Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cagayan de Oro City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus - CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN

MIKE LAWRENCE HILL y

DIOMOLA,
Accused-Appellant.
x------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), respectfully
states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Accused-appellant Mike Lawrence Hill was charged

before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City with
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
91651 under the following Information:

That on or about 10:50 0' clock in the afternoon of

August 10, 2015 at Purok 9, Brgy. Urduja, Butuan City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-name accused, who is found positive for
use of Methamphetamine and THC-metabolites, without
authority of law and without the corresponding license or
prescription, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell and deliver two (2) heat-sealed ice water
cellophane of dried marijuana fruiting tops, with a total net
weight of forty six point five three four two (46.5342)
grams, more or less of substance, which gave a positive
result to the test of presence of marijuana, which is a
dangerous drug, to P02 Rexel B. Go, who is designated as
poseur-buyer for a consideration of One Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00).

CONTRARY TO LAW.2

1
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
2
Decision, p. 1.
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 2 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

2. When arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea

of “not guilty.”3 Trial ensued.

3. On February 20, 2020, the RTC rendered the

assailed Decision, disposing thus:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this court finds and so

hold:

(1) Accused MIKE LAWRENCE HILL y DIOMOLA

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Section 5 Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 and imposes upon him the penalty of
Life Imprisonment without eligibility for
parole and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00); and

Meanwhile, the items listed in the information shall be

forfeited in favor of the government and the evidence
custodian Court Interpreter Maricris L. Maclang is hereby
directed to turn-over to PDEA RO XIII the drug items, drug
paraphernalia and other proceeds of the crime for
destruction in accordance with Sections 20 and 21 of R.A
9165.

The accused shall serve his sentence at Davao Penal

Farm, Panabo City. The accused in the service of his
sentence shall be credited in his favor the period of the
preventive imprisonment that he has already undergone
under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
R.A. 10592 and R.A. 6127, as long as he abided by and
strictly followed the rules and regulations of the institution
where he was detained or confined.

SO ORDERED.4

4. Hence, this appeal.

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. The facts of the case as summarized by the RTC are

as follows:

3
Id.
4
Id. at p. 10.
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 3 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

PO2 Rexel B. Go, as member of PNP assigned at

BCPS-I, designated as Intelligence Operative deputized
with PDEA Office 13, and a member of AIDSOTF, testified
in court that their office had been receiving persistent
reports that a certain Mike Lawrence Hill y Diomola (Hill for
brevity) was engaged in illegal drug activities such as
selling Marijuana. With that, on August 10, 2015, their
office conducted a briefing for a buy-bust operation, made
a police blotter and a submission of Pre-Operation and
coordination with the PDEA Regional Office 13. This briefing
was headed by Station Commander PSI Nefre Telewik
Acaso whereby PO2 Rexel B. Go was designated as poseur-
buyer accompanied by the Police Asset (PA for brevity),
while SPO2 Alan M. Joville prepared the marked money.

Thereafter, at about 10:50 o'clock in the morning of

the same date, the operatives positioned themselves within
the vicinity of Purok 9, Brgy. Urduja, Butuan City, while PO2
Go and the PA were able to buy the marijuana from Mike
Lawrence Hill y Diomola, wherein PO2 Go personally handed
over to him (Hill) the marked money (PhP1,000.00) and Hill
gave the two (2) pieces heat-sealed ice water cellophane
which contained dried marijuana leaves.

Then, after the transaction was consummated, PO2

Go examined the contents of the said cellophane, and upon
confirmation that it was marijuana, then apprehended the
suspect. PO2 Go then called the attention of Barangay
Official Kagawad Romeo Chan, DOJ Representative Ronald
T. Bedrijo and Media Representative Danny Luyahan of
DXBC RMN in order to witness the search and seizure of the
suspect Mike Lawrence Hill y Diomola. Subsequently, PO3
Jezierel E. Sabaricos conducted body search on the suspect
(Hill) in the presence of the mentioned witnesses.

The following items were confiscated from the suspect's

possession and control in the presence of the above-
mentioned witnesses:

a.) Two (2) pieces heat-sealed ice water cellophane

of suspected dried Marijuana leaves marked as
MLHB-I and MLHBB-2, (buy-bust item);
b.) Two (2) pieces heat-sealed ice water cellophane
of suspected dried Marijuana leaves marked as
MLH-I and MLH-2;
c.) One (1) pc. Five Hundred Peso Bill (PhP500.00)
with serial no. BF 163037, as marked money;
d.) Five (5) pcs. One Hundred Peso Bill
(PhP100.00) with serial no. TZ163697,
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 4 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

TF960712, UA384633, KA704194 and

NP70494, as marked money;
e.) One (1) Black Bag Pack; and
f.) One (1) Black Pouch.

