Richard Mangalip was presented in court. The prosecution and the defense stipulated on the
qualifications of Insp. Richard Mangalip as the forensic chemist who did laboratory examination on
the drug items. He had no personal knowledge about the source of the drug items. 17

The prosecution also submitted the following object and documentary evidence: a) Letter-Request
for Examination of Seized Evidence dated April 14, 2010; b) Physical Science Report No. D-121-
18

10S," indicating that specimens "FA" (0.14 g) and "FA-1" (0.24 g) were positive for
19

"methylamphetamine hydrochloride"; c) Pinagsamang Salaysay (Joint Statement) dated April 15,

20

2010 executed by PO3 Fernan Acbang and PO2 Domingo Julaton III; d) Affidavit of
Attestation dated April 14, 2010 executed by PO2 Domingo Julaton III; e) Pre-Operation
21

Form dated April 14, 2010; f) Coordination Form dated April 14, 2010; f) Receipt/Inventory of
22 23

Property Seized dated April 14, 2010; g) photographs of the inventory; h) appellant's information
24 25

sheet; h) Spot Report dated April 14, 2010; and i) reproduction of four pieces of P500 bills.
26 27 28

The Defense's Evidence

Appellant Danilo Miranda denied that he ever sold or had been in possession of shabu. On April 14,
2010, around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he was in his house preparing his hair color. Suddenly, two
(2) men entered the house, followed by another man. He was shown two (2) small plastic sachets
from a small pouch and told that those items belonged to him. He was told not to move. He later
learned that these men were police officers PO2 Julaton, PO3 Acbang, and PSI Besoña. They were
also followed by two (2) other men. 29

He was handcuffed and brought out of his house. He was not shown any search warrant. The police
authorities called the barangay authorities while fixing the evidence and taking pictures. One
barangay official arrived, was asked to sit in front of the table, and made to sign a document. After
signing, the barangay official left. A police officer named Ocampo took a silver-plated sword which
his son used for ROTC drills. Afterwards, he was taken onboard a green Adventure. His two (2)
30

children, Mellanie Miranda and Estrellito Miranda wanted to join him but they were forbidden from
*

doing so. The police officers boarded the vehicle and he was taken to the police headquarters. They
prepared some reports and he was later taken to the crime laboratory around 9 o'clock in the
evening. At the crime laboratory, he was asked to urinate but was not allowed to enter the building.
31

He was later detained at the Coastal Special Investigation Division. He had filed countercharges
against the police officers before the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). The real reason why
he was arrested was because he was accused of being involved in a grenade-throwing incident in
his place. 32
Estrellito Miranda, appellant's son, denied that his father sold and was in possession of shabu. He
executed a sworn statement in support of his father's administrative complaint against the police
officers. He also recalled that when he was about to enter their house, a man asked him who he
33

was. He in turn asked the man and was told he was a police officer. His father said that the evidence
was planted. The police officers also told him not to do anything otherwise there would be trouble. A
barangay official arrived, signed a document, and left. His father was taken out of the house and put
on a vehicle. He followed his father to the police station and he talked to the police officers. He also
called his brother Malvin Miranda and informed him about the incident. 34

Cherrie Peña, the person who was supposed to color appellant's hair, said she was at the gate when
four (4) men entered appellant's house. She no longer went back to the house because she was
scared. She was standing in the hallway when appellant was brought out handcuffed. 35

Melanie Miranda, appellant's daughter, recalled she was outside the house, about twenty (20) steps
away, helping her sister-in-law sell samurai balls. Four (4) men in civilian clothes entered their
house. She followed them and one (1) of the men showed her a blue pouch. Something wrapped in
plastic was also shown to her and the man said he bought it from her father. She was surprised
because she was not aware that her father was into selling anything. She asked appellant what was
happening and he replied that plastic sachets were planted on him. She was instructed by the men
to get some clothes for her father, who was only wearing shorts at the time. She saw that the police
36

putting the pouch and plastic sachets on the center table. Her father faced the center table and the
police took pictures of the items. A barangay official came and was made to sign a document.
Afterwards, her father was taken outside. She and her brothers Melvin, Fernandez, and Estrellito
followed their father to the police station. There, she no longer knew what transpired because it was
her father who spoke with the police. She also executed an affidavit in support of her father's
complaint against the police officers.37

The defense submitted the following documentary evidence: 1) Pre-Operation Form dated April 14,
38

2010; 2) Coordination Form dated April 14, 2010; 3) Pinagsamang Salaysay (Joint
39

Statement) dated April 15, 2010 executed by PO3 Fernan Acbang and PO2 Domingo Julaton III; 4)
40

Spot Report dated April 14, 2010; 5) Joint Counter Affidavit dated May 26, 2010 executed by PSI
41 42

Marlou Besoña, SPOl Ricky Macaraeg, PO3 Fernan Acbang, PO2 Domingo Julaton III and PO2
Elbert U. Ocampo submitted to the PLEB; 6) appellant's Sinumpaang Salaysay dated May 13, 2010
43

submitted to the PLEB; 7) Pinagsamang Sagot sa Kontra-Salaysay dated June 17, 2010 submitted
44

to the PLEB by Danilo Miranda, Antonio Vertudez, and Cesaria Vertudez; 8) Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated May 13, 2010 submitted to the PLEB by Nestia Miranda; 9) Sinumpaang
45

Salaysay dated May 13, 2010 submitted to the PLEB by Estrellito Miranda; and 10) Sinumpaang
46

Salaysay dated May 13, 2010 submitted by to the PLEB by Melanie Miranda.
47

The Trial Court's Ruling

By its Amended Decision dated April 16, 2012, RTC - Branch 259, Parañaque City found appellant
48

guilty of violations of Sections 5 and 11, both of RA 9165. It found appellant's imputation of ill-motive
on the police officers to be a mere suspicion. It also noted that appellant's witnesses did not truly see
the alleged planting of evidence. It disregarded appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up in favor
of the prosecution's positive and categorical testimonies. It upheld the presumption of regular
performance of the police officers' discharge of their duty. Consequently, it adjudged, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court renders judgment as follow:

1. In Criminal Case No. 10-03 73 for Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165, the court finds accused
DANILO GARCIA MIRANDA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php 500,000.00.

2. In Criminal Case No. 10-0374 for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165, the court finds accused
DANILO GARCIA MIRANDA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum for seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months as maximum and to pay a fine of Php 300,000.00.

Further it appearing that the accused DANILO GARCIA MIRANDA is detained at the Parañaque City
Jail and considering the penalty imposed, the OIC Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to
prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of said accused from the Parañaque City Jail to the
New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City.

The specimen are forfeited in favor of the government and the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court is likewise
directed to immediately turn over the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for
proper disposal pursuant to Supreme Court OCA Circular No. 51-2003.

SO ORDERED. 49

Appellant moved for reconsideration which the trial court denied through Order dated May 25,
50 51

2012.

The Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, appellant faulted the trial court for overlooking the probative weight of his testimonial
evidence, especially the testimonies of witnesses who corroborated his defenses of alibi and frame-
up. He also faulted the trial court for giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
and upholding the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties.52

In refutation, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) defended the verdict of conviction. It
essentially argued that the prosecution had indubitably proven the charges of illegal sale and illegal
possession against appellant through the positive and categorical testimonies of its witnesses, who
were not shown to have had any ill-motive in testifying against appellant. A valid warrantless arrest
was effected. 53

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed through its assailed Decision dated July 25, 2014. It deferred to the
trial court's assessment on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It likewise held that the
presumption of the regular performance of official duty by the police officers remained in place. It
concluded that the respective elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellant moved for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied through its assailed
54

Resolution dated October 24, 2014.

The Present Appeal

In his Supplemental Brief dated November 16, 2015, appellant essentially argues that the
55

testimonies of his witnesses concerning the circumstances of his arrest already cast reasonable
doubt on the prosecution's factual version. His witnesses consistently stated that the police officers
just suddenly barged into their house, arrested him, and conducted an inventory therein. Further, his
witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, thus, said testimonies are no longer self-serving.
Finally, the PLEB, in its Decision dated May 30, 2014, had suspended the police officers involved
56

for sixty (60) days for grave misconduct. They did not observe proper procedures in arresting
appellant.

The OSG reiterates its argument that the prosecution had proven the charges of illegal sale and
illegal possession against appellant and there was a valid warrantless arrest on him. 57

Issue

Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt appellant's guilt for illegal sale and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs?

Ruling

In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is,
1âшphi1

therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same
substance presented in court. The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling,
58

storage, labelling, and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it
is offered in evidence. 59

To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its
chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking 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. 60

The chain of custody rule came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render
them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution, by
accident or otherwise. People v. Beran further emphasized why the integrity of the confiscated
61 62

illegal drug must be safeguarded, viz:

"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 or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds
all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the 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. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and
prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants' guilt. It should have given more serious
consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and
many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the merits of the present
case.

Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established, and the chain of custody
requirement under R.A. No. 9165 performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that any
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
Appellant here was allegedly arrested for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs on
April 15, 2010. The governing law is RA 9165 and its implementing rules. Section 21 of RA 9165
read:

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; x x x

Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, implementing the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines "chain of custody," 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 the seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of 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.

Under Section 21 of RA 9165, the inventory and photography should be done in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as
certain required witnesses, namely, "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official."
63

PO3 Fernan Acbang testified on how the inventory was conducted in this case:

Q: Now, Mr. Witness, what did you do, if any, with the plastic sachets?

A: After preparing the inventory, we had witnessed with the Barangay.

Q: What was your proof in saying there was an inventory made with the witness from Barangay?

A: We prepared an inventory as well as photographs.

Q: And who personally prepared the inventory?

A: I was the one who personally prepared the inventory.

xxx
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, what is your proof in saying that this inventory was witnessed by
Barangay Tanod Romero Cantojas (sic)?

A: He signed it. (Emphasis supplied)

64

PO2 Domingo Julaton III likewise testified:

Q: What happened next after you were able to recover the buy-bust money?

A: After we recovered the buy-bust money, the inventory was made.

Q: Where was the inventory made?

A: At the house of the arrested person

Q: You were present during the inventory?

A: Yes ma'am.

xxx

Q: Who signed the inventory made at the house of the accused?

A: PO2 Acbang and witnessed by Barangay Tanod Ronuelo (Cantojas). (Emphasis supplied)
65

Additionally, the parties stipulated on the testimony of forensic chemist Insp. Richard Mangalip, as
reflected in the trial court's Order dated May 27, 2010, viz:
66

xxx

In today's hearing, the testimony of Forensic Chemist, Inspector Richard Allan Mangalip, was
stipulated by the prosecution and defense counsel, Atty. Elena Tee-Rodriguez. Defense admitted
the qualification of the forensic chemist subject to the condition that he has no personal knowledge
on the source of the specimen but only conducted laboratory examination. x x x
67

The foregoing testimonies of prosecution witnesses underscore the following procedural deficiencies
in the chain of custody of the drugs in question.

First. It is readily apparent that not even one of the three (3) required witnesses, a media
representative and a DOJ representati.ve and an elected official, were present during the inventory.
A barangay tanod is not one (1) of those witnesses required by law to be present. This is a fatal
lapse. Also, the prosecution did not even explain why they were not able to secure the presence of
the three (3) witnesses.

In People v. Romy Lim the accused was acquitted in view of the absence of the three (3) required
68

witnesses and the prosecution's failure to demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to secure their
attendance, viz:
Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the
media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. In fact, their signatures
do not appear in the Inventory Receipt.

The Court stressed in People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro:

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for noncompliance with the procedure
laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate
observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging
and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the
mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance
with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers
do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit,
coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict
adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is
highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and
photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety
during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory
action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official
themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to
secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period
required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting
officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and
urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law
enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could
escape.

Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v.
Ramosrequires:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated
items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and
sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced.
In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earfiest efforts were
employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "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." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact
the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non- compliance. These
considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning
from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time
of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary
arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set
procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to
state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted
earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances,
their actions were reasonable.
In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived at the
crime scene because it was late at night and it was raining, making it unsafe for them to wait at Lim's
house. IO2 Orcales similarly declared that the inventory was made in the PDEA office considering
that it was late in the evening and there were no available media representative and barangay
officials despite their effort to contact them. He admitted that there are times when they do not inform
the barangay officials prior to their operation as they might leak the confidential information. We are
of the view that these justifications are unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt
to comply with the law.

So must it be.

Second. Notably, the parties stipulated that Insp. Richard Mangalip was a qualified forensic chemist
and that he had no personal knowledge about the source of the drug items but only conducted
laboratory examination thereon. By reason of this stipulation, the parties agreed to dispense with his
testimony.

People v. Cabuhay ordained that the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the
69

forensic chemist should include:

In People v. Pajarin, the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the
attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist
would have testified that he had taken the precautionary steps required to' preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized
article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the
content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be
tampered with pending trial. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist did not contain
the vital pieces of information required in Cabuhay: i.e. Insp. Mangalip received the seized drugs as
marked, properly sealed, and intact; Insp. Mangalip resealed the drug items after examination of the
content; and, Insp. Mangalip placed his own marking on the drug items --- thus leaving a huge gap in
the chain of custody of the seized drugs. People v. Ubungen emphasized that stipulation on the
70

testimony of a forensic chemist should cover the management, storage, and preservation of the
seized drugs, thus:

Clear from the foregoing is the lack of the stipulations required for the proper and effective
dispensation of the testimony of the forensic chemist. While the stipulations between the parties
herein may be viewed as referring to the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and to
the analytical results obtained, they do not cover the manner the specimen was handled before it
came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left her possession. Absent any
testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly
seized herein after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the
said illegal drug could not be reasonably established. (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, the fourth link was also broken because of the absence of the testimony from any
prosecution witness on how the drug items were brought from the crime laboratory and submitted in
evidence to the court below. In People v. Alboka, the prosecution's failure to show who brought the
71

seized items before the trial court was considered a serious breach of the chain-of-custody rule.

