Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

FIFTH (5TH) DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

GONZALES-SISON, M.B., CHAIRPERSON,

- versus - ATAL-PAÑO, P.S.T., AND
DE LEON, M.M., JJ.

LEVIE ROYO Y MORABE,

Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:

MAY 24, 2024

DECISION

ATAL-PAÑO, J.:

Before Us is an appeal1 under Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules on

Criminal Procedure filed by the accused-appellant assailing the
November 11, 2022 Joint Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth
Judicial Region, Branch 3, Batangas City (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos.
21-28470 and 21-28471, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA
9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, as amended.3

1 Rollo, p. 17; records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), p. 193.

2 Id. at 74-99; id. at 164-189, penned by Acting Presiding Judge Nevic C. Adolfo.
3 As amended by Republic Act No. 10640 approved on July 15, 2014.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 2 of 22
DECISION

The Facts

Two Informations4 dated July 26, 2021 were filed against accused-
appellant Levie Royo y Morabe (Royo) for violation for Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of RA 9165, as amended, the accusatory portions of which read as
follows:

In Criminal Case No. 21-28470:

That on or about July 22, 2021 at around 8:47 [p.m.] at

Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of [the RTC, Royo], not being authorized by law,
did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally sell or
dispense one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more
commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.19 gram, a dangerous
drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law."
CONTRARY TO LAW.5

In Criminal Case No. 21-28471:

That on or about July 23, 2021 at around 8:47 [p.m.] at

Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of [the RTC, Royo], not being authorized by law,
did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally
possess or have under his custody and control three (3) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets containing
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as
Shabu, containing an aggregate weight of 5.81 grams, a
dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited
law."
CONTRARY TO LAW.6

Upon arraignment,7 Royo pleaded not guilty to the above charges.

During the Pre-Trial Conference,8 the parties stipulated on Royo's identity as
the accused, the authenticity and due execution of several documents and the
4 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), pp. 1-2 and 2a-2b; records (Criminal Case No. 21-28471), pp. 1-2.
5 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), pp. 1-2 and 2a-2b.
6 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28471), pp. 1-2.
7 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), pp. 53-57, Arraignment and Pre-Trial Order dated October 28,
2021.
8 Id.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 3 of 22
DECISION

exhibits they reference.9

Trial the ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) PCPI

Benjamin Dalisay (PCPI. Dalisay),10 the poseur-buyer; (2) Celso Perez y
Sanchez (Kag. Perez),11 a barangay kagawad; and (3) Benedicto Griño
(Griño),12 a media representative. With regard to the testimonies of: (a)
Rodel Espina (Espina),13 the evidence custodian at the Office of the City
Prosecutor (OCP); (b) PSSg. Rovel Catilo (PSSg. Catilo),14 the investigator;
(c) PSSg. Gladwyn Solis (PSSg. Solis),15 the duty receiving officer at the
Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory (crime laboratory); (d) PSSg. Isidro
Manalo (PSSg. Manalo),16 evidence custodian at the crime laboratory; (e)
PMaj. Camille Ocfemia (FC Ocfemia), the forensic chemist; and (f) PSSg.
Paul Silva (PSSg. Silva),17 the duty desk officer at the Batangas City Police
Station (police station), the parties entered into stipulations on their
testimonies.

The evidence for the prosecution are summarized as follows: on July

22, 2021, at around 6:15 p.m., PCPI. Dalisay was on-duty at the City Drug
Enforcement Unit (CDEU) of their police station when a confidential
informant (CI) arrived and relayed information about the illegal drug
activities of a certain “Levie,” later identified to be accused-appellant Royo,
at his meat shop in Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City.18 That same evening, under
the instruction of PCPI. Dalisay, the CI contacted Royo and told him that his
“kabarkada” would like to buy ₱500.00 worth of shabu from him.19 Royo
agreed, and the CI and Royo arranged to meet that evening for the
purchase.20 Therafter, the police officers began preparing for the conduct of a

9 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), pp. 56.