The above-mentioned confiscated items were

recorded by PO1 Gladdez C. Maquidato being designated as
recorder and evidence custodian and pictures were taken by
the designated photographer SPO2 Allan M. Joville. Later,
PO3 Mergel Anthony B. Plaza apprised the suspect Mike
Lawrence Hill y Diomola of his Constitutional Rights and
immediately brought the suspect to the office of the PNP,
Butuan City Police Station 1, Butuan City.

In addition, PO1 Gladdez C Maquida personally

delivered the confiscated items and the Request for
Laboratory Examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
chemical analysis. Chemistry Report No. D-596-2015,
prepared by Police Inspector Forensic Chemist Cindy
Villegas Mabilog, revealed the following result:

x-x-x

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:

Four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic packs, each

containing dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops, with the
following markings and recorded net weights:

A- MLHBB-I = C- MLH-I = 13.7784 grams

25.6450 grams;

B- Ml-HBB-2 D- MLH-2 =3.2965 grams

=20.8892 grams;
Total Net Weight: 69.6091 grams

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-

stated specimens gave POSITIVE results to the test for the
presence of Marijuana, a dangerous drug. xxx

x-x-x

CONCLUSION:

Specimens A, B, C and D contain Marijuana, a

Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 5 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

dangerous drug.5

ARGUMENT

Accused-appellant’s guilt for the

offense charged was proven
beyond reasonable doubt since all
the essential elements of illegal
sale of marijuana were duly
established by the prosecution.
----------------------------------------

6. In his Brief, accused-appellant maintains his

innocence and faults the RTC for not acquitting him based on
reasonable doubt. He insists that no buy-bust operation
actually took place on August 10, 2015. Allegedly, the lack of
specific details in the poseur-buyer’s testimony on the
conduct of the buy-bust operation cast serious doubts that it
actually took place and/or that the police officers carried out
the same in the regular performance of their official duties.

7. Accused-appellant’s arguments deserve scant

consideration.

8. Contrary to what accused-appellant would like this

Honorable Court to believe, the prosecution through the
testimony of PO2 Rexel Go established the fact that there was
a legally conducted buy-bust operation. PO2 Go’s testimony
clearly showed that their office received persistent reports
about the drug operations of accused-appellant; that the buy-
bust team planned a buy-bust operation; that the said
operation was indeed conducted; that a meeting took place
between PO2 Go and accused-appellant where they agreed
on the sale of marijuana; that the sale of marijuana actually
took place; and that the buy-bust operation resulted in the
arrest of accused-appellant and the confiscation of the subject
specimens.

9. The record of this case likewise shows that what

actually transpired was an entrapment and not a frame-up.
The buy-bust team never planted evidence to incriminate

5
Id. at pp. 2-3.
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 6 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

accused-appellant nor did they induce him to perform any

prohibited act which he would never have done but for such
inducement. On the contrary, the sale of marijuana was
made by accused-appellant on his own volition and the buy-
bust team merely devised a means to obtain evidence
thereof.

10. Indeed, accused-appellant was caught in a buy-

bust operation, a form of entrapment employed by peace
officers to effect the apprehension of a criminal in the act of
committing an offense. Entrapment is allowed when it is
undertaken with due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards. 6 It has repeatedly been accepted as a valid
means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.7

11. In People v. Doria,8 the Supreme Court declared:

We therefore stress that the objective test in buy-bust

operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This
must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer
and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation of the
sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.
The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether
or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug,
the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the
illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police
officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to
insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced
to commit an offense.

12. Applying this “objective test” to the case at bar, the

RTC correctly upheld the validity of the entrapment as shown
by the testimony of PO2 Go. His testimony showed the
complete details of the transaction, from the initial contact
with accused-appellant to the consummation of the sale and
his eventual arrest.

13. The essential elements to be established in the

prosecution of illegal sale of marijuana are as follows: (a) the

6
People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999).
7
People v. Montano, 337 SCRA 608 (2000).

8
Supra.
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 7 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and
the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.9 Both
were satisfactorily proven in the case at bar. PO2 Go was able
to testify positively and categorically that the transaction or
sale actually took place. The marijuana subject of the sale
was likewise positively identified by PO2 Go when presented
in court.

