G.R. No.

198452

February 19, 2014

PEOPLE
OF
vs.
VICENTE ROM, Accused-Appellant.

THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 dated 9 August 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00579 affirming with modification the Decision 2 dated 24 June 2002 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 10, in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062, CBU-55063 and CBU-55067,
finding herein appellant Vicente Rom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections
153 (illegal sale of shabu), 15-A 4 (maintenance of a drug den) and 16 5(illegal possession of shabu),
Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659.6 In Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063, for respectively
violating Sections 15 and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the trial court
imposed on the appellant the penalty of prision correccional in its medium period ranging between
two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months,
as maximum. While in Criminal Case No. CBU-55067, that is for violating Section 15-A, Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the trial court sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua
and he was likewise ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals, however, modified
and reduced the penalty in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063 to an imprisonment of
six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
In three separate Informations7 all dated 1 September 2000, the appellant was charged with
violation of Sections 15, 15-A and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The three
Informations read:
Criminal Case No. CBU-55062
That on or about the 31st day of August 2000, at about 10:30 P.M. in the City of Cebu, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [herein appellant], with deliberate intent and
without being authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer one
(1) heat sealed plastic packet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.03 gram locally known as
"shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug. 8 (Emphasis and italics
supplied).
Criminal Case No. CBU-55063
That on or about the 31st day of August 2000, at about 10:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant], with deliberate intent and without

being authorized by law, did then and there have in [his] possession and control or use the
following:
Four (4) heat sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance weighing 0.15 gram locally
known as "shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription.9 (Emphasis and italics supplied).
Criminal Case No. CBU-55067
That on the 31s[t] day of August, 2000, at about 10:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant], with deliberate intent, did then and there
knowingly maintain a den for regulated users along the interior portion of Barangay T. Padilla in
violation to (sic) the provision of Sec. 15-A of Art. III of RA 6425. 10 (Emphasis supplied).
On arraignment, the appellant, with the assistance of counsel de parte, pleaded NOT GUILTY 11 to
all the charges. A pre-trial conference was conducted on 2 April 2001, but no stipulation or
agreement was arrived at.12 The pre-trial conference was then terminated and trial on the merits
thereafter ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer 2 Marvin Martinez (PO2 Martinez), the
designated poseur-buyer; PO3 Franco Mateo Yanson (PO3 Yanson); and Police Senior Inspector
Marvin Sanchez (P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez), the team leader of the buy-bust operation against the
appellant. They were all assigned at the Vice Control Section of the Cebu City Police Office (VCSCCPO). The testimony, however, of P/Sr. Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas (P/Sr. Insp. Salinas), the forensic
analyst, was dispensed13 with in view of the admission made by the defense as to the authenticity
and due existence of Chemistry Report No. D-1782-2000 14 dated 1 September 2000 and the
expertise of the forensic analyst.
The prosecutions evidence established the following facts:
Two weeks prior to 31 August 2000, the VCS-CCPO received confidential information from their
informant that alias Dodong, who turned out later to be the appellant, whose real name is Vicente
Rom, was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu and also maintained a drug den at his residence in
Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City. Thus, the VCS-CCPO, particularly PO2 Martinez, conducted
surveillance and monitoring operation. 15
On 31 August 2000, at around 10:15 p.m., P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, Chief of VCS-CCPO, formed a team
to conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant. The buy-bust team was composed of PO2
Martinez (poseur-buyer), Senior Police Officer 1 Jesus Elmer Fernandez (SPO1 Fernandez), PO3
Yanson, PO3 Benicer Tamboboy (PO3 Tamboboy), PO3 Jaime Otadoy (PO3 Otadoy) and P/Sr.
Insp. Sanchez (team leader). Being the designated poseur-buyer, PO2 Martinez was provided with
a P100.00 peso bill and a P10.00 peso bill buy-bust money bearing Serial Nos. AD336230 and
AM740786, respectively, and both were marked with the initials of PO2 Martinez, i.e. "MM." The