10 Transcript of Stenograph Notes (TSN), March 4, 2022, p 5. The parties adopted PCPI. Dalisay's
Sinumpaang Salaysay (Sworn Statement) as his testimony on direct examination.
11 TSN, April 20, 2022.
12 TSN, April 27, 2022.
13 Id. Proposals for Stipulations dated March 7, 2022.
14 Id. at 71-72, Proposals for Stipulations dated March 7, 2022.
15 Id. Proposals for Stipulation dated February 8, 2022.
16 Id. at 40-41, Proposals for Stipulations dated February 8, 2022.
17 Id. at 84-85, Proposals for Stipulations dated March 7, 2022.
18 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), pp. 4-5.
19 Id. at 5.
20 Id.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 4 of 22
DECISION

buy-bust operation, where PCPI. Dalisay would pretend to be the CI's

kabarkada and poseur-buyer.21 At around 8:35 p.m., the buy-bust team,
together with the CI and media representative Griño, proceeded to the Brgy.
Hall of Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City.22

At around 8:35 p.m., the buy-bust arrived at the barangay hall and
invited Kag. Perez to be a witness to the buy-bust operation, to which the
latter agreed.23 From there, the buy-bust team, Griño, Kag. Perez, and the CI
proceeded to the target area.24

When close to the target area, PCPI. Dalisay and the CI alighted from
the vehicle while the rest of the buy-bust operatives parked their vehicle
nearby and waited inside.25 Eventually, PCPI. Dalisay and the CI saw Royo
and approached him.26 The CI introduced PCPI. Dalisay as the kabarkada
interested in buying shabu.27 PCPI. Dalisay then made an offer to purchase
shabu, and took, from his right pocket, the marked ₱500.00 bill, which he
gave to Royo.28 In turn, Royo brought out a coin purse, and from inside the
said coin purse, took out a heat-sealed transparent sachet containing a
substance that PCPI. Dalisay suspected to be shabu.29 Royo gave the sachet
to PCPI. Dalisay which prompted the latter to execute the pre-arranged
signal to the other buy-bust operatives that the sale had been consummated. 30
Thereafter, Royo was arrested.

After the arrest, PCPI. Dalisay immediately marked the seized item
with the markings “BAD1 7-22-2021” in the presence of Royo, Griño, and
Kag. Perez.31 PCPI. Dalisay then searched again the person of Royo and
found, from his left pocket the coin purse which contained three (3) more
plastic sachet of the suspicious substance, and the buy-bust money. 32 At 8:55
p.m., the buy-bust operatives conducted the inventory of the seized items,
which were marked as follows:

21 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), p. 5.

22 Id.
23 Id. at 6.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 6.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 6-7.
32 Id. at 7.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 5 of 22
DECISION

Item/s Markings
One (1) heat-sealed transparent “BAD1 7-22-2021,” with
plastic sachet subject of the sale signature
Three (1) heat-sealed transparent “BAD2 7-22-2021” to
plastic sachets found inside the coin- “BAD4 7-22-2021,” all with
purse signature
Coin purse “BAD5”
Two ₱100.00 bills “1” and “2”

Several photographs were also taken during the inventory.33 After the
inventory, PCPI. Dalisay placed the seized items in a self-sealing transparent
plastic sachet, which he marked with his initials, date, and signature. 34
Thereafter, the buy-bust operatives brought Royo to the police station, with
PCPI. Dalisay retaining possession of the seized items.35

At the police station, PCPI. Dalisay transferred custody of the seized

items to a PSSg. Catilo, the investigator. 36 PSSg. Catilo then prepared
several documents, and thereafter, submitted the same to the crime
laboratory, where it was received by PSSg. Solis, the duty receiving officer
thereat.37 Later, he turned over the seized items to FC Ocfemia who
conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens, which yielded a
positive result to the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or
shabu, a dangerous drug.38 Thereafter, FC Ocfemia sealed the seized items,
placed her markings thereon, and gave the same to PSSg. Manalo, the crime
laboratory's evidence custodian,39 who in turn kept the seized items in the
evidence room.

On February 4, 2022, PSSg. Manalo withdrew the seized items

therefrom, and delivered the same to Espina, 40 the evidence custodian of the
OCP.41 Espina then presented the seized items to the RTC.42

33 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), p. 7.