14. Accordingly, the elements necessary for the

successful prosecution of the illegal sale of marijuana as laid
down in People v. Lascano10 have been met in this case, thus:

a. The buyer was clearly identified as PO2 Rexel Go and

the seller as accused-appellant;

b. The object of the sale was established to be

marijuana;

c. The object of the crime was in fact delivered by

accused-appellant to the police poseur-buyer; and

d. Payment was made using marked money, which was

given to accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation.

15. In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has ruled

that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust
operation deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption
that they have performed their duties regularly. This
presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing
evidence is presented to prove either of two things: (a) that
they were not properly performing their duty, or (b) that they
were inspired by any improper motive.11

16. In this case, the members of the buy-bust team

properly performed their duties in the conduct of the buy-bust
operation.

9
People v. Lascano, G.R. No. 172605, November 22, 2010.
10
Supra.
11
People v. Valencia, 390 SCRA 696 (2002).
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 8 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

17. Likewise, the members of the buy-bust team were

not inspired by any improper motive. No evidence was
presented to show that accused-appellant's arrest was
resorted to in order to harass, extort, or abuse. Accused-
appellant did not cite any previous misunderstanding that
could have motivated the police officers to falsely charge him
with a serious offense. Evidently, there is no evidence to show
that the police officers were motivated by any ill reason other
than their official duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs.

18. Accused-appellant's defense which is anchored

mainly on bare denial cannot be given credence. Said defense
does not have more evidentiary weight than the positive
assertions of the prosecution witness. His defense is
unavailing considering that he was caught in flagrante delicto
in a legitimate buy-bust operation. The Supreme Court has
ruled that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has
been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can
just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard
defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.12

19. Absent any proof of intent on the part of the

prosecution witness to falsely impute such a serious crime
against accused-appellant, the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duty, as well as the doctrine that
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are
entitled to great respect, must prevail over accused-
appellant's defense of denial.

The prosecution was able to

establish an unbroken link in
the chain of custody of the
seized marijuana.
--------------------------------------

20. Contrary to accused-appellant’s claim, the failure to

strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the
items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of

12
People v. Ygot, G.R. No. 210715, July 18, 2016.
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 9 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the

evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.13

21. In the case at bar, the chain of custody of the seized

items was clearly shown not to have been broken. As aptly
declared by the RTC:

It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the

prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect
is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its
identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for
it to lead to a finding of guilt.

Here, the records reveal that after the consummation

of the sale and the consequent arrest of accused, the plastic
sachet sold by accused was marked with “MLH BB-1 and
MLH BB-2” at the place where it was confiscated by PO1
Maquidato. Thereafter, accused and the seized drug were
brought to police station 4. A request for laboratory
examination of the subject items was prepared. The said
request and specimens were delivered by PO1 Maquidato to
the Crime Laboratory. A qualitative examination of the
specimens by Forensic Chemist Mabilog revealed that the
same is positive for the presence of Marijuana, a dangerous
drug. During trial, the marked plastic sachet was presented
and identified by PO2 Rexel Go as the same item sold to him
by accused.

In this case, the chain of custody can be easily

established through the following link: (1) PO1 Maquidato
marked the buy-bust sachets with “MLH BB1 and MLH BB-
2”; (2) a request for laboratory examination of the buy-bust
items was signed by PSI Acaso; (3) the request and the
marked buy-bust items were personally delivered by PO1
Maquidato, and was received by the PNP Crime Laboratory;
(4) Chemistry Report No. D-596-2015 confirmed that the
marked item sold by accused was marijuana; and (5) the
marked item was offered in evidence.14

22. That the forensic chemist did not testify is of no

moment. The ruling in People v. Macaspac, et al.15 is apropos:

13
Zalameda v. People, 598 SCRA 537, 564 (2009).
14
Decision, p. 8.
15
G.R. No. 246165, November 18, 2019.
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 10 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

In People v. Cutara, the forensic chemist did not

testify in court. In lieu of his testimony, the prosecution
offered as evidence his chemistry report showing that the
seized item went through qualitative examination and
yielded positive for shabu, and it was the same item
presented in court as evidence. The Court held that the
prosecution successfully established the links in the chain of
custody over the seized drugs from the time of its
confiscation, to its qualitative examination at the crime
laboratory, up until it was offered in evidence. The totality
of the prosecution's evidence showed that the integrity of
the seized items had been duly preserved and its chain of
custody had been accounted for.

