Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, G. R. No.

190342

Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: March 21, 2012

- versus -

CIPRIANO CARDENAS yGOFRERICA, Accused-Appellant.

x--------------------------------------------------x DECISION SERENO, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated 19 February 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Second Division in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02634, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Appellant was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312 for selling the prohibited drug methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[2] The Facts On 07 January 2003, an Information was filed against accused Cipriano Cardena y Gofrerica, alias Ope, for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, allegedly committed as follows: That on or about the 6th day of January, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero five (0.05) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as SHABU a dangerous drug. CONTRARY TO LAW.[3] Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded Not guilty to the crime charged. [4]

Prosecutions Version of the Facts The evidence for the prosecution shows that around 12 p.m. of 06 January 2003, the Detection and Special Operations Division of the Criminal Investigation Division Group (DSOD-CIDG) in Camp Crame received a report from its confidential informant regarding the rampant selling of shabu by a certain Cipriano Cardenas (a.k.a. Ope) at the Payatas Area in Quezon City. Acting on the information, a team was organized to conduct a buy-bust operation. Police Officer (PO) 3 Edgardo Palacio was head of the team and PO3 Rene Enteria was designated to act as the poseurbuyer.[5] They marked a 100 bill with the initials ERP on the lower right portion of its dorsal side and used the money in the buy-bust operation.[6] The team agreed that upon the consummation of the sale, PO3 Enteria would throw away his cigarette to signal the moment at which the drug pusher would be arrested. [7] The team proceeded to Lupang Pangako, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City to conduct the buy-bust operation. At the site, PO3 Enteria was guided by the confidential informant and closely followed by PO3 Palacio and two other team members. They chanced upon the accused wearing camouflage pants and standing near a small house located on a pathway.[8] Approaching the accused, the informant introduced the police officer as the person interested to buy shabu. PO3 Enteria was asked how much he wanted to buy, and he answered 100. The accused then took out a clear plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance from his pocket and handed it to PO3 Enteria. After handing the marked 100 bill to the accused, the police officer threw away his cigarette as a signal of the consummation of the buy -bust operation.[9] PO3 Palacio and the rest of the team, who were just 15 meters away from the scene, immediately approached, arrested the accused, and frisked the latter. PO3 Palacio recovered two (2) other clear plastic sachets from the accuseds right pocket. The three sachets were marked CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3 CC representing the initials of the accused, Cipriano Cardenas.[10] He was then brought to Camp Crame, where he was booked and investigated. The plastic sachets recovered from him were transmitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for analysis upon the request of Police Chief Inspector Ricardo N. Sto. Domingo, Jr. of the DSOD CIDG.[11] The results of the Initial Laboratory Report dated 07 January 2003[12] showed that the white crystalline substance contained in the three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, with a total weight of 0.05 gram.[13] On 07 January 2003, an Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, was filed against the accused.[14] The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Judicial Capital Region of Quezon City, Branch 103 and docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312. The Accuseds Version of the Facts The accused had a different version of the facts surrounding his arrest. He claimed that around 3:00 p.m. of 06 January 2003, while he was walking home, four persons handcuffed him and forced him to board a vehicle.[15] He was taken to the CIDG office at Camp Crame, where he was informed that he was being arrested for selling shabu. While inside the investigation room, one of the men who arrested him gave the investigator a 100 bill. He claimed to have not seen the alleged shabuat the time of his arrest or even during the CIDG investigation or during the inquest at the public prosecutors office.[16] The Ruling of the Trial Court