34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 8.
37 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), p. 72, Proposals for Stipulation.
38 Id. at 36, Proposals for Stipulation dated February 8, 2022.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 40-41, Proposals for Stipulations dated February 8, 2022.
41 Id. at 69-70, Proposal for Stipulations dated March 7, 2022.
42 Id. at 70.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 6 of 22
DECISION

The prosecution offered43 in evidence several documents,

photographs, and the seized items, all of which were admitted by the RTC in
its its Order44 dated May 25, 2022. Thereafter, the prosecution rested its
case.45

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented Royo46 and one of his store's patrons,

Patrosinio Beredo (Beredo),47 whose testimonies were summarized by the
RTC as follows:

[Royo] testified that before he was a detention

prisoner, he was a Master Meat Cutter at the New Public
Market, Batangas City xxx
He testified that he was taken by several armed men at
Brgy. Soro-Soro, Batangas City [and t]hat no sale of shabu
transpired between him and the police poseur[-]buyer on July
22, 2021 at around 8:47 [p.m.] at Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City.
He stated also that no illegal drugs were found in his
possession. On July 22, 2020, he was at work as Master Meat
cutter at the New Public Market, Batangas City in the
morning and left when he finished his work at around 1:00
[p.m.] He went straight home to his residence at San Pascual,
Batangas to provide food for his family. He left his house
after the rain stopped and proceeded to [Soro-Soro] Villa
Mercedes to collect payments from his client [Beredo] for the
loaned meat of pork and beef. [Beredo] and Royo had no
prior agreement as to their meeting but Royo's regular
collection of payment from Beredo was every other day.
When he arrived at [Soro-Soro], Batangas City and about to
alight from his motorcycle, he was approached by (2) two
men at the gate of the house of [Beredo]. The men asked him
where he will go and he answered, “Dito po kina [Beredo]
maniningil po ako para sa bayad ng karneng baboy at
43 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), pp. 95-102, Formal Offer of Evidence for the Prosecution. The
prosecution offered in evidence trhe Sworn Satatement of PCPI. Dalisay, Affidavit of Investigator, Entry Nos. 2021-07-
02897, 2021-07-02899, and 2021-07-02900, Pre-Operation Report, Coordination Form, Certified Copy of the Log
Book of Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City, Certificate of Inventory, Chain of Custody Form, Booking Sheet/Arrest Report,
Spot Report, Request for Drug Test, Request for Laboratory Examination, Chemistry Report No. BD-1008-2021, crime
laboratory Chain of Custody Form, Acknowledgment Receipt, and Chemistry Report No. BCRIMDT-1124-2021.
44 Id. at 145.
45 Id.
46 TSN, June 3, 2022, June 17, 2022, July 1, 2022, July 8, 2022, and July 13, 2022.
47 TSN, August 10, 2022.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 7 of 22
DECISION

baka[.”] They told him, "Hindi yan ang pakay mo dyan" xxx.
Then, they frisked him but did not find anything illegal. When
one man opened and searched the U-box of his motorcycle,
the same man said, "Ilabas mo na ang basura" but he does
not know what "basura" the man was referring to. The other
man said, "Paano yan pare, wala naman tayong makuha” and
the other man answered, "Sige isama mo na yan, dagdag
kota” xxx. Afterwards, he was forcefully brought inside a
black Starex van. Inside, he was punched "Don po nila ako
pinagsusuntok sa aking tagiliran at sa aking dibdib” xxx. He
was then brought at the 2nd floor of the Batangas City Police
Station where he was again punched and kicked while seating
at the corner of the room. They asked for his name, address[,]
and other personal information. He was also instructed to sign
a document and place his finger prints on it. Then,
photographs of him were taken. Afterwards, he was
handcuffed and brought near his workplace at the New Public
Market where he was asked to urinate in a plastic bottle.
Then, a man placed something inside his pocket which he
does not know. Several men arrived on board a Barangay
service vehicle. They brought out white substance inside a
plastic container previously placed inside his pocket while
photographs were being taken. He was then boarded again in
a vehicle and proceeded to the camp. A man got the bottle
filled with his urine and when he returned, he said, “Pare
ayos na, tayo na[.”] He was brought to the Batangas Regional
Hospital for medical examination. A certain woman
approached him and asked him if he was beaten. He was not
able to reply because he was already threatened by the men
who took him. The men told him "Huwag ka ng umimik para
hindi ka na masaktan at madamay ang pamilya mo" xxx.
From Batangas Regional Hospital, he was taken back to the
police station where he was detained.
xxx xxx xxx
[Beredo] is 51 years old, owner of small store of
cooked meals and variety products. He is presently detained
at Batangas City Police Station for Violation of [RA 9165].
He testified that he purchased meat products from [Royo] for
[five (5)] years and usually pays for his order every other day.
On July 22, 2021, he was at his residence at Brgy. Soro-soro,
Batangas City, he was arrested inside their house for being
allegedly involved in illegal drugs. He was previously
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 8 of 22
DECISION