Too, in People v. Galicia, the Court decreed that the

prosecution's failure to present the forensic chemist to
testify on how the seized items were handled and taken into
custody was not fatal to the admissibility of the seized
drugs. People v. Padua further elucidated, viz.:

Further, not all people who came into contact with the
seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing
in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the
same that imposes such requirement. As long as the chain
of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to
have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to
identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable
that each and every person who came into possession of the
drugs should take the witness stand. x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

xxx xxx xxx.

The Court has invariably ordained that while the chain

of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, "as
it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."
The most important factor is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items to
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, as in this
case.

23. It is thus clear that the prosecution was able to

prove, through documentary and testimonial evidence, that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
properly preserved every step of the way.
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 11 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

24. In People v. Ygot,16 it was held that as long as the

State can show by record or testimony that the integrity of
the evidence has not been compromised by accounting for the
continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least
between the time it came into the possession of the police
officers until it was tested in the laboratory, then the
prosecution can maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25. The ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. O-

Cochlain17 is likewise apropos:

It is unfortunate that the rigid obedience

to procedure on the chain of custody creates a
scenario wherein the safeguards supposedly set
to shield the innocent are more often than not
exploited by the guilty to escape rightful
punishment. The Court reiterates that while the
procedure on the chain of custody should be
perfect, in reality, it is almost always impossible
to obtain an unbroken chain. The chain of
custody need not be perfect for the evidence to
be admissible. Thus, failure to strictly comply
with Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 does not
necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or
the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible or render void and invalid such
seizure. The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item.

Non-compliance with the requirements of

the law is not automatically fatal to the
prosecution’s case and the accused may still be
held guilty of the offense charged. This Court
ratiocinated in People v. Del Monte:

Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the

Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when
it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules. For
evidence to be inadmissible, there should
be a law or rule which forbids its reception.
If there is no such law or rule, the evidence
must be admitted subject only to the
evidentiary weight that will [be] accorded
[to] it by the courts. x x x

16
Supra.
17
G.R. No. 229071, December 10, 2018
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 12 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

We do not find any provision or

statement in said law or in any rule that will
bring about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to
non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there
is non-compliance with said section, is not
of admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary
merit or probative value — to be given the
evidence. The weight to be given by the
courts on said evidence depends on the
circumstances obtaining in each case.
(Italics in the original)

We restated in People v. Moner that if the

evidence of illegal drugs was not handled
precisely in the manner prescribed by the chain
of custody rule, the consequence relates not to
inadmissibility that would automatically destroy
the prosecution's case but rather to the weight
of evidence presented for each particular case.
The saving clause under Section 21 (1) of R.A.
No. 9165 recognizes that the credibility of the
prosecution’s witnesses and the admissibility of
other evidence are well within the power of trial
court judges to decide. The Court went on to
state that under the doctrine of separation of
powers, it is important to distinguish if a matter
is a proper subject of the rules of evidence,
which are promulgated by the Court pursuant to
paragraph (5), Section 5, Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution, or if it is a subject of
substantive law, which is passed by an act of
Congress. Taking into account the distinction in
criminal law that a substantive law declares
what acts are crimes and prescribes the
punishment for committing them while a
procedural law provides or regulates the steps
by which one who commits a crime is to be
punished, it was concluded that the chain of
custody rule is a matter of evidence and a rule
of procedure; therefore, it is the Court which
has the last say regarding the appreciation of
evidence.

Certainly, the chain of custody rule is a

matter of evidence and a rule of procedure, it
being ultimately anchored on the weight and
admissibility of evidence which the courts have
the exclusive prerogative to decide. Any
missing link, gap, doubt, challenge, break,
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 13 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

problem, defect or deficiency in the chain of

custody goes to the weight of the evidence, not
its admissibility. Once admitted, the court
evaluates it and, based thereon, may accept or
disregard the evidence. In People v. Sipin, this
Court, through the ponente, recently conveyed:

At this point, it is not amiss for the

ponente to express his position regarding
the issue of which between the Congress
and the Judiciary has jurisdiction to
determine sufficiency of compliance with
the rule on chain of custody, which
essentially boils down to the application of
procedural rules on admissibility of
evidence. In this regard, the ponente
agrees with the view of Hon. Associate
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro in
People v. Teng Moner y Adam that "if the
evidence of illegal drugs was not handled
precisely in the manner prescribed by the
chain of custody rule, the consequence
relates not to inadmissibility that would
automatically destroy the prosecution's
case but rather to the weight of evidence
presented for each particular case." As
aptly pointed out by Justice Leonardo-De
Castro, the Court's power to promulgate
judicial rules, including rules of evidence, is
no longer shared by the Court with
Congress.