A full-blown trial was held by the RTC, before which were presented PO3 Palacio and PO3 Enteria as witnesses for the prosecution. For the defense, only the accused testified in his defense. On 03 January 2007, the RTC promulgated a Decision[17] convicting him of the crime charged. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies and pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution. It ruled that the police operation had followed the normal course of a drug entrapment operation, and that the arresting officers presented as prosecution witnesses were credible based on their candid and honest demeanor. The RTC considered as absurd the allegation of the accused that he had been whimsically arrested by the police officers during the operation. It found as weak and inconceivable his uncorroborated denial of the charge. The dispostive portion of the RTC Decision reads: ACCORDINGLY, judgement is hereby rendered finding the accused CIRPIANO CARDENAS y GOFRERICA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (drug pushing) as charged and he is hereby sentenced to a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of 500,000.00. The 3 sachets of shabu involved in this case are ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru the DDB for proper care and disposition as required by R.A. 9165. SO ORDERED. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals The accused appealed his conviction to the CA, which docketed the case as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 2634. On 19 February 2009, the appellate court, through its Second Division, promulgated a Decision [18] affirming the trial courts conviction of the accused. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the necessary elements to prove the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. It also found that the prosecution witnesses were credible when they testified on the custody and identity of the drugs confiscated from the accused. Thus, it affirmed in toto the RTCs Decision, which it found to be supported by the facts and law. The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the appellate court for lack of merit. The Issues The accused elevated his appeal to this Court raising this lone issue: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO. 9165.[19]

The defense alleges that the arresting officers did not follow the required procedure for the handling of seized drugs in a buy-bust operation as stated in Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165.[20] It points out that there is a dearth of evidence to prove that the plastic sachets recovered from the accused were marked at the crime scene in his presence immediately upon confiscation thereof.[21] Thus, the defense argues that due to the arresting officers noncompliance with the correct procedure, th e accused is entitled to an acquittal.[22]

The Ruling of the Court We DENY the appeal of the accused for lack of merit and accordingly affirm the assailed Decision of the CA. Under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements that must be proven for the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment.[23] The State has the burden of proving these elements and is obliged to present the corpus delicti in court to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [24] In the instant case, the defense does not raise any issue with regard the sale and delivery of the illegal drugs for which the accused was arrested. The point of contention pertains to the noncompliance by the arresting officers with Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of seized drugs. This is an important matter because, if proven, substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs would cast serious doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court and entitle the accused to an acquittal. In People v. Salonga,[25] we held that 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. Thus, drug enforcement agents and police officers involved in a buy-bust operation are required by R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust scene. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR, states: 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. (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;

The defense wants to impress upon this Court that the arresting officers did not conduct a physical inventory of the items seized and failed to photograph them in the presence of the accused and of other personalities specified by Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165. [26] It argues that this lapse on the part of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation raise uncertainty and doubts as to the identity and integrity of the articles seized from the accused whether they were the same items presented at the trial court that convicted him. Based on this noncompliance by the arresting officers, the defense prays for the acquittal of the accused. We are not persuaded by these arguments.

The chain of custody is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165: b. 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 seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition .

To protect the civil liberties of the innocent, the rule ensures that the prosecutions evidence meets the stringent standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. We have held, however that substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible. In People v. Ara,[27] we ruled that R.A. 9165 and its IRR do not require strict compliance with the chain of custody rule: As recently highlighted in People v. Cortez and People v. Lazaro, Jr., RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict compliance as to the chain of custody rule. The arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165. We have emphasized that what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. (Emphasis supplied.) In the instant case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was not broken. The testimony of PO3 Palacio shows that he was the one who recovered from the accused the three plastic sachets of shabu, together with the marked money. He also testified that he was the one who personally brought the request for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory and had the plastic sachets examined there. During the trial of the case, he positively identified the plastic sachets that he had recovered from the accused and had marked CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3. The pertinent portions of the testimony of PO3 Palacio are as follows: FIS. JURADO: Q. And after you recovered the buy-bust money and these three plastic sachets of shabu, what did you do with the accused? WITNESS: A. Q. A. We brought them to the office. What happened to (sic) the office? He was investigated. FIS. JURADO: WITNESS: FIS. JURADO: Q. How about the three plastic sachets, what did you do with these three plastic sachets.

WITNESS: A. Q. A. We have examined it at the Crime Laboratory. How does (sic) it brought to the Crime Laboratory? We asked a request from our investigator. FIS. JURADO: WITNESS: FIS. JURADO: Q. Is this the same request for laboratory examination that you are referring to? WITNESS: A. Yes sir. FIS. JURADO: Q. Who brought this request to the Crime Laboratory for examination?