charged for violation of [RA] 9165, before RTC-Branch 84,

Batangas City but he was acquitted. On even date, he and
Royo were supposed to meet. Royo [would] supposedly [pay]
his loan to him.48

The defense orally offered49 Royo's Identification Card, which was

admitted by the RTC in its Order50 dated August 10, 2022. Thereafter, the
case was submitted for decision.

The Ruling of the RTC

In the assailed Joint Decision51 dated November 11, 2022, the RTC
convicted Royo for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, as
amended, the dispositive portion thereof reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Judgment is

hereby rendered:
1. In Criminal Case [N]o. 21-28470, finding [Royo]
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for Violation
of Section 5 Article II of [RA] 9165 xxx and is hereby
sentenced to suffer penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of [₱500,000.00]; [and]
2. In Criminal Case [N]o. 21-28471, finding [Royo]
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for Violation
of Section 11, paragraph 2, Article II of [RA] 9165 xxx and is
hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of Twenty (20)
years and One (1) day to life imprisonment and to pay the
fine of [₱400,000.00].
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.52

Hence, the present appeal.

48 Rollo, pp. 86-89.

49 Records (Criminal Case No 21-28470), p. 161, Order dated August 10, 2022.
50 Id.
51 Rollo, pp. 74-99.
52 Id. at 98-99
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 9 of 22
DECISION

The Assigned Errors

In his Appellant's Brief,53 Royo ascribes the following errors on the

part of the RTC:

I.
THE [RTC] GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [ROYO]
OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
[RA 9165], DESPITE THE INCREDIBLE AND
IMPROBABLE ACCOUNT OF THE POLICE OFFICERS
ON THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION[;]
II.
THE [RTC] GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [ROYO]
OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARITCLE II OF
RA 9165, DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF [HIS]
WARRANT OF ARREST AND THE INADMISSIBILITY
OF THE ITEMS ALLEGEDLY RECOVERED FROM
HIM[;]
III.
THE [RTC] GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [ROYO]
OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
RA 9165, DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS'
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF
CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DANGEROUS
DRUGS[; AND]
IV.
THE [RTC] GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING
OUTRIGHT [ROYO'S] DEFENSE OF DENIAL.54

On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, represented by the

Office of Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that the prosecution was able
to prove all the elements of the offenses committed, and ergo, Royo's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Our Ruling

Foremost, We must stress the well-settled rule that in criminal cases,

“an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing
53 Rollo, pp. 45-71.
54 Id. at 48-49.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 10 of 22
DECISION

tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or

even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that
the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full
jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine
records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the
proper provision of the penal law.”55

After a meticulous review of the records, the facts, evidence

presented, and the attending circumstances, We resolve to grant the appeal
and acquit Royo for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, as
amended.

A valid buy-bust operation was

conducted against Royo.

In his opening salvo, Royo contends that the prosecution witnesses'

testimonies should be deemed incredible and improbable to prove the
legality of the buy-bust operation.56 He points out that PCPI. Dalisay failed
to show that he knew about the prior transaction between the CI and Royo. 57
He likewise points out that the witness never mentioned how the CI
supposedly communicated with him for the purchase of the illegal drug.
Lastly, Royo argues that PCPI. Dalisay failed to describe the contents of the
plastic sachet.58

The arguments are unmeritorious.