former amount would be used to buy shabu while the latter amount would serve as payment for the
use of the drug den.16
After the briefing, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area and upon arrival there at around
10:20 p.m., PO2 Martinez proceeded directly to the appellants house, which was earlier pointed to
by their informant, who was also with them during the buy-bust operation. The rest of the buy-bust
team strategically positioned themselves nearby. Once PO2 Martinez reached the appellants
house, he knocked on the door, which the appellant opened. PO2 Martinez subsequently told the
appellant that he wanted to buy shabu worth P100.00. The appellant looked around to check if PO2
Martinez had a companion. Seeing none, the appellant took out his wallet from his pocket and got
one heat-sealed plastic packet containing white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be shabu,
and gave it to PO2 Martinez. The latter, in turn, gave the P100.00 peso bill marked money to the
appellant. While this sale transaction was going on, PO3 Yanson and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez were only
five to eight meters away from PO2 Martinez and the appellant. P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez clearly
witnessed the sale transaction as it happened right outside the door of the appellants house. 17
Afterwards, PO2 Martinez told the appellant that he wanted to sniff the shabu, so the latter required
the former to pay an additional amount of P10.00 as rental fee for the use of his place. After paying
the said amount, the appellant allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his house. Once inside the house,
PO2 Martinez was directed by the appellant to proceed to the room located at the right side of the
sala. Upon entering the said room, PO2 Martinez saw three persons, later identified to be Jose
Delloso (Delloso), Danilo Empuerto (Empuerto) and Arnie Ogong (Ogong), already sniffing shabu. 18
Thereupon, PO2 Martinez made a missed call to P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, which was their pre-arranged
signal, to signify that the whole transaction was consummated. After the lapsed of about 10 to 15
seconds, the rest of the team, who were just few meters away from the appellants house, barged in
and identified themselves as police officers. PO2 Martinez then told PO3 Yanson to hold the
appellant. PO3 Yanson grabbed the appellant and made a body search on the latter that led to the
recovery of four heat-sealed transparent plastic packets containing white crystalline substance,
which were inside the appellants brown wallet that was tucked in his pocket; the buy-bust money
consisting of P100.00 peso bill and P10.00 peso bill; and P280.00 consisting of two P100.00 peso
bills, one P50.00 peso bill and three P10.00 peso bills believed to be the proceeds of the appellants
illegal activities. The one heat-sealed plastic packet of shabu bought by PO2 Martinez from the
appellant remained in the possession of the former.19
The appellant, Delloso, Empuerto and Ogong were informed of their constitutional rights and were
later brought by the buy-bust team to their office, together with the confiscated items, for
documentation. At the office of the buy-bust team, the confiscated items were given to their
investigator, SPO1 Fernandez, who marked the one heat-sealed plastic packet containing white
crystalline substance, which was the subject of the sale transaction, with VRR-8-31-2000-01 (buybust) while the other four heat-sealed plastic packets containing white crystalline substance, which
were recovered from the appellant, were similarly marked with VRR-8-31-2000-02 to VRR-8-31-

2000-05. The "VRR" in the markings are the initials of the appellant, i.e., Vicente Ramonida Rom. 20
Thereafter, all the five heat-sealed plastic packets containing white crystalline substance, together
with the Request for Laboratory Examination, were brought by PO3 Yanson to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis, which examination yielded positive
results for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu,"21 as evidenced by
Chemistry Report No. D-1782-2000.22
For its part, the defense presented the appellant and Teresita Bitos, whose testimonies consist of
sheer denials. Their version of the 31 August 2000 incident is as follows:
At around 10:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. of 31 August 2000, the appellant was at the house of his
daughter, Lorena Cochera (Lorena), in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, as Lorena had asked her
father to get the monthly house rental fee from Teresita Bitos, whose nickname is "Nene." While the
appellant and Nene were talking, the police officers suddenly barged in. The appellant noticed that
PO2 Martinez proceeded to the inner portion of the house and opened the door of the rooms. Nene
stopped them but the police officers told her to just keep quiet. The police officers went on opening
the door of the two rooms, where they saw three male persons. The police officers frisked the
appellant and the three other men. The police officers likewise took appellants wallet
containing P360.00. The appellant then requested Nene to tell his daughter that he was arrested.
Thereafter, the police officers brought the appellant and the three other men to the police station. 23
The appellant denied that he sold shabu to PO2 Martinez. He also denied that he was maintaining a
drug den and that he allowed persons to sniff shabu inside the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu
City, in exchange for a sum of money. The appellant likewise denied that he knew the three other
men who were arrested inside the room in the said house. The appellant claimed instead that he
knew PO2 Martinez prior to 31 August 2000 because the latter usually stayed at the house to
apprehend snatchers. Also, a week before 31 August 2000, he and PO2 Martinez had a
conversation and he was asked to pinpoint the "fat fish," which is the code for the big time pusher.
When he said that he does not know of such pusher, PO2 Martinez got angry. The appellant
maintained that on 31 August 2000, he was no longer living in the house in Barangay T. Padilla,
Cebu City, as his daughter had already brought him to Minglanilla, Cebu, as early as July 1999. On
the said date, Nene was already occupying the house and had subleased one of its rooms as his
daughter Maya told him so. The appellant admitted that a year prior to 31 August 2000, and before
he transferred to Minglanilla, he was apprehended for illegal possession of shabu. 24
The narration of the appellant was corroborated by Nene on all material points.
Testifying on rebuttal, PO2 Martinez denied that he knew the appellant prior to 31 August 2000.
PO2 Martinez clarified that he came to know the appellant only on the night that they conducted the
buy-bust operation.25
Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible, competent and convincing as