WITNESS: A. I sir.

FIS. JURADO: Q. A. Where does it show the delivery? Here your honor. (Witness pointing in open court to the document the request for laboratory examination the date when it was delivered.) xxx FIS. JURADO: Q. xxx xxx xxx WITNESS:

xxx

xxx

May we request that the said documents be marked as Exhibit F and if the said plastic sachet would be shown to you, how will you be able to identify the same? WITNESS: A. I can identify it because it has a marking sir CC-1, CC-2, and CC-3 your Honor.

FIS. JURADO: Q. You mean to say to this Honorable Court that the three plastic sachets has (sic) a marking CC1, CC-2, and CC-3?

WITNESS: A. Yes your Honor.

FIS. JURADO: Q. What was (sic) CC stands for?

WITNESS:

A.

The name of our suspect Cipriano Cardenas your Honor. [28]

PO3 Rene Enteria, who had acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, corroborated the testimony of PO3 Palacio and indicated that the latter was in custody of the seized drugs from the time the accused was arrested until these were sent to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis. W e quote the relevant portions of PO3 Enterias testimony from the records: FIS. ARAULA: After you said a while ago that you made a pre-arranged signal, what happened then after that? WITNESS: PO3 Palacio approached us and arrested the subject sir. FIS. ARAULA: When PO3 Palacio arrested the accused, where was (sic) you? WITNESS: I was behind them sir. FIS. ARAULA: Where is the buy bust money when Palacio arrested the accused? WITNESS: It was recovered to (sic) Ope sir. FIS. ARAULA: After arresting the accused, what happened then?

WITNESS: We returned to the police station sir. FIS. ARAULA: What happened to the police station? WITNESS: The suspect was investigated sir. FIS. ARAULA: Who was in possession of that transparent plastic sachet when you were going to the police station? WITNESS: I was the one sir. xxx FIS. ARAULA: If that transparent plastic sachet be shown to you, can you identify that? WITNESS: xxx xxx

Yes sir. FIS ARAULA: Showing to you this transparent plastic sachet, what can you say about this? WITNESS: This is the one that I purchased sir. FIS. ARAULA: It appears that there are three (3) transparent plastic sachets in this case, in fact this is the one that you purchased, how about these two (2) other transparent plastic sachets, where did it came (sic) from? WITNESS: It was recovered by Palacio after the arrest of the suspect sir. FIS. ARAULA: Why did you say that this is the transparent plastic sachet containing shabu that you purchased? WITNESS: Because I remember the size sir.

FIS. ARAULA: That is the only reason, due to the size of the transparent plastic sachet? WITNESS: I also has (sic) initial in the plastic sir.

FIS. ARAULA: What is the initial? WITNESS: Palacio was the one who made the marking sir. xxx FIS. ARAULA: How about the evidence that you confiscated in relation to this Section 5, R.A. 9165 against the accused, where was that when there was an investigation? WITNESS: It was brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination sir. [29] CROSS EXAMINATION: xxx xxx

ATTY. CABAROS: Who actually recovered the shabu from the accused? WITNESS: Palacio sir.

xxx COURT:

xxx

xxx

Why is it that it could (sic) seem that Palacio was the one who marked the money and he marked also all the three (3) plastic sachets? You never mark with your initial the buy bust money and you never mark with your initial that particular plastic sachet you said that was given to you by the accused, how come that it was always Palacio (who) made the marking and you as poseur buyer did not mark the items? WITNESS: Because when we made (the) marking, we make only one marking, your Honor.[30] REDIRECT EXAMINATION: FIS. ARAULA: When this Palacio placed this mark, all the evidences that was confiscated from the accused, where were you? WITNESS: I was near Palacio sir. FIS. ARAULA: So you noticed that Palacio placed his markings to the evidences? WITNESS: Yes sir.[31] (Emphasis supplied.)