Buy-bust operations are recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate

form of entrapment of the persons suspected of being involved in drug
dealings.59 In Tan v. People,60 the Supreme Court applied the “objective test”
to determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, viz.:

To determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, the

Court has consistently applied the "objective test." In People
v. Doria, the Court explained that the "objective test" requires
the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust
55 People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 217889, March 14, 2018 citing Ramos v. People, G.R. Nos. 218466 &
221425, January 23, 2017.
56 Rollo, p. 56.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 People v. Carrera, G.R. No. 215731, September 2, 2015.
60 G.R. No. 232611, April 26, 2021 (Resolution).
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 11 of 22
DECISION

operation to be clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the initial

contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase the drug, and the promise or payment of the
consideration, payment using the buy-bust or marked money,
up to the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the
illegal drug subject of the sale whether to the informant alone
or the police officer. All these details must be subject of strict
scrutiny by courts to ensure that citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense. (citations omitted)

In this case, and contrary to the arguments of Royo, the prosecution

was able to depict a clear picture of how the buy-bust operation had been
conducted against Royo. PCPI. Dalisay's Sworn Statement, which was
adopted as part of his testimony on direct examination, readily shows all the
necessary details to prove the validity of the buy-bust operation.

Na, nagtungo na kami sa sinasabing lugar ng aking

asset at pagdating namin doon ay nakita namin nang aking
asset ang isang lalaki na naka dilaw na sando at kulay itim
na jogging pans na nakatambay at naghihintay na ayon sa
aking asset ay si [Royo] at lumapit kami sa kanyang
kinatatayuan at nang aming makaharap ay ipinakilala ako ng
aking asset kay [Royo] na kanyang kabarkada sumunod ay
sandali kaming kinausap ni [Royo] at doon ay sinabi ko na
pakuha ng halagang [₱500.00] kasa ng shabu at hiningi na
ni [Royo] ang bayad at kinuha ko sa aking kanang unahang
bulsa ang [₱500.00] na buy-bust money at ibinigay ko kay
[Royo] at matapos na matanggap ni [Royo] ang pera ay may
kinuha si [Royo] sa kanyang kaliwang unahang bulsa ang
isang coin purse at mula sa coin purse ay kumuha ng isang
(1) piraso heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet na
naglalaman ng pinaghihinalaang shabu at iniabot ito sa akin
ni [Royo];
Na, nang akin itong matanggap at nakita ko na
naglalaman ito ng pinaghihinalaang shabu ay inilagay ko
pansamantala ang nasabing sachet sa aking kanang bulsa at
doon ay pasimple na akong tumawag sa aking mga kasama
gamit ang aking sariling cellphone na iyon ang aking hudyat
na nakabili na ako ng shabu at doon ay nagpakilala akong
pulis Batangas City kay [Royo] at sa pagkakataong iyon ay
inaresto ko na itong si [Royo] at nang makalapit ang aking
mga kasamahang pulis kasunod sila [Griño] ng Headlines
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 12 of 22
DECISION

News Today at [Kag. Perez] ay inalalayan ako sa pag aresto

kay [Royo] at sinabihan ko siya ng kanyang mga karapatan
alinsunod sa Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas (Miranda Doctrine
at Anti-[T]orture Law) at ipinaliwanag ko sa kanya ang mga
kasalanang ginawa niya hinggil sa pagbebenta niya ng
illegal droga/"shabu" 61

The above narration suffices to prove all the requisites of a valid buy-
bust operation. The identities of PCPI. Dalisay as the poseur-buyer and Royo
as the drug dealer are unequivocally evident. Moreover, there was a clear
and direct offer to purchase drugs in the amount of ₱500.00, a promise to
pay the same amount, and an exchange of the illegal contraband for the
marked money. Evidently, there is no reason to doubt that a valid buy-bust
operation was indeed conducted against Royo.

Royo seeks his acquittal by arguing that PCPI. Dalisay did not know
about the prior transaction between him and the CI or how he communicated
with him for the purchase of the illegal drug. He likewise attempts to make
an issue about the failure to describe the contents of the illegal drugs.

The arguments deserve scant consideration.