they were able to satisfactorily prove all the elements of the offenses charged against the appellant,
the trial court, in its Decision dated 24 June 2002, held the appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Sections 15, 15-A and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The
trial court disposed of the case as follows:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES, the Court finds the [herein appellant] for

1) Criminal Case No. CBU-55062, for violating Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, GUILTY. There being no mitigating nor any aggravating circumstance proven, the Court
hereby imposes the penalty of PRISION CORRECCIONAL in the MEDIUM PERIOD ranging
between TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum[,] to FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS, as maximum;
2) Criminal Case No. CBU-55063, for violating Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, GUILTY. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the Court
imposes the penalty of PRISION CORRECCIONAL in the MEDIUM PERIOD ranging between TWO
(2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2)
MONTHS, as maximum; and
3) Criminal Case No. CBU-55067, for violating Section 15-A, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, GUILTY. The court hereby imposes upon the [appellant] the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.
The five (5) heat-sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, are hereby CONFISCATED in favor of
the government and shall be destroyed in accordance with the law prohibiting said
drug.26 (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied).
The appellant appealed the trial courts Decision to this Court via Notice of Appeal. 27 However,
pursuant to this Courts decision in People v. Mateo, 28 the case was transferred to the Court of
Appeals for intermediate review.
On 9 August 2010, the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed Decision affirming with
modification the ruling of the trial court. Its decretal portion reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the RTC, Branch 10, Cebu City in
Criminal Cases No. CBU-55062, CBU-55063 and CBU-55067 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION concerning Criminal Cases No. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063, for which [the herein
appellant] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from six months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.29
The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the appellant on all the charges against him as the

prosecution was able to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt since all the essential elements
of illegal sale and possession of shabu were duly proven by the prosecution. As to the charge of
maintaining a drug den, the same was also established by the fact that PO2 Martinez himself
paid P10.00 to sniff the shabu in one of the rooms of the appellants house. The appellants denial,
therefore, cannot prevail over the evidence hurled against him.
The Court of Appeals, however, deemed it necessary to modify the penalty in Criminal Case Nos.
CBU-55062 and CBU-55063. It explained that the sale of less than 200 grams of shabu is
punishable with a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, depending on the
quantity. In this case, the quantity of shabu illegally sold to the poseur-buyer by the appellant was
0.03 gram. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20, 30Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, the proper penalty to be imposed for the illegal sale of 0.03 gram of shabu would be
prision correccional. Also, in this case, the appellant had in his possession 0.15 gram of shabu,
which is punishable also with imprisonment of prision correccional. Thus, applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the appellant must be sentenced to an imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor,
as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum, in Criminal Case
No. CBU-55062, as well as in Criminal Case No. CBU-55063. 31
Still unsatisfied, the appellant appealed the Court of Appeals Decision to this Court via Notice of
Appeal.32
Both the appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General manifested 33 that they would no longer file
their respective supplemental briefs as the issues have already been fully discussed in their
respective appeal briefs34with the Court of Appeals.
The appellants assignment of errors as stated in his Appellants Brief are as follows:
I. The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the [herein appellant] notwithstanding the inherent
incredibility of evidence for the prosecution;
II. The Regional Trial Court gravely erred in allowing the evidence of the prosecution despite the
indubitable evidence that the [appellant] i[s] innocent of the crime[s] charged; [and]
III. The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the [appellant] in spite of the failure of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the [appellant] beyond reasonable doubt. 35
The appellant avers that the testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason
and highly incredible for no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of
the house open after such transaction. Moreover, no person would sell shabu to a buyer when he
knew all along that the said buyer was a police officer as it was ridiculous to expose oneself to the
danger of being caught and arrested.
The appellant similarly holds that the entry in the house was illegal and there was certainly no
transaction that took place therein. The search and the seizure made in connection thereto were