From these testimonies of the police officers, the prosecution established that they had custody of the drugs seized from the accused from the moment he was arrested, during the time he was transported to the CIDG office in Camp Crame, and up to the time the drugs were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The said police officers also identified the seized drugs with certainty when these were presented in court. With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court. To the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a doubt that the evidence seized from the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested, introduced, and testified to in court. In short, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence. Although we find that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165, the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. We held thus in Zalameda v. People of the Philippines[32]: Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of 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. In the present case, we see substantial compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court. In People v. Del Monte, we explained:

We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. 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 accorded it by the courts. x 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 noncompliance 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. (Emphasis supplied.) On the other hand, the accused alleges that he did not commit the crime he was charged with and claims to have not seen the evidence presented by the prosecution. It was established that he sold the seized drugs to PO3 Enteria during the buy-bust operation, and that the sachets were found in his possession. These facts establish the elements of Section 5, R.A. 9165. The only issue the appellant raises before us is the noncompliance by the police officer with the correct procedure for the handling of the evidence seized from him. We have no reason to doubt the police officers who gave detailed accounts of what they did during the buy-bust operation. Their testimonies have adequately established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs and have led us to affirm the conviction of the accused. The credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge. Unlike appellate magistrates, it is the judge who can weigh such testimonies in light of the witnesses demeanor and manner of testifying, and who is in a unique position to discern between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. This is especially true when the trial courts findings have been affirmedby the appellate court. For them the said findings are considered generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, [33] unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance. [34] Thus, we affirm the assailed Decision of the appellate court and uphold the conviction of the accused. WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 2634, People of the Philippines v. Cipriano Cardenas y Gofrerica dated 19 February 2009, is AFFIRMED in all respects. SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice

ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

[1]

Rollo, pp. 2-12. The Decision dated 19 February 2009 of the CA Second Division was penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and former CA (now Supreme Court) Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza. [2] RTC Records, pp. 144-146. The Decision dated 03 January 2007 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312 was penned by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr. [3] RTC Records, p. 1. [4] Id. at 17. [5] Id. at 144. [6] TSN, 14 March 2003, p. 12. [7] Id. at 11.
[8] [9]

RTC Records, p. 148. Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 7. [12] This initial result was followed by the issuance of an official report by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame denominated as Chemistry Report No. D-002-03 dated 07 January 2003, which states that the qualitative examination

yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. This was marked as Exhibit G for the prosecution; RTC Records, p. 10. [13] The three plastic sachets were individually marked and weighed as follows: CC -1 0.01 gram; CC-2 0.01 gram and CC-3 0.03 gram. RTC Records, pp. 9-10. [14] Id. at 1. [15] TSN, 26 April 2005, p. 3. [16] TSN, 30 May 2005, pp. 4-6. [17] Supra note 2.
[18] [19] [20]

Supra note 1.

Rollo, p. 33. Id. at 34. [21] Id. at 36. [22] Id. at 41. [23] People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA 304. [24] People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 350. [25] G.R. No. 186390, 02 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783. [26] Rollo, pp. 35-36. [27] Supra note 23.
[28]

TSN, 14 March 2003, pp. 14-18.

[29] [30]

TSN, 29 September 2004, pp. 9-10. Id. at 12-13. [31] TSN, 29 September 2004, p. 17. [32] G.R. No. 183656, 04 September 2009, 598 SCRA 537. [33] People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, 16 October 2009, 604 SCRA 250. [34] People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, 11 September 2009, 599 SCRA 688.

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Baguio City

ROGELIO S. REYES, Petitioner,

G. R. No. 180177 Present: CORONA, C.J, Chairperson,

- versus -

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: April 18, 2012

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

FIRST DIVISION x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x DECISION BERSAMIN, J: The burden rests in the Prosecution to see to it that the evidence of guilt satisfies the standard of moral certainty demanded in all criminal prosecutions. The standard demands that all the essential elements of the offense are established as to leave no room for any doubt about the guilt of the accused. The courts should unfailingly impose the standard in order to prevent injustice from being perpetrated against the accused. Under review is the decision promulgated on September 28, 2007 by the Court of Appeals (CA),[1] whereby the CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, in Manila [2] for violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Antecedents On February 23, 2005, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed two informations charging petitioner with illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession ofshabu defined and punished, respectively, by Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165,[3] to wit: Criminal Case No. 05234564 That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being been (sic) authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell One (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero two two (0.022) gram, of white crystalline substance known as SHABU containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug. CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]