At the onset, it is stressed that the cited details do not affect the
validity of the buy-bust operation conducted against Royo. Matters
regarding the prior coordination by the CI with Royo, or a description of the
contents of the sachets purchased, are not necessary to prove that an actual
sale of illegal drugs transpired with the poseur-buyer and the illegal drugs
dealer. As jurisprudence requires, only details on “the initial contact between
the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase the drug, and the
promise or payment of the consideration, payment using the buy-bust or
marked money, up to the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the
illegal drug subject of the sale” are required to prove the validity of the
operation, all of which were established through the testimony of PCPI.
Dalisay.

61 Records, p. 6.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 13 of 22
DECISION

Royo's objections to the legality of

his warrantless arrest are deemed
waived.

Premised on the flawed argument that no valid buy-bust operation was

conducted against him, Royo submits that the warrantless arrest against him
was invalid.62

We do not agree.

In Ta-Ala v. People,63 citing the case of People v. Vallejo,64 the

Supreme Court ruled that the accused is precluded from questioning the
legality of their arrest after arraignment, or after they have voluntarily
entered their plea and participated during trial, without previously invoking
their objections thereto. Thus:

We have consistently held that any objection by the

accused to an arrest without a warrant must be made
before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is
deemed waived. We have also ruled that an accused may be
estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to
move for the quashing of the Information against him before
his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest affects
only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
accused, any defect in his arrest may be deemed cured
when he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the
trial court as what was done by the appellants in the
instant case. Not only did they enter their pleas during
arraignment, but they also actively participated during the
trial which constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in their
arrest. (emphasis supplied)

As in this case, Royo failed to timely object to the validity of his arrest
prior to arraignment. He did not file any motion to quash, nor plead for the
suppression of the evidence obtained on the occasion of his supposed illegal
apprehension. Having failed to do so, his objection to the legality of his
arrest are deemed waived.

62 Rollo, p. 58.
63 G.R. No. 254800, June 20, 2022.
64 G.R. No. 125784, November 19, 2003.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 14 of 22
DECISION

The police officers failed to

preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti.

Notwithstanding the above findings on the validity of the buy-bust

operation and arrest, We hold that Royo's acquittal is in order in view of the
prosecution's failure to comply with the rule on the chain of custody of the
corpus delicti.

In all prosecutions under RA 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous

drug itself.65 The integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to
have been duly preserved from the moment it was confiscated until
presented in court.66 For this purpose, the rule on the chain of custody has
been adopted.67

The Supreme Court has emphasized in a deluge of cases that the

failure to establish the corpus delicti, through the observance of the rule on
the chain of custody, invariably leads to the acquittal of an accused. It is
absolutely necessary that the identity of the dangerous drug be established
with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an
integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.68 Failure to prove the integrity
of the corpus delicti leaves the evidence for the State inadequate for a
conviction and hence, warrants an acquittal. Clearly, therefore, compliance
with the chain of custody rule is crucial in establishing the accused's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.69

There are four (4) critical links in the chain of custody of dangerous
drugs: first, seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second, turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third,
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, turnover and submission of
the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.70

65 People v. Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017.

66 Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 185460, July 25, 2012.
67 People v. Lat, G.R. No. 234010, November 28, 2019 (Notice).
68 People v. Mejia, G.R. No. 241778, June 15, 2020.
69 People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019.
70 CICL XXX v. People, G.R. No. 230964, March 2, 2022.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 15 of 22
DECISION

Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, prescribes the

standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drugs cases, viz.:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,

Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources
of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected
public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case
of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
and custody over said items.

The Guidelines71 on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)

of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, likewise ordains:

SECTION 1. Implementing Guidelines. — The PDEA

shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and

71 Published on May 28, 2015.

CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 16 of 22
DECISION

essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia

and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
A. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody
Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR
A.1. The apprehending or seizing officer having
initial custody and control of the seized or
confiscated dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, mark, inventory and photograph the
same in the following manner:
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.2. The marking is the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initial and signature on the item/s seized.
A.1.3. In warrantless seizures, the marking, physical
inventory and photograph of the seized items in the
presence of the violator shall be done immediately at
the place where the drugs were seized or at the
nearest police station or nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the
seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence
of the suspect or his representative or counsel, with
elected public official and a representative of the
National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media,
who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be
given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it
shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in
the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or
seizing officer.