The ponente subscribes to the view

of Justice Leonardo-De Castro that the
chain of custody rule is a matter of
evidence and a rule of procedure, and that
the Court has the last say regarding the
appreciation of evidence. Evidentiary
matters are indeed well within the powers
of courts to appreciate and rule upon, and
so, when the courts find appropriate,
substantial compliance with the chain of
custody rule as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items have
been preserved may warrant the conviction
of the accused.

The ponente further submits that

the requirements of marking the
seized items, conduct of inventory and
taking photograph in the presence of a
representative from the media or the
DOJ and a local elective official, are
police investigation procedures which
call for administrative sanctions in
case of non-compliance. Violation of
such procedure may even merit
penalty under R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 14 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

Section 29. Criminal

liability for Planting of Evidence. —
Any person who is found guilty of
"planting" any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical, regardless of
quantity and purity, shall suffer the
penalty of death.

Section 32. Liability to a

Person Violating Any Regulation
Issued by the Board. — The
penalty of imprisonment ranging
from six (6) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years and a fine
ranging from Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person found
violating any regulation duly issued
by the Board pursuant to this Act,
in addition to the administrative
sanctions imposed by the Board.

However, non-observance of such

police administrative procedures should not
affect the validity of the seizure of the
evidence, because the issue of chain of
custody is ultimately anchored on the
admissibility of evidence, which is
exclusively within the prerogative of the
courts to decide in accordance with the
rules on evidence. (Emphasis and italics in
the original)

Strict compliance with the requirements

of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 may not
always be possible under field conditions; the
police operates under varied conditions, many
of them far from ideal, and cannot at all times
attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the
handling of confiscated evidence. Like what
have been done in past cases, we must not look
for the stringent step-by-step adherence to the
procedural requirements; what is important is
to ensure the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
these would determine the guilt or innocence of
the accused. The identity of the confiscated
drugs is preserved when the drugs presented
and offered as evidence in court is the exact
same item seized from the accused at the time
of his arrest, while the preservation of the drug’s
integrity means that its evidentiary value is
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 15 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

intact as it was not subject to planting,

switching, tampering or any other circumstance
that casts doubt as to its existence.

To assess an allegedly faulty chain of

custody, the court looks for ample corroborative
evidence as to the evidence’s acquisition and
subsequent custody. Before admitting or
excluding real evidence, it must consider the
nature of the evidence, and the surrounding
circumstances of, including presentation,
custody and probability of tampering or
alteration. If, after considering these factors, it
is determined that the evidence is substantially
in the same condition as when the crime was
committed, the evidence may be admitted. The
court need not rule out every possibility that the
evidence underwent alteration; it needs only to
find that the reasonable probability is that
the evidence has not been altered in any
material aspect. Physical evidence is admissible
when the possibilities of misidentification or
alteration are eliminated, not absolutely, but as
a matter of reasonable probability. All that is
required is that the evidence in question was the
same as that involved in the offense and that it
is substantially unchanged.

26. All told, the prosecution had sufficiently established

accused-appellant’s guilt for violation of Section 5, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165 beyond reasonable doubt. On the other
hand, the defense of denial as well as the other points
advanced by accused-appellant failed to cast even a scintilla
of doubt on his culpability. Accordingly, there exists no cogent
reason to reverse or even modify the findings of the RTC
giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the appealed

Decision, being in accord with the law and the evidence on
record, be AFFIRMED in toto.

Makati City for Cagayan de Oro City, November 25, 2021.

Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02593-MIN Page 16 of 16
x--------------------------------------x

JOSE C. CALIDA
Solicitor General
Roll No. 24852
IBP Lifetime No. 015360; 08-18-16
MCLE Exemption No. VII-OSG000228; 11-05-19

B. MARC A. CANUTO
Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 42237
IBP Lifetime No. 09130; 04-28-10
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021024; 03-26-19

DENNIS O. GO
Associate Solicitor III
Roll No. 63750
IBP Lifetime No. 012822 / 05-12-14
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021062 / 03-26-19
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. No. 89881674; Email Add.:efile@osg.gov.ph

Copy furnished:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Regional Special and Appealed Cases Unit-Mindanao Station
2nd Floor, BJS Building
Tiano-San Agustin Streets
9000 Cagayan de Oro City

MANIFESTATION

Filing in court and service on the adverse counsel are

being done by registered mail due to distance.

DENNIS O. GO
Associate Solicitor III
BMC/DOG/AMDT/21-006078