Criminal Case No. 05234565 That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being then authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control One (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero two four (0.024) gram of white crystalline substance known as SHABU containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]

After petitioner pled not guilty, trial ensued. The summary of the evidence of the parties adduced at trial follows. In the morning of January 20, 2005, a lady confidential informant went to the Police Station 8 of the Western Police District to report on the drug-dealing activities of a certain alias Boy (later identified as petitioner) on M. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila.[6] A buy-bust team of ten members,[7] including PO2 Erwin Payumo as designated poseurbuyer,[8] was formed. PO2 Payumo then prepared the necessary documents prior to the operation. [9] From the police station, the lady confidential informant called petitioner by phone. The latter instructed her to wait on M. Mapa Street.[10] Thus, the buy-bust team proceeded to that area and arrived at around 4:20 p.m. of January 20, 2005.[11] PO2 Payumo and the lady confidential informant arrived together to wait for petitioner. The rest of the buy-bust team, who had gone to the area on board an L300 van,[12] took positions nearby. Petitioner came by five minutes later,[13] and, after asking the lady confidential informant whether PO2 Payumo was the buyer, instructed Payumo to follow him to his house where he told PO2 Payumo to wait. Two other individuals, later identified as Conchita Carlos and Jeonilo Flores, were also waiting for petitioner.[14] Upon getting back, petitioner asked PO2 Payumo for the payment, [15] and the latter complied and handed the marked money consisting of three P50.00 bills all bearing the initials TF.[16] Petitioner then went into a room and returned with a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that he gave to PO2 Payumo. Receiving the plastic sachet, PO2 Payumo placed a missed call to PO1 Miguelito Gil, a member of the buy-bust team, thereby giving the prearranged signal showing that the transaction was completed. PO2 Payumo then arrested petitioner after identifying himself as an officer. PO2 Payumo recovered another sachet containing white crystalline substance from petitioners right hand, and the marked money from petitioners right front pocket. [17] The rest of the buy-bust team meanwhile came around and recovered two sachets also containing white crystalline substance from the sofa where Conchita and Jeonilo were sitting. The buy-bust team thus also arrested Conchita and Jeonilo.[18] Back at the police station, PO2 Payumo placed on the plastic sachet that petitioner had handed him the marking RRS-1 and on the other sachet recovered from petitioners right hand the marking RRS-2.[19] The seized items were thereafter turned over to the Western Police District Crime Laboratory for examination by P/Insp. Judycel Macapagal, who found the items positive for methampethamine hydrochloride or shabu.[20] On the other hand, petitioner denied that there had been a buy-bust operation, and claimed that he had been framed up. Petitioner testified that he was at his house entertaining his visitors Conchita and Jeonilo in the afternoon of January 20, 2005;[21] that Conchita was selling to him a sofa bed for P800.00, while Jeonilo was only contracted by Conchita to drive the jeepney carrying the sofa bed; [22] that the three of them were surprised when a group of armed men in civilian clothes barged into his house and conducted a search, and arrested them; that he was also surprised to see a plastic sachet when the armed men emptied his pocket; that the plastic sachet did not belong to him; [23] that PO2 Payumo was not among those who entered and searched his house;[24] that the three of them were made to board a van where PO1 Rudolf Mijares demanded P30,000.00 for his release;[25] and that because he told them he had no money to give to them, one of the men remarked: Sige, tuluyan na yan; and that they were then brought to the police station.[26]