Indeed, the repeated breach of the chain of custody rule here had cast serious uncertainty on the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The metaphorical chain did not link at all, albeit it unjustly
restrained petitioner's right to liberty. Verily, therefore, a verdict of acquittal is in order.
Strict adherence to the chain of custody rule must be observed; the precautionary measures
72

employed in every transfer of the seized drug item, proved to a moral certainty. The sheer ease of
planting drug evidence vis-a-vis the severity of the imposable penalties in drugs cases compels strict
compliance with the chain of custody rule.

We have clarified, though, that a perfect chain of custody may be impossible to obtain at all times
because of varying field conditions. In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165
73

offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist which warrant deviation
from established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved. 74

Here, the prosecution did not even attempt to justify the absence of the three (3) required witnesses
during the inventory. Too, the prosecution failed to concretely establish how the forensic chemist
managed, stored, and preserved the seized drugs. Also, the prosecution failed to establish who
brought the seized items to the trial court. In fine, the condition for the saving clause to become
operational was not complied with. For the same reason, the proviso "so long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved," will not come to play either.

A point of emphasis. At least twelve (12) years and one (1) day of imprisonment is imposed for each
count of unauthorized possession of dangerous drugs or unauthorized sale of dangerous drugs even
for the minutest amount. It, thus, becomes inevitable that safeguards against abuses of power in the
conduct of buy-bust operations be strictly implemented. The purpose is to eliminate wrongful arrests
and, worse, convictions. The evils of switching, planting or contamination of the corpus delicti under
the regime of RA 6425, otherwise known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," could again be
resurrected if the lawful requirements were otherwise lightly brushed aside. 75

As heretofore shown, the chain of custody here had been repeatedly breached many times over: the
metaphorical chain, irreparably broken. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the seized drug
item were not deemed to have been preserved. Perforce, appellant must be unshackled, acquitted,
and released from restraint.

Suffice it to state that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot
76

substitute for compliance and mend the broken links. For it is a mere disputable presumption that
cannot prevail over clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. And here, the presumption was
77

amply overturned, nay, overthrown by compelling evidence on record of the repeated breach of the
chain of custody rule.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated July 25, 2014 and
Resolution dated October 24, 2014 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant DANILO GARCIA
MIRANDA is ACQUITTED of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 10-
03 73 and the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 10-0374.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila is ordered to
immediately RELEASE DANILO GARCIA MIRANDA from detention unless he is being held in
custody for some other lawful cause; and to REPORT to this Court his compliance within five (5)
days from notice.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

 G.R. No. 238334, July 03, 2019

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROSELINE KASAN Y ATILANO

AND HENRY LLACER Y JAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

The Case

This appeal assails the Decision1 dated September 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
HC No. 08530 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Roseline Kasany Atilano and Henry Llacer y
Jao," affirming the conviction of Roseline Kasan and Henry Llacer for violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165,2 and Henry Llacer for violation of Section 11 of RA 9165.

The Proceedings Before the Trial Court

The Charge

By Information3 dated December 11, 2015, in Criminal Case No. 15-3938, appellants Roseline
Kasan and Henry Llacer were charged with violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, viz:

On the 10th day of December 2015, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, conspiring and
confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without the
necessary license or prescription and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously sell, deliver, and give away Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing
zero point eighteen (0.18) gram, a dangerous drug, in consideration of Php500.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

By separate Information4 dated December 14, 2015, in Criminal Case No. 15-3939, appellant Henry
Llacer was also charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, thus:

On the 10th day of December 2015, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being lawfully
authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license
or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, direct
custody and control of zero point zero nine (0.09) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The cases were both raffled to Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City.

In Criminal Case No. 15-3938, appellants Roseline Kasan and Henry Llacer, when arraigned,
pleaded "not guilty."5

In Criminal Case No. 15-3939, appellant Henry Llacer, when arraigned, also pleaded "not guilty."6

The Prosecution's Evidence

SPO1 Mike Lester Pacis and SPO2 Rommel Ladiana, both police officers assigned at Station Anti-
Legal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAIDSOTG), Makati Police Station, identified and
confirmed7 the contents of their Joint Affidavit of Arrest8 dated December 10, 2015. According to
them, on December 10, 2015, about 1 o'clock in the morning, they arrested appellants for illegal sale
and possession of dangerous drugs. Before the incident, they were briefed by their team leader that
per report of the confidential informant, a certain "alias Bakulaw" and "alias Penny" of JB Roxas St.,
Brgy. Olympia, Makati were engaged in illegal drug activities in the area.9

Consequently, they coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for narcotics
operation10 and formed a buy-bust team with SPO1 Pacis as designated poseur buyer and SPO2
Ladiana, as immediate back-up. SPO1 Pacis received the P500-bill (marked money) with Serial No.
WN785257 and with initials "MLP" on its upper-right portion. They agreed on the pre-arranged
signal: SPO1 Pacis will tap the shoulder of the suspect.11

SPO1 Pacis took a motorcycle and proceeded to the corner of Osmeña and JB Roxas Sts., Brgy.
Olympia, Makati City to meet with the informant. The rest of the team rode a privately-owned vehicle
going to the area. There, SPO1 Pacis, together with the informant, walked toward the spot where
"Bakulaw" and "Penny" were allegedly selling drugs.12 SPO1 Pacis saw a woman, wearing shorts
and a gray blouse, casually standing in front of a house. The informant told him that the woman was
"Penny." SPO2 Ladiana covertly followed SPO1 Pacis and strategically positioned himself close by.
The informant introduced PO1 Pacis to "Penny" (later identified as appellant Roseline Kasan), telling
her that PO1 Pacis wanted to buy shabu.13

"Penny" asked SPO1 Pacis "Magkano kailangan mo? (How much do you need?)," to which the latter
replied "Limang daan, Ate (Five hundred pesos, miss). " "Akin na (Give it to me) " said "Penny."
"Bakulaw" (later identified as appellant Henry Llacer) approached and asked "Magkano(How much?"
"Penny" replied "Lima (Five)." "Bakulaw" took out one plastic sachet of shabu and handed it to SPO1
Pacis. "Eto (Here)." SPO1 Pacis took the plastic sachet (later marked "MLP") and slid it in his right
pocket.14

Thereupon, SPO1 Pacis tapped "Bakulaw's" shoulder and grabbed him and "Penny." He introduced
himself to them as a police officer. As soon as, SPO2 Ladiana saw the pre-arranged signal, he
immediately closed in. SPO1 Pacis apprised "Bakulaw" and "Penny" of their constitutional rights. He
also frisked "Bakulaw" and recovered from the latter's right pocket one small plastic sachet of shabu
(later marked "MLP-1"). SPO1 Pacis further retrieved from "Penny's" right hand the buy-bust
money.15