also invalid. Thus, the pieces of evidence allegedly obtained by the police officers were inadmissible
for being the "fruit of a poisonous tree." The same cannot be used against him in violation of his
rights.
The appellant believes that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as
their testimonies as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case were contrary to human
conduct, especially with regard to the allegation that he knowingly maintained a drug den, since he
was no longer the owner of the house, which was the subject of the search, and he did not live
there anymore.
The appellants contentions are devoid of merit.
In essence, the issues in this case hinge on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve
the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, more so, when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered
from such findings. The reason behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide
the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial.36 The rule finds an even more stringent application where the
trial courts findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. 37
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to overturn
the findings of both lower courts, which were adequately supported by the evidence on record.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following essential
elements must be duly established: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 38 Succinctly, the
delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer, as well as the receipt of the marked money by the
seller, successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. Hence, what is material is the proof that
the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence.39
In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish the above-enumerated elements beyond
moral certainty. The prosecution witnesses adequately proved that a buy-bust operation actually
took place on which occasion the appellant was caught red-handed giving one heat-sealed plastic
packet containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer, in exchange
for P100.00. PO2 Martinez, being the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant in open court
to be the same person who sold to him the said one-heat sealed plastic packet of white crystalline
substance for a consideration of P100.00,40 which when examined was confirmed to be
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry Report No. D-1782-2000 issued by P/Sr.
Insp. Salinas, Head, Chemistry Branch, PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 7. Upon

presentation thereof in open court, PO2 Martinez duly identified it to be the same object sold to him
by the appellant as it had the marking "VRR-8-31-2000 (buy-bust)," which SPO1 Fernandez had
written thereon in their presence. 41 This testimony of PO2 Martinez was corroborated by P/Sr. Insp.
Sanchez, who was just five to eight meters away from the former and the appellant during the sale
transaction.42
Evidently, the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the appellants guilt for the
offense of illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended.
We already had occasion to show the unacceptability of the contention of the appellant that the
testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason and highly incredible for no
person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the house open after such
transaction. In case after case, we observed that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any
prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the
daytime. Indeed, the drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly
defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the
seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting the sale
and the delivery of the prohibited drugs. 43
With regard to the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following
elements must be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to
be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possesses the said drug.44 All these elements have been established in this case.
On the occasion of the appellants arrest for having been caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu,
PO3 Yanson conducted a body search on the former resulting to the recovery of four more heatsealed plastic packets containing white crystalline substance inside his wallet that was tucked in his
pocket with an aggregate weight of 0.15 gram, which were later confirmed to be
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PO3 Yanson identified in open the court the said four
heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu with markings "VRR-8-31-2000-02" to "VRR-8-31-2000-05"
written thereon by SPO1 Fernandez to be the same objects recovered from the appellant. 45 PO2
Martinez, the poseur-buyer, corroborated this testimony of PO3 Yanson. 46
Definitely, the records do not show that the appellant has the legal authority to possess the four
heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu. Settled is the rule that possession of dangerous drugs
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused
in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. As such, the burden of evidence is
shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi, 47 which the
appellant in this case miserably failed to do.
There is also no truth on the appellants claim that the entry in the house was illegal making the
search and the seizure in connection thereto invalid, rendering the pieces of evidence obtained by