Jeonilo corroborated petitioners story.[27] Ruling of the RTC As stated, on May 23, 2006, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies with respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit. However like alibi, we view the defense of frame up with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecution arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Acts. Having established that a legitimate buy-bust operation occurred in the case at bar, there can now be no question as to the guilt of the accused-appellant. Such operation has been considered as an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due regard to the constitutional and legal safeguards, it deserves judicial sanction. (People of the Philippinesvs. Lowell Saludes, et al., G.R. No. 144157, June 10, 2003) The accused failed to show any ill motive on the part of the policeman to testify falsely against him. Indeed, the prosecution showed that the police were at the place of the incident to do exactly what they are supposed to doto conduct an operation. The portrayal put forward by accused and his lone witness remained uncorroborated. Evidence to be believed must not only come from a credible witness but must in itself be credible. The entrapment operation paved the way for the valid warrantless arrest of accused, Sec. 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides thus: A police officer or private person, without warrant, may arrest a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; xxx It has been held 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 two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. (People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Remarata et al., G.R. No. 147230, April 29, 2003) The positive identification of appellants by the prosecution witness should prevail over the formers denials of the commission of the crime for which they are charged, since greater w eight is generally accorded to the positive testimony of the prosecution witness than the accuseds denial. Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. (People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Belibet, Manny Banoy and Ronnie Rosero, G.R. No. 91260, July 25, 1991) [28] The dispositive portion of the decision of the RTC reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit: 1. In Criminal Case No. 05-234564, finding accused, Rogelio Reyes y Samson, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

2. In Criminal Case No. 05-234565, finding accused, Rogelio Reyes y Samson, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum; to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules. SO ORDERED.[29] With his motion for reconsideration being denied by the RTC, petitioner filed his notice of appeal. [30]

Ruling of the CA On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC thuswise: A fortiori, viewed in the light of the foregoing, We are strongly convinced that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the Appellant for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The challenged Decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.[31] The CA gave more weight to the testimony of poseur buyer PO2 Payumo, and believed the findings of the laboratory examination conducted by P/Insp. Macapagal. It recognized the validity of the buy-bust operation. Issue Petitioner is now before the Court seeking to reverse the decision of the CA upon the sole error that: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT FINDING WORTHY OF CREDENCE PETITIONERS WITNESS TESTIMONY CREATING DOUBT ON THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION. Petitioner wants the Court to give credence to his defense of frame-up, and to believe the testimony of Jeonilo Flores who had no reason to testify falsely against the arresting officers. Ruling The appeal is meritorious. In this jurisdiction, we convict the accused only when his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Conformably with this standard, we are mandated as an appellate court to sift the records and search for every error,

though unassigned in the appeal, in order to ensure that the conviction is warranted, and to correct every error that the lower court has committed in finding guilt against the accused. [32] Guided by the standard, we acquit petitioner. The buy-bust operation mounted against petitioner resulted from the tip of an unnamed lady confidential informant. Such an operation, according to People v. Garcia,[33] was susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion, and the possibility of that abuse was great. [34] The susceptibility to abuse of the operation led to the institution of several procedural safeguards by R.A. No. 9165, mainly to guide the law enforcers. Thus, the State must show a faithful compliance with such safeguards during the prosecution of every drug-related offense.[35] The procedural safeguards start with the requirements prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 relating to the custody and disposition of the confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments and paraphernalia, and laboratory equipment. The provision relevantly states: 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. xxx: (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; xxx (Emphasis supplied) This appeal involves two distinct drug-related offenses, namely: illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires: ( a) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (b) the presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, or the dangerous drugs themselves. On the other hand, the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs necessitates the following facts to be proved, namely: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, ( b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. [36] For both offenses, it is crucial that the Prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way that the integrity thereof has been well preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time of presentation as evidence in court. Nothing less than a faithful compliance with this duty is demanded of all law enforcers arresting drug pushers and drug possessors and confiscating and seizing the dangerous drugs and substances from them. This duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and substances is discharged only when the arresting law enforcer ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken. This has been the reason for defining chain of custody under Section 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, viz:

(b) 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 seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer or custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence , and the final disposition; (Emphasis supplied)