For security reasons, they brought petitioners and the seized items to the barangay hall of Brgy.
Olympia, Makati City. Since there was no available barangay official there, the team proceeded,
instead, to the barangay hall of Brgy. West Pembo, Makati City. There, they conducted the inventory
in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Rodrigo Neri. They also photographed petitioners and the
seized items. The seized items were subsequently turned over to case investigator PO3 Roque
Carlo Paredes II, then to the crime laboratory.16

The prosecution and the defense stipulated on the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses as
borne in the trial court's Order17 dated January 21, 2016, viz:
The prosecution and the defense likewise stipulated on the subject matter of the testimonies of PO3
Roque Carlo M. Paredes, PSI Rendielyn Sahagun and Brgy. Kagawad Rodrigo Neri, to wit: 1) that
PO3 Paredes is the police investigator on (the) case who prepared the Investigation Report as well
as the requests to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office for the laboratory examination of the items
allegedly recovered and the drug test on the persons of the accused; 2) that PSI Sahagun was the
forensic chemical officer who prepared Chemistry Report No. D-1297-2015 pursuant to the Request
for Laboratory Examination; 3) the qualification of PSI Sahagun as an expert witness in preparing
Chemistry Report No. D-1297-2015; 4) that Brgy. Kagawad Neri acted as independent witness
during the inventory of the items allegedly recovered; and 5) that they had no personal knowledge as
to the circumstances regarding the alleged confiscation of the items from the persons of the
accused. Hence, their testimonies in open court were already dispensed with.18

The prosecution submitted the following documentary and object evidence: 1) SAID-SOTG Case
Referral and Final Investigation Report;19 2) petty cash voucher and the marked P500-bill;20 3) PDEA
Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report both bearing Control No. 10001-122015-0155;21 4)
Inventory Receipt22 dated December 10, 2015; 5) PDEA Spot Report23 dated December 10, 2015; 6)
Request for Drug Test24 dated December 10, 2015; 7) Request for Laboratory Examination25 dated
December 10, 2015; 8) Chemistry Report No. D-1297-15;26 9) Chain of Custody Form;27 10) plastic
sachet marked "MLP"; 11) plastic sachet marked "MLP-1"; 12) SAID-SOTG Custody Form28 dated
December 10, 2015; 13) photographs taken during the inventory and marking of evidence;29 14) mug
shots of appellants;30 15) appellants' medical certificates;31 16) Joint Affidavit of Arrest32 dated
December 10, 2015 of SPO1 Mike Lester Pacis and SPO2 Rommel Ladiana; and 17) Affidavit of
Undertaking33 dated December 10, 2015 of PO3 Roque Carlo Paredes II.

The Defense's Evidence

Appellant Roseline Kasan claimed she and Henry Llacer were framed-up. She testified that on
December 9, 2015, around 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, she was inside her room, sleeping with her
daughter, when two men suddenly barged in. She reacted with a slew of curses directed against
these men. She asked what they were doing inside her room. The men then took hold of her,
causing her daughter to wake up. Her daughter asked the men why they were taking her mother.
Her daughter hugged her but the men pulled her daughter away.34

The men asked her about a person she did not know. She shouted and cursed. The men then
dragged her to the ground floor and slapped her. They continued dragging her out of the house
toward a parked motorcycle. A lot of people witnessed the incident.35

They brought her to the barangay hall where the police officers showed her an illegal drug, claiming
it belonged to her. She never possessed or used illegal drugs. She was a massage therapist earning
P800 per session. The father of her daughter, an American-Indian based in Las Vegas gave them
support. She got arrested on December 9 and not December 10, 2015.36 Henry Llacer was
her kumpare. The police asked P20,000.00 from each of them in exchange for their release.37

Henry Llacer denied ever selling or being in possession of dangerous drugs. On December 9, 2015,
around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, he was inside his room on the second floor of his residence. Three
armed men in civilian clothes went up to his room. They did not show him any search warrant. One
of them poked a gun on him, asking him if he was "Olan." He replied that "Olan" was in another
house. They forcibly handcuffed and hurt him because he was resisting. He asked "Bakit n'yo po
ako inaaresto, wala naman po akong kasalanan? (Why are you arresting me? I am not at fault)."
They replied "Sumama ka na lang doon ka na lang magpaliwanag (Just come with us. You can
explain yourself later)."38
He was taken to the police station. After a few minutes, SPO1 Pacis told him and Roseline that they
could call and ask their relatives to produce P20,000.00 for each of them in exchange for their
liberty. They were given until midnight to raise the money otherwise they would be charged. There
were four others, aside from him and Roseline, who were also arrested. These four were released
because they were able to pay the police officers.39 They were first detained at the police station,
and around midnight, they were taken to Brgy. Palanan for medical examination.40 From Brgy.
Palanan, they were brought to Brgy. West Pembo where they arrived around 4 o'clock in the
morning of December 10, 2015. At West Pembo, SPO1 Pacis brought out two plastic sachets and a
P500-bill and laid these out on a table. SPO1 Pacis asked Barangay Kagawad Rodrigo Neri to sign
something.41

The Trial Court's Ruling

By Decision42 dated June 29, 2016, the trial court found both Roseline Kasan and Henry Llacer guilty
of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15-3938; and Henry Llacer also guilty of
violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15-3939.

The trial court held that the collective evidence of the prosecution proved there was a valid buy-bust
operation which resulted in the purchase of 0.18 gram of shabu (marked "MLP") from both
appellants and the subsequent recovery from Henry Llacer of 0.09 gram (marked "MLP-1"). The
prosecution was able to prove that the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti were preserved.
Thus, the trial court decreed:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 15-3938, the court finds both accused Roseline Kasan y Atilano and Henry
Llacer y Jao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A.
No. 9165 and sentences them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00)

2. In Criminal Case No. 15-3939, the court finds accused Henry Llacer y Jao GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen
(14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00)

The period of detention of both accused should be given full credit.

The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachets containing shabu subject matter
of these cases to the PDEA for said agency's appropriate disposition.

Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided for by
law.