Here, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 17 of 22
DECISION

First Link: Marking and Inventory

of the Seized Items Recovered from
the Accused.

At the onset, the breaks in the chain of custody begin as early as the
first link, which requires, among others, that the mandatory witnesses be
present during apprehension of the accused, and the confiscation of the
illegal drugs from his possession. This has been made clear in the case of
People v. Globa,72 where the Supreme Court held:

The above-cited provisions clearly require the

apprehending team to "immediately after seizure and
confiscation" conduct the marking, inventory, and taking of
photographs of the seized items. Further, it is required that
said steps be undertaken in the presence of any elected public
official and a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) who are required to sign the
inventory and given copies thereof. This Court has, in no
ambiguous language, explained the necessity of having
these witnesses, not only during the inventory, but more
importantly, at the time of apprehension and seizure. In
fact, it is at the time of arrest and confiscation when the
insulating presence of the witnesses is needed, as it is their
presence at such stage that would foreclose the pernicious
practice of planting of evidence or compromising the
integrity of the same. To be sure, this is a requirement that
the buy-bust team could easily comply with given the nature
of a buy-bust operation as supposedly a well-planned activity.
(emphasis supplied)

In this case, the prosecution failed to convincingly prove that the

mandatory witnesses to the inventory were present at or nearby the place of
apprehension. This is because PCPI. Dalisay made conflicting statement
regarding the presence of the mandatory witness at the time Royo was
arrested and the seized items confiscated from him. Initially, PCPI. Dalisay
claimed that the mandatory witnesses were inside the vehicle, which was
parked nearby the place of apprehension. The pertinent portion of PCPI.
Dalisay's Sworn Statement reads:

Na, kasama na si [Griño] ng Headlines News Today at

[Kag. Perez] at mga kasamahan kong Pulis ay agad kaming
72 G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 18 of 22
DECISION

nagtungo sa dati nilang tagpuan sa may saradong tindahan

sakop Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City kung saan ay ang driver ay
si PCpl Erwin Micheal Brotonel at nasa aking tabi ang aking
asset upang di mahalata na may kasama kami at nang
makarating kami sa nasabing lugar ay ipinarada namin ang
aming sasakyan sa tabing kalsada at bumaba na kami ng
aking asset at ang aming mga kasamahan ay nanatili sa loob
ng aming sasakyan at maghihintay na lang ng aking hudyat
kapag nag positibo na ang operasyon para hindi makahalata
ang target namin na si [Royo];73

However, during cross-examination, PCPI. Dalisay clarified that he

never said that the mandatory witnesses were present inside the vehicle at
the time of apprehension. PCPI. Dalisay testified:

Q You never mentioned that the witnesses required by

Section 21 [of RA 9165 were] actually left in the
service vehicle. A while ago when you were asked by
the good Public Prosecutor, am I right?
[A] Yes, [M]a'am.
[Q] But in your [Sworn Statement], you stated that they
were there. On page 3 paragraph 3.

THE COURT:
Ok, [PCPI. Dalisay], look at your [Sworn Statement].
A Yes, [M]a'am.
Q Meaning to say, you made two (2) different statements
regarding the situation, am I right?
A Yes, [M]a'am.74

The conflicting statements proferred by PCPI. Dalisay tend to raise

doubt as to whether or not the mandatory witnesses were, in fact, at or near
the place of apprehension as required by the rules on the chain of custody. In
order to be deemed compliant with the rules on the chain of custody, the
prosecution must prove that the mandatory witnesses were in close
proximity to the place of arrest. Otherwise, their role of foreclosing the
pernicious practice of planting of evidence or compromising the integrity of
the seized illegal drugs, becomes worthless.

73 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), p. 6.

74 TSN, March 4, 2023, pp. 14-15.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 19 of 22
DECISION

Inasmuch as the presence of the mandatory witnesses at or near the

place of the arrest could not be convincingly proven by the prosecution, We
likewise find reason to doubt the import by which the marking and inventory
of the seized items were supposedly done. Section 21 of RA 9165, as
amended, mandates that immediately upon seizure, a physical inventory of
the seized items be conducted.