In Mallilin v. People,[37] the need to maintain an unbroken chain of custody is emphasized: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received an d the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tamperingwithout regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. Cogently, Mallilin v. People is reiterated in Catuiran v. People,[38] People v. Garcia,[39] and People v. Villanueva,[40] among others. Here, the Prosecution failed to demonstrate a faithful compliance by the arresting lawmen of the rule on chain of custody. To start with, the fact that the dangerous drugs were inventoried and photographed at the site of arrest upon seizure in the presence of petitioner, a representative of the media, a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, was not shown. As such, the arresting lawmen did not at all comply with the further requirement to have the attending representative of the media, representative of the DOJ, and elected public official sign the inventory and be furnished a copy each of the inventory. Instead, the records show that PO2 Payumo placed the markings of RRS-1 on the sachet allegedly received from petitioner and RRS-2 on the two sachets allegedly seized from petitioners hand already at the police station with only petitioner present. Yet, the Prosecution did not also present any witness to establish that an inventory of the seized articles at least signed by petitioner at that point was prepared. We clarified in People v. Sanchez[41] that in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, supra, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized articles should be conducted, if practicable, at the place of seizure or confiscation in cases of warrantless seizure. But that was true only if there were indications that petitioner tried to escape or resisted arrest, which might provide the reason why the arresting team was not able to do the inventory or photographing at petitioners house; otherwise, the physical inventory and photographing must always be immediately executed at the place of seizure or confiscation.

In People v. Pringas,[42] the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21, supra, was held not to be fatal for as long as there was justifiable ground for it, and for as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated or seized articles were properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. The Court further pronounced therein that such non-compliance would not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible, for what was of utmost importance was the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized or confiscated articles, considering that they were to be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, the omissions noted herein indicated that the State did not establish the identity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from petitioner with the same exacting certitude required for a finding of guilt. To be sure, the buy-bust operation was infected by lapses. Although PO2 Payumo declared that he was the one who had received the sachet of shabu (RRS-1) from petitioner and who had confiscated the two sachet s of shabu (RRS-2) from petitioner, all of which he had then sealed, nothing more to support the fact that the evidence thus seized had remained intact was adduced. In fact, the State did not anymore establish to whom the seized articles had been endorsed after PO2 Payumo had placed the markings at the station, and with whose custody or safekeeping the seized articles had remained until their endorsement to P/Insp. Macapagal for the laboratory examination. Presently, we cannot justifiably presume that the seized articles had remained in the possession of PO2 Payumo in view of the testimony of P/Insp. Macapagal to the effect that the party requesting the laboratory examination had been a certain Police Officer Alano,[43] whom the Prosecution did not at all particularly identify or present as its witness. In this regard, Laboratory Report No. D-085-05,[44] the report prepared by P/Insp. Macapagal, also stated that the party requesting the conduct of the laboratory examination was the OIC -SAID-SOTU, PS-8, Western Police District. Also, the Prosecution did not show to whom the seized articles had been turned over following the conduct of the laboratory examination, and how the seized articles had been kept in a manner that preserved their integrity until their final presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Such lapses of the Prosecution were fatal to its proof of guilt because they demonstrated that the chain of custody did not stay unbroken, thereby raising doubt on the integrity and identity of the dangerous drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti of the crimes charged. We are then not surprised to detect other grounds for skepticism about the evidence of guilt. Firstly, PO2 Payumo testified that the lady confidential informant had gone to Police Station 8 to report the alleged drug-selling activities of petitioner for the first time in the morning of January 20, 2005. That report led to the forming of the buy-bust team,[45] for purposes of which he prepared the pre-operation documents. His veracity was suspect, however, considering that his so-called Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet appeared to have been prepared on the day before, as its date January 19, 2005 disclosed.[46] The date of January 19, 2005 also appeared in the Certification of Coordination issued by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in reference to the buy-bust operation against petitioner.[47] Considering that the Prosecution did not explain the discrepancy, the impression is unavoidable that the buy-bust operation was already set in motion even before the lady informant actually made her report against petitioner. Thereby, his defense of frame-up was bolstered. Secondly, the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet indicated that there were ten members and three (3) others that comprised the buy-bust team.[48] Yet, the Joint Affidavit submitted by the members of the buy-bust team was executed and signed by only six officers (excluding even poseur buyer PO2 Payumo himself), namely: PO1 Mijares,