SO ORDERED.43

The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, Roseline Kasan and Henry Llacer brought to fore the alleged procedural lapses in the
entrapment operation and the prosecution's failure to prove the corpus delicti of the offenses
charged.44

In refutation, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through Assistant Solicitor General Derek
Puertollano and Senior State Solicitor Arturo Medina defended the verdict of conviction. The OSG
essentially argued that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly
preserved in compliance with the chain of custody rule.45

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed through its assailed Decision dated September 29, 2017. It held there
was a valid buy-bust operation which led to appellants' arrest and the confiscation of the dangerous
drugs in question. It also found that the arresting officers substantially complied with the chain of
custody rule and the integrity of the corpus delicti was duly preserved. Lastly, it gave credence and
respect to the trial court's factual findings and its assessment of the credibility of witnesses.46

The Present Appeal

Appellants Roseline Kasan and Henry Llacer now fault the Court of Appeals for affirming their
conviction despite the following procedural infirmities. First, the apprehending team failed to
immediately mark the seized items, conduct an inventory, and take photographs immediately at the
place of arrest. Second, during the inventory, only an elected public official was present.47Third, it
was not PO3 Roque Carlo Paredes II, the designated police investigator, who turned over the
specimens to the crime laboratory, but SPO1 Pacis himself took a sharp departure from the ordinary
course of things. Fourth, the stipulated testimony of PO3 Paredes did not provide a clear picture of
how he handled the seized items. Fifth, the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist did not
contain any information on how the corpus delicti was handled during its chemical analysis.48

The OSG submits anew that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly
preserved. The plastic sachets were duly marked by SPOl Pacis at the barangay hall of Brgy. West
Pembo and not at the situs criminis for security reasons. The inventory and photograph were done in
appellants' presence. The two plastic sachets were duly submitted by PO3 Paredes to the forensic
laboratory. The marked plastic sachets were confirmed to have contained shabu and to have been
duly submitted in evidence to the trial court. Finally, the police officers regularly performed their
official duty.49

Issue

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the verdict of conviction despite the procedural deficiencies
in the chain of custody compliance?

Ruling

In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is,
therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same
substance presented in court.50 The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling,
storage, labelling, and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it
is offered in evidence.51

To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its
chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking 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.52

The chain of custody rule came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render
them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution, by
accident or otherwise.53 People v. Beran54 further emphasized why the integrity of the confiscated
illegal drug must be safeguarded, viz:

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 or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds
all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the 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. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and
prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants' guilt. It should have given more serious
consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and
many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the merits of the present
case.

Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established, and the chain of custody
requirement under R.A. No. 9165 performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that any
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."

Appellants Roseline Kasan and Henry Llacer were charged with violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 on
December 11, 2015. In addition, appellant Henry Llacer was charged with violation of Section 11 of
RA 9165 on even date. The applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, viz:

(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.

In open court, SPO1 Pacis and SPO2 Ladiana identified and confirmed the veracity of their Joint
Affidavit of Arrest dated December 10, 2015, viz:

xxx

As a matter of procedure, inventory was conducted at the place of arrest but for security reasons,
operating team decided to convey the arrested suspects together with the seized evidence at the
Brgy. Hall of Brgy. Olympia, Makati City to conduct the inventory. Due to the unavailability of an
elected official in the said barangay to witness the said process, the team conducted inventory at the
Brgy. Hall of Brgy. West Rembo (sic), Makati City in the very presence of Kagawad RODRIGO
NERI. For evidentiary purposes this procedure was photographed after doing so arrested suspect,
together with the pieces of evidence were turned over to the Case Investigator PO3 Roque Carlo M.
Paredes II for formal disposition and proper investigation, then to Crime Laboratory and Medical
Examination of the suspect.55

xxx

On its face, the joint affidavit of arrest of SPO1 Pads and SPO2 Ladiana bears the following
procedural deficiencies in the chain of custody of the drugs in question.

First. The seized drugs were not marked, inventoried, or photographed at the place of arrest.

In People v. Ramirez,56 the Court acquitted the appellant because the marking was not done in the
presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon confiscation to truly ensure that they were
the same items which entered the chain of custody. The Court noted that the time and distance from
the scene of the arrest until the drugs were marked at the barangay hall were too substantial that
one could not help but think that the evidence could have been tampered.

Here, appellants got arrested at the corner of Osmeña and JB Roxas Sts., Brgy. Olympia, Makati
City. But police officers brought them first to the barangay hall of Brgy. Olympia, Makati City. Since
there was no available barangay official there, the team transferred to the barangay hall of Brgy.
West Pembo, Makati City. It was only after two hours from the time of arrest that the seized items
were finally marked by SPO1 Paris.57 All through the two-hour gap, the drug items were exposed to
switching, planting and contamination while in transit.

The police officers, nonetheless, invoked "security reasons" to justify their failure to mark, inventory,
and photograph the drug items at the situs criminis. Standing alone, such bare allegation should be
rejected. What exactly these "security reasons" were and why the place of arrest was considered to
be risky for marking and inventory or taking of photographs --- are material details which the
arresting officers failed to present during the trial. In People v. Lim,58 it was held that "immediate
physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused in
instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by
law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action
of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault." This principle was
applied in People v. Tampan59 wherein one of the grounds in acquitting the accused therein was the
arresting officers' failure to explain why the inventory and taking of photograph were not immediately
done at the situs criminis, thus:

The physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not executed immediately at the
place of apprehension and seizure. While these procedures may be conducted at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, substantial compliance with Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165 may be allowed if attended with good and sufficient reason, a condition that was
not met in this case. In People v. Lim, it has been held that "immediate physical inventory and
photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused in instances when the
safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items
seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have
the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault." The apprehending officers in the
present case undoubtedly did not show that the immediate physical inventory and
photograph posed a threat on the safety and security of the police officers, or of the
confiscated dangerous substance nor did they offer any other acceptable reason for not
complying strictly with the requirement of immediate inventory and photograph at the place
of arrest. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Second. Only an elected official was present at the time of the inventory and taking of photograph.
RA 9165, as amended, requires an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media during inventory and taking of photographs.60 The law requires the
presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure not only the compliance with the chain of custody
rule but also remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.61

People v. Sipin62 enumerated some of the valid justifications for non compliance with the witness
requirement, viz:

The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was not
obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the
place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for
and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought
to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and
an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with
arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely
on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.

As it was, the arresting officers here did not even bother to explain why they only managed to secure
a barangay kagawad to witness the inventory and taking of photographs. It is incumbent upon the
prosecution to account for the absence of the other required witness, i.e. media representative or
DOJ representative, by presenting a justifiable reason therefor, or at the very least, by showing that
the apprehending officers truly exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of this
witness or these witnesses.63

In People v. Lumumba,64 the presence of only one witness, a media representative, during the
inventory and taking of photographs was considered a breach of the first link. In that case, the
arresting officers' explanation that the media representative was the only witness they could secure
at that time because the elected barangay officials refused to participate, was not a justifiable ground
for non-compliance of the requirement for the presence of the insulating witnesses. As stated, there
was no attempt to even give an explanation in this case.