Here, PCPI. Dalisay contradicted75 his own statement that the

mandatory witnesses were inside the nearby parked vehicle waiting for the
positive result of the buy-bust operation. Having said this, We cannot
conclude that the mandatory witnesses were as close to the place of
apprehension as PCPI. Dalisay would like to impress upon the Court. This
presupposes the possibility that buy-bust team had to wait for their arrival at
the place of apprehension, or worse, had to call them in for the conduct
thereof. In either case, the evidence on record is insufficient to prove that the
marking and inventory of the seized items were done immediately.

It is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established

beyond reasonable doubt.76 In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on
the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken
chain of custody of the items seized.77

Fourth Link: Turnover of the Seized

Items by the Forensic Chemist to the
Trial Court.

The last link in the chain of custody pertains to turnover and

submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the
court. The testimonial evidence for the prosecution establishes that it was
Espina, the evidence custodian at the OCP, was the last person who acquired
custody of the seized items.78 However, a reading of stipulations79 on his
testimony reveal that there are no stipulations of his transfer of the seized
items to the RTC. If anything, the stipulations on his testimony only prove
that he can “attest” to the fact that the seized items “presented” to the RTC
are the same items given to him by PSSg. Manalo:

75 TSN, March 4, 2023, pp. 14-15.

76 People v. Somira, G.R. No. 252152, June 23, 2021.
77 Id.
78 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), pp. 69-70.
79 Id.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 20 of 22
DECISION

4. That [Espina] can attest to the fact that the sealed

specimens contained in a big transparent plastic presented to
the [RTC] xxx are the same specimens he received from
PSSg. Manalo on February 4, 2022.80

In the case of People v. Alboka,81 Case law teaches that the failure to
show how the seized items were delivered to the RTC constitutes a break in
the chain of custody:

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

Indubitably, the chain of custody of the seized items in this case is

riddled with breaks in between, ultimately preventing the prosecution from
seamlessly piecing together an unbroken chain of custody necessary for a
conviction. As a result, We cannot conclude, with moral certainty, that the
items allegedly seized from Royo, and presented before the RTC, are the
same items that underwent laboratory examination and were found to be
prohibited drugs.

While it is desirable that the chain of custody be perfect and unbroken,

this rarely becomes the reality as observed and found in most cases. 82 Thus,
the saving clause in Section 21, Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 allows
leniency under justifiable grounds provided that these two conditions must
exist in order for the same to be applied, i.e., (a) the prosecution must
explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of seized evidence had been preserved. A justifiable
ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact.83

The prosecution failed in this respect. No acceptable reason was

offered to explain the procedural lapses committed by the police officers
which could otherwise persuade Us to be lenient in applying the rule on the
chain of custody to the letter. Needless to state, no evidence was adduced to
80 Records (Criminal Case No. 21-28470), p. 70.
81 G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.
82 People v. Lat, G.R. No. 234010, November 28, 2019 (Notice).
83 People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 21 of 22
DECISION

prove, as a fact, that strict compliance with the said rule can be dispensed
with. In fine, the condition for the saving clause to apply was not complied
with.

The Supreme Court has reminded all courts, this Court included, to
exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made
to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. 84 Compliance with
Section 21 being integral to every conviction, this Court is at liberty to
review the records of the case to satisfy itself that the required proof has
been adduced by the prosecution to address any issue of non-compliance.85 If
deviations are observed and no justifiable reasons are provided, the
conviction must be overturned, and the innocence of the accused affirmed.86

Disposition

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The November 11, 2022

Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch
3, Batangas City, in Criminal Case Nos. 21-28470 and 21-28471, is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, accused-appellant Levie Royo y Morabe is hereby

ACQUITTED for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, as amended, and ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED
from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry
of final judgment be issued.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director, Bureau of

Corrections, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City for immediate
implementation. The said Director is hereby ORDERED to report to this
Court within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision the action he or she
has undertaken.

SO ORDERED.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
PERPETUA SUSANA T. ATAL-PAÑO
Associate Justice

84 People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.

85 Id.
86 Id.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 18121 Page 22 of 22
DECISION

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

MARLENE B. GONZALES-SISON MAXIMO M. DE LEON
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

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

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

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARLENE B. GONZALES-SISON
Chairperson, Fifth (5th) Division