PO1 Mark Dave Vicente, PO1 Maurison Ablaza, PO1 Elmer Clemente and PO1 Gil. [49] The Prosecutions failure to explain why only six members of the buy-bust team actually executed and signed the Joint Affidavit might indicate that the incrimination of petitioner through the buy-bust operation was probably not reliable. And, thirdly, both the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet and the Certification of Coordination revealed that the confidential information received involved two suspects of illegal drug trade in Bacood, Sta. Mesa known as alias Boy and alias Totoy Tinga. PO2 Payumo recalled, however, that the lady confidential informant had tipped the police off only about alias Boy. It seems from such selectiveness that PO2 Payumo deliberately omitted the other target and zeroed in only on aliasBoy (petitioner), which might suggest that PO2 Payumo was not as reliable as a poseur buyerwitness as he presented himself to be. Conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecutions evidence, not on the weakness of the defense the accused put up.[50] Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course. WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on September 28, 2007 by the Court of Appeals; and ACQUITSaccused ROGELIO S. REYES of the crimes charged in Criminal Case No. 05-234564 and Criminal Case No. 05-234565. The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City to release ROGELIO S. REYES from custody unless he is detained thereat for another lawful cause; and to report on his compliance herewith within five days from receipt. No pronouncements on costs of suit. SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

[1]

CA Rollo, pp. 13-28; penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal (retired), with Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao concurring. [2] Records, pp. 104-113. [3] Id., pp. 2-5. [4] Id., pp. 2-3. [5] Id., pp. 4-5. [6] TSN dated September 7, 2005, p. 11. [7] Id., p. 10. [8] Id., p. 4. [9] Id., pp. 5 and 12. [10] Id., p. 13. [11] Id., p. 14. [12] TSN dated August 31, 2005, p. 4. [13] TSN dated September 7, 2005, p. 14. [14] Id., pp. 15-17. [15] Id., p. 17. [16] Id., pp. 8-9. [17] Id., pp. 18-20. [18] TSN dated August 31, 2005, pp. 8-10. [19] TSN dated September 7, 2005, pp. 22-24. [20] TSN dated August 24, 2005, pp. 3-5. [21] TSN dated September 28, 2005, p. 4. [22] Id., p. 5. [23] Id., pp. 6-7. [24] Id., p. 8. [25] Id., pp. 8-9. [26] Id., pp. 9-10. [27] TSN dated May 3, 2006, pp. 3-5. [28] Records, pp. 111-113. [29] Id., p. 113. [30] CA Rollo, pp. 28-29. [31] Id., p. 136. [32] People v. Feliciano, G.R. Nos. 127759-60, September 24, 2001, 365 SCRA 613, 629; People v. Quimzon, G.R. No. 133541, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 261, 281; People v. Cula, G.R. No. 133146, March 28, 2000, 329 SCRA 101, 116. [33] G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259. [34] Id., at p. 267, citing People v. Tan, G.R. No. 133001, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116. [35] Id. [36] People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 339; People v. Desuyo, G.R. No. 186466, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 590, 603-604; People v. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 486. [37] G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619. [38] G.R. No. 175647, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 567 [39] Supra, note 33.

[40] [41]

G.R. No. 189844, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 743. G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194. [42] G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828. [43] TSN dated August 24, 2005, p. 3. [44] Records, p. 16. [45] TSN dated September 7, 2005, pp. 11-12. [46] Records, p. 20. [47] Id., p. 22. [48] Supra, at note 46. [49] Records, p. 14 (Exhibits D and D-1). [50] People v. Obeso, G.R. No. 152285, October 24, 2003, 414 SCRA 447, 460; People v. Decillo, G.R. No. 121408, October 2, 2000, 341 SCRA 591, 598-599.