Third. Notably, the parties stipulated that PSI Rendielyn Sahagun was the forensic chemical officer
who prepared Chemistry Report No. D-1297-2015 pursuant to the Request for Laboratory
Examination. By reason of this stipulation, the parties agreed to dispense with her testimony.65

People v. Cabuhay66 ordained that the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the
forensic chemist should include:

In People v. Pajarin, the Court ruled that in case of q, stipulation by the parties to dispense with the
attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist
would have testified that he had taken the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized
article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the
content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be
tampered with pending trial. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist did not contain
the vital pieces of information required in Cabuhay: i.e. PSI Sahagun received the seized drugs as
marked, properly sealed, and intact; PSI Sahagun resealed the drug items after examination of the
content; and, PSI Sahagun placed her own marking on the drug items --- thus leaving a huge gap in
the chain of custody of the seized drugs. People v. Ubungen67 emphasized that stipulation on the
testimony of a forensic chemist should cover the management, storage, and preservation of the
seized drugs, thus:

Clear from the foregoing is the lack of the stipulations required for the proper and effective
dispensation of the testimony of the forensic chemist. While the stipulations between the parties
herein may be viewed as referring to the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and to
the analytical results obtained, they do not cover the manner the specimen was handled before it
came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left her possession. Absent any
testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly
seized herein after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the
said illegal drug could not be reasonably established. (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, the fourth link was also broken because of the absence of the testimony from any
prosecution witness on how the drug items were brought from the crime laboratory and submitted in
evidence to the court below. In People v. Alboka,68 the prosecution's failure to show who brought the
seized items before the trial court was considered a serious breach of the chain of custody rule.

Indeed, the repeated breach of the chain of custody rule here had cast serious uncertainty on the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The metaphorical chain did not link at all, albeit it unjustly
restrained appellant's right to liberty. Verily, therefore, a verdict of acquittal is in order.

Strict adherence to the chain of custody rule must be observed;69 the precautionary measures
employed in every transfer of the seized drug item, proved to a moral certainty. The sheer ease of
planting drug evidence vis-à-vis the severity of the imposable penalties in drugs cases compels strict
compliance with the chain of custody rule.

We have clarified, though, that a perfect chain of custody may be impossible to obtain at all times
because of varying field conditions.70 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165
offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist which warrant deviation
from established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved.71

Here, the prosecution failed to substantiate their claim of "security reasons" in not immediately
conducting the inventory and photograph at the situs criminis. Too, the prosecution failed to
concretely establish how the forensic chemist managed, stored, and preserved the seized drugs.
Also, the prosecution failed to establish who brought the seized items to the trial court. In fine, the
condition for the saving clause to become operational was not complied with. For the same reason,
the proviso "so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved," will not come to play either.

A point of emphasis. At least twelve years and one day of imprisonment is imposed for each count of
unauthorized possession of dangerous drugs or unauthorized sale of dangerous drugs even for the
minutest amount. It, thus becomes inevitable that safeguards against abuses of power in the
conduct of buy-bust operations be strictly implemented. The purpose is to eliminate wrongful arrests
and, worse, convictions. The evils of switching, planting or contamination of the corpus delicti under
the regime of RA 6425, otherwise known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," could again be
resurrected if the lawful requirements were otherwise lightly brushed aside.72

As heretofore shown, the chain of custody here had been repeatedly breached many times over: the
metaphorical chain, irreparably broken. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the seized drug
item were not deemed to have been preserved. Perforce, appellants must be unshackled, acquitted,
and released from restraint.

Suffice it to state that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions73cannot
substitute for compliance and mend the broken links. For it is a mere disputable presumption that
cannot prevail over clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.74 And here, the presumption was
amply overturned, nay, overthrown by compelling evidence on record of the repeated breach of the
chain of custody rule.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated September 29, 2017 in CA-
G.R. CR HC No. 08530 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants ROSELINE KASAN y
ATILANOand HENRY LLACER y JAO are ACQUITTED of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in
Criminal Case No. 15-3938. Further, appellant HENRY LLACER y JAO is also ACQUITTED of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 15-3939.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila is
ordered to immediately RELEASE ROSELINE KASAN y ATILANO from detention unless she is
being held in custody for some other lawful cause; and to REPORT to this Court her compliance
within five (5) days from notice.

Likewise, the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila is ordered
to immediately RELEASE HENRY LLACER y JAO from detention unless he is being held in
custody for some other lawful cause; and to REPORT to this Court his compliance within five (5)
days from notice.

SO ORDERED.

April 3, 2019

G.R. No. 240596

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner

vs.
NOVO TANES y BELMONTE, Respondent

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
1

assailing the Decision dated February 21, 2018 and Resolution dated July 11, 2018 of the Court of
2 3

Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 08305-MIN, which upheld the Orders dated 4

March 31, 2017 and June 27, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, General Santos City
(RTC) in Crim. Case No. 22306. The RTC granted the application for bail of respondent Novo Tanes
y Belmonte (Tanes), who was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.)
9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

On April 6, 2011, an Information was filed against Tanes for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A.
5

9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about December 14, 2010, at about 8:20 P.M. in DARBCI Subdivision, National Highway,
General Santos City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell
for Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) to poseur buyer, one sachet containing 0.0296 grams (sic)
of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Tanes pleaded not guilty to the charge. On April 10, 2015, he filed a Petition for Bail. The RTC
7

conducted hearings on October 7, 2015, November 4, 2015, and February 3, 2017 for the bail
application.8

Ruling of the RTC

On March 31, 2017, the RTC issued an Order granting Tanes' application for bail, the fallo of which
9

reads:

WHEREFORE, after a careful evaluation of the records, this Court finds justifiable grounds to grant
bail to the accused.

Accused is allowed to post bail bond for his temporary liberty in the fixed amount of TWO
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00).

Set the continuation of trial x x x.

SO ORDERED. 10

The RTC found that the evidence of Tanes' guilt was not strong because there was doubt as to
whether the chain of custody in the buy-bust operation was preserved, explaining as follows:

The [c]ourt noted that in the affidavits of [the] prosecution's witnesses[,] there was allegedly a
previous buying transaction of shabu with the accused prior to the buy-bust operation subject of this
case. Thus, the PDEA agents had enough time to contact the media or DOJ representatives,
or any elected public official to witness the buy-bust operation being conducted following the
report on the illegal trading in drugs by the accused, but they fail[ed] to do so. Instead, they
were just merely called to sign the inventory sheet. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
11

The RTC ruled that the failure of the prosecution to show that the three witnesses (i.e., media
representative, DOJ representative, elected official) were also present in the actual buy-bust
operation and not only during the inventory negated the requirement of strong evidence of the
accused's guilt to justify a denial of bail. Moreover, the RTC ruled that the defense correctly cited the
case of People v. Jehar Reyes (Jehar Reyes) in support of its argument.
12
The People (herein petitioner) filed a motion for reconsideration (MR), which was denied in an
Order dated June 27, 2017.
13

Aggrieved, petitioner went to the CA via petition for certiorari. It alleged that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting bail to Tanes
because: (1) it did not state a summary of the prosecution's evidence in its Order, therefore,
petitioner was not accorded due process; and (2) it required the presence of the three witnesses
during the conduct of the buy-bust operation and during the actual seizure of the drug, thereby
extending the requirement laid down in R.A. 9165. 14

Ruling of the CA

In its assailed Decision dated February 21, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition. According to the
15

CA, petitioner failed to show that the RTC's exercise of discretion in granting the application for bail
was unsound and unguided by jurisprudence. It found that the RTC's Order was based on
16

jurisprudence, specifically on the rule on chain of custody and the Jehar Reyes case, which held that
the three witnesses must be present during the buy-bust operation and the confiscation of the
dangerous drugs from the accused. 17

Moreover, the CA also made its own appreciation of the evidence presented and found that "[t]he
evidence presented by the prosecution in establishing that [Tanes'] guilt was strong was tarnished by
a seemingly broken chain in the custody." Specifically, the CA made the following findings:
18

Here, the poseur buyer testified that the representative from the media and the elected official who
signed the Inventory Sheet were absent during the actual buy bust operation. The said officials
appear to have gone to the crime scene only to sign the Inventory Sheet and leave after
signing the same. The absence of a representative from the DoJ also appears to be
inadequately explained as the police officers could have contacted another representative from the
DoJ when the other DoJ representative was unavailable.

It also appears that no photograph was presented showing the inventory of the
seized shabu in the presence of [Tanes], the representative of the media, and the elective
public official. There were only pictures captioned "Media representative signed/witness (sic) the
inventory" and "Brgy Kagawad signed/witness (sic) the inventory" but the person who took the
pictures was not presented during the bail hearing to explain the photographs. Moreover, the
testimony of the buy bust team leader regarding whether there was a photograph showing
the inventory of the seized sachets appears to be unclear. (Emphasis and underscoring
19

supplied)

Further, the CA ruled that petitioner was not denied due process. The records showed that three
hearings were conducted by the trial court for the bail application. During these hearings, petitioner
was duly represented by its prosecutors. Moreover, the CA stated that petitioner failed to identify
which piece/s of evidence that the prosecution presented before the bail hearings was/were
excluded by the RTC in weighing whether the evidence against Tanes' guilt was strong. 20

Furthermore, the CA also disagreed with petitioner's assertion that the RTC Order did not contain a
summary of the prosecution's evidence. 21

Petitioner's MR was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated July 11, 2018; hence, this Petition.
22

Petition before the Court

In its Rule 45 Petition, petitioner argues that the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the trial court when the latter granted the petition for bail based solely on Jehar Reyes. In
particular, petitioner claims that R.A. 9165 only requires the presence of the three witnesses during
the conduct of the inventory, and not during the actual buy-bust operation. Also, petitioner avers that
the CA erred in affirming the trial court's ruling despite the latter's failure to appreciate the evidence
of the prosecution.

Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming the Order of the RTC which granted Tanes' application for bail.

The Court's Ruling

The Petition is totally without merit.

The right to bail

The right to bail is recognized in the Bill of Rights, as stated in Section 13, Article III of the
Constitution:

SEC. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released
on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

In this regard, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not
bailable. - No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless
of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

Thus, before conviction, bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any
penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. Bail becomes a matter of discretion if the offense charged is
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment that is, bail will be denied if the
evidence of guilt is strong.23

Procedure when bail is discretionary

In this case, Tanes was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 which carries the
penalty of life imprisonment. Hence, Tanes' bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion if the
evidence of his guilt is not strong.

To determine whether evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the conduct of bail hearings is
required where the prosecution has the burden of proof, subject to the right of the defense to cross-
examine witnesses and introduce evidence in rebuttal. The court is to conduct only a summary
hearing, consistent with the purpose of merely determining the weight of evidence for purposes of
bail.
24
The court's grant or denial of the bail application must contain a summary of the prosecution's
evidence. On this basis, the judge formulates his or her own conclusion on whether such evidence is
strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. 25

Petitioner was not deprived of

procedural due process

Applying the abovementioned standards to the present case, the Court finds that, contrary to
petitioner's assertions, the trial court did observe the rules to be followed in granting or denying the
bail application. Records show that the RTC conducted hearings for the application of bail on
October 7, 2015, November 4, 2015, and February 3, 2017. In all these hearings, petitioner was duly
represented by its prosecutors. 26

Petitioner insists that the trial court miserably failed to state a summary or a reasonable recital of the
evidence for the prosecution. As a result, petitioner avers that it was denied its right to due
27

process. The Court disagrees.

28

In this regard, the Court finds it necessary to quote the relevant portions of the assailed RTC Order,
to wit:

Hearing on the petition ensued. The prosecution presented four witnesses to prove that the
guilt of the accused is strong, to wit:

1. PSI Lily Grace M. Tadeo, the forensic chemist, who identified her findings as contained in the
Chemistry Reports Nos. D-332-2010 and D-333-2010 and the drug items;

2. PDEA Agent IO1 Mark Louis R. Degayo, team leader and photographer;

3. PDEA Agent IO1 Vincent Quelinderino, arresting officer; and

4. PDEA Agent IO1 Rodrick I. Gualisa, poseur-buyer.

They identified accused as the person who sold the drug item during the buy bust operation in the
amount of P500.00. The inventory of evidence/property and chain of custody were also identified.

Upon judicious and meticulous perusal of the evidence presented, the [c]ourt is of the view that the
evidence of guilt of the accused is not strong.

The [c]ourt note[s] that in the affidavits of prosecution's witnesses[,] there was allegedly a
previous buying transaction of shabu with the accused prior to the buy-bust operation subject of this
case. Thus, the PDEA agents had enough time to contact the media or DOJ representatives, or any
elected public official to witness the buy-bust operation being conducted following the report on the
illegal trading in drugs by the accused, but they fail[ed] to do so. Instead, they were just merely
called to sign the inventory sheet.

xxxx

With the evidence presented for the consideration of the Court, the prosecution failed to
substantiate its allegation to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. Clearly, therefore,
the prosecution evidence as such does not meet the required standard of "strong evidence" to justify
the denial of the accused's right to bail. (Emphasis supplied)
29
Petitioner assails the RTC Order because it did not contain (1) a recital of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of an actual buy-bust operation against Tanes; or (2)
30

a summary of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses establishing the links in the chain of
custody of the confiscated drug. However, a perusal of the RTC Order shows that it complied with
31

the jurisprudential standards on providing a summary of the prosecution's evidence.

In Revilla, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), the Court discussed the meaning of "a summary of
32

the evidence for the prosecution" as follows:

x x x The summary of the evidence shows that the evidence presented during the prior hearing
is formally recognized as having been presented and most importantly, considered. The
summary of the evidence is the basis for the judge's exercising his judicial discretion. Only after
weighing the pieces of evidence as contained in the summary will the judge formulate his own
conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong based on his discretion.
Thus, judicial discretion is not unbridled but must be supported by a finding of the facts relied upon
to form an opinion on the issue before the court. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
33

Moreover, in People v. Cabral, which petitioner cites as basis, the Court ruled that the summary
34

"should necessarily be a complete compilation or restatement of all the pieces of evidence presented
during the hearing proper. x x x An incomplete enumeration or selective inclusion of pieces of
evidence for the prosecution in the order cannot be considered a summary, for a summary is
necessarily a reasonable recital of any evidence presented by the prosecution." 35

Thus, what jurisprudence requires is a reasonable recital of every piece of evidence of the
prosecution - which was done in this case. Contrary to petitioner assertions, the testimonies per
se of the witnesses need not be reproduced in the Order, as long as the same
is recognized and considered by the trial court in its exercise of judicial discretion over the bail
application.

Clearly, the trial court followed the proper procedure in granting Tanes' bail application. Having
settled that petitioner was not deprived of its right to procedural due process, the Court shall now
deal with the propriety of granting the bail application.

Non-compliance with the rules on

chain of custody of illegal drugs
negates a strong evidence of Tanes'
guilt

The main thrust of the RTC's Order granting bail is that based on the evidence presented during the
bail hearings, the prosecution failed to prove that the chain of custody over the seized drug had been
preserved; hence, the evidence of Tanes' guilt was not strong. The Court wholeheartedly agrees.

To recall, Tanes was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. 9165. The elements for conviction under said provision are: (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 therefor. The burden is on the State to prove not only these elements but also the corpus
36

delicti or the body of the crime.

In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the
law. Consequently, compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is
37

crucial in any prosecution that follows a buy-bust operation. The rule is imperative, as it is essential
that the prohibited drug recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as
exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that
requisite to make a finding of guilt.
38

In this regard, Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 lays down the following procedure to be followed in
39

order to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence: (1) the seized items must
be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory
and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or
counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative
from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.

The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the
buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team. In this connection, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be
40

physically present at the time of the conduct of the physical inventory of the seized items which, as
mentioned, must be immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation - a requirement that
can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its
nature, a planned activity.

In the present case, it appears that the buy-bust team committed several procedural lapses
concerning the chain of custody of the seized drug. In particular, the RTC and the CA found that: (1)
there was no representative from the DOJ present during the buy-bust operation and the inventory;
(2) the two other witnesses (i.e., the media representative and the elected public official) were not
present during the apprehension and seizure of the illegal drug but were merely called to sign the
inventory sheet; and (3) no photograph was presented showing the inventory of the seized shabu in
the presence of Tanes and the witnesses. These lapses in the chain of custody created doubt as to
the identity and integrity of the seized drug. Consequently, the evidence as to Tanes' guilt cannot be
characterized as strong.

No error in RTC's reliance on the case

of Jehar Reyes

Petitioner avers that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the bail application based
solely on the Jehar Reyes case. It maintains that R.A. 9165 only requires the presence of the three
witnesses during the conduct of the inventory, and not during the actual buy-bust operation.

The argument is without merit.

For reference, the relevant portion of Jehar Reyes is quoted below:

Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned the absence of any
representative of the media or of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of the elected public
official during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the confiscation of the dangerous
drugsfrom the accused in the area of operation. The Prosecution did not attempt to explain why
such presence of the media or DOJ representatives, and of the elected public official had not been
procured despite the buy-bust operation being mounted in the afternoon of November 27, 2002
following two weeks of surveillance to confirm the veracity of the report on the illegal trading in drugs
by the accused. The objective of requiring their presence during the buy-bust operation and at
the time of the recovery or confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area
of operation was to ensure against planting of evidence and frame up. It was clear that ignoring
such objective was not an option for the buy-bust team if its members genuinely desired to protect
the integrity of their operation. Their omission attached suspicion to the incrimination of the accused.
The trial and appellate courts should not have tolerated the buy-bust team's lack of prudence in not
complying with the procedures outlined in Section 21(1), supra, in light of the sufficient time for them
to comply. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
41

The RTC cannot thus be faulted for relying on the clear and unequivocal ruling made in Jehar
Reyes because unless overturned, the same remains good case law. To the contrary, Jehar
Reyes has even been cited by the Court in at least six cases subsequent to it, one of which
42

is People v. Sagana, wherein the Court made similar findings regarding the three witness rule.
43

Citing Jehar Reyes, the Court therein held:

Similarly, none of the required third-party representatives was present during the seizure and
inventory of the dangerous articles. Their presence in buy-bust operations and seizure of illicit
1âшphi1

articles in the place of operation would supposedly guarantee "against planting of evidence
and frame-up." In other words, they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination
proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."

x x x In this case, the records were bereft of any explanation why the third-party representatives
were present only during the belated photographing of the confiscated articles. Hence, the
very purpose of their mandated presence is defeated. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
44

It bears stressing that the pronouncement in Jehar Reyes as regards the presence of the three
witnesses in the buy-bust operation has also been ruled upon by the Court in other cases. In the
recent case of People v. Supat, the Court made the following pronouncements:
45

Section 21(1) of RA 9165 plainly requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of
the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation.
Further, the inventory must be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel, or
representative, a representative of the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official, who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. And only if this is not practicable that the IRR allows the inventory and photographing
at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. This also means
that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of
apprehension - a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team
considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. In other words, the
buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.

Moreover, while the IRR allows alternative places for the conduct of the inventory and photographing
of the seized drugs, the requirement of having the three required witnesses to be physically
present at the time or near the place of apprehension is not dispensed with. The reason is
simple: it is at the time of arrest - or at the time of the drugs "seizure and confiscation" - that
the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of
seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the police practice of planting
evidence. (Additional emphasis and underscoring supplied)
46

Also, the Court made similar pronouncements in People v. Tomawis, to wit:

47
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more
importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the
three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that
would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust
operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert
the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation
and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA
9165.

The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three
witnesses, when they could easily do so and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to
witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has
already been finished - does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses
prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.

To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the
drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they
are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to
witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately
after seizure and confiscation."48

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In this case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses showed noncompliance with the three-
witness rule: first, only two witnesses were present; and second, the two witnesses were merely
"'called in" to witness the inventory of the seized drug. Additionally, no photograph was presented
showing the inventory of the seized shabu in the presence of Tanes and the witnesses. Hence, the
RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it granted the petition for bail on the ground that
the evidence of Tanes' guilt was not strong due to doubts as regards the preservation of the chain of
custody. Such ruling by the RTC has unquestionable jurisprudential basis. Consequently, the CA
was correct in upholding the RTC.

A final note

There being non-compliance with the rule on chain of custody of the drug seized during the buy-bust
operation, the evidence of guilt for the crime of illegal sale of drugs against Tanes is deemed not
strong. Accordingly, he is entitled to bail.

The present ruling, however, should not prejudge the RTC's ruling on the merits of the case. Indeed,
there are instances when the Court had ruled that failure to strictly comply with the procedure in
Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items
void. In such cases, the prosecution must still satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground
for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved. The prosecution must be able to adequately explain the reasons behind the procedural
49

lapses.50

The Court emphasizes that no part of this Decision should prejudice the submission of additional
evidence for the prosecution to prove Tanes' guilt in the main case. After all, a grant of bail does not
prevent the RTC, as the trier of facts, from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial
on the merits. 51

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

J. Reyes, Jr., J., on wellness leave.

Footnotes

1
Rollo, pp. 13-73, excluding Annexes.

2
Id. at 75-83. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and concurred in by
Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon.

3
Id. at 85-86.

4
Id. at 131-135 and 136-137. Both penned by Judge Dennis A. Velasco.

5
Id. at 252-253.

6
Id. at 252.

7
Id. at 76, 254-255.