the police officers inadmissible for being the "fruit of a poisonous tree."
This Court in Dimacuha v. People48 clearly states:
The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose. To give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the exclusionary principle that
any evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In People v. Chua Ho San [citation omitted] we pointed out that the interdiction against warrantless
searches and seizures is not absolute and that warrantless searches and seizures have long been
deemed permissible by jurisprudence in the following instances: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2)
seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk
situations (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid
warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an
arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court
recognizes permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest effected in
hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners.
Here, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto while in the act of delivering 1.15 grams and in
actual possession of another 10.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) as a result of
an entrapment operation conducted by the police on the basis of information received from Benito
Marcelo regarding petitioner's illegal drug trade. Petitioner's arrest, therefore, was lawful and the
subsequent seizure of a bag of shabu inserted inside the cover of her checkbook was justified and
legal in light of the prevailing rule that an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested
any property found upon his person in order to find and seize things connected with the crime. The
seized regulated drug is, therefore, admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the crime. 49 (Emphasis
supplied).
To repeat, the appellant, in this case, was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, thus, he was
lawfully arrested. Following Dimacuha, the subsequent seizure of four heat-sealed plastic packets
of shabu in the appellants wallet that was tucked in his pocket was justified and admissible in
evidence for being the fruit of the crime.
With the foregoing, this Court is fully convinced that the prosecution had likewise proved beyond a
shadow of reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offense of illegal possession of shabu
in violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
Going to the charge of maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, the prosecution had also established appellants guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are

found. Its existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof
of facts and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its general
reputation among police officers.50 In this case, this fact was proven by none other than the
testimony of PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer, who after buying the shabu had told the appellant that
he wanted to sniff the same to which the latter responded by requiring the former to pay a rental fee
of P10.00. The appellant, thereafter, allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his house and directed him to
proceed to one of the rooms located at the right side of the sala. Upon entering the said room, PO2
Martinez saw three other persons already sniffing shabu. 51 This testimony of PO2 Martinez was
corroborated by PO3 Yanson and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez. 52
Moreover, as aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, several peso bills were found in the
appellants wallet, including three P10.00 peso bills, which circumstances bolstered the
prosecutions assertion that the appellant has indeed allowed his house to be used as a drug den
for a fee of P10.00 per person.53
In his attempt to exonerate himself, the appellant vehemently asserts that he was no longer the
owner of the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, and he was no longer residing therein. The
defense also presented Teresita Bitos to corroborate this claim of the appellant.
The testimony of Teresita Bitos corroborating the appellants testimony was
credible.1wphi1 She herself admitted that the appellant requested her to testify in his favor.54

not

Also, considering the seriousness of the charges against the appellant, he did not bother to present
his daughter, who is the alleged owner of the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, to bolster his
claim.
Time and again, this Court held that denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been
viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. Inherently
weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the appellant, as in this
case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecutions evidence is such
that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the case here. Verily, mere denial,
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot
be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the prosecution witness who testified on
affirmative matters.55 Moreover, there is a presumption that public officers, including the arresting
officers, regularly perform their official duties. 56 In this case, the defense failed to overcome this
presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, this Court finds no ill
motive that could be attributed to the police officers who had conducted the buy-bust operation.
Even the allegation of the appellant that PO2 Martinez got angry with him when he failed to pinpoint
the big time pusher cannot be considered as the ill motive in implicating the appellant on all the
three charges against him for this is self-serving and uncorroborated.

G.R. No. 203028

January 15, 2014

PEOPLE
OF
THE
vs.
JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ "Jose", Accused-Appellant.

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

DECISION
REYES, J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 dated March 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
04466 affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Joselito Beran y Zapanta Beran) rendered by
the Regional Trial Court RTC) of Manila, Branch 13, in a Decision 2 dated April 19, 2010 in Criminal
Case No. 03-218039, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, under an Information which reads, as
follows:
The undersigned accuses JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ JOSE of Viol. of Sec. 5 Art. II of Rep.
Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about August 26, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having
been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale to a poseur buyer one (1) pc. plastic sachet
containing ZERO POINT ZERO THREE ZERO (0.030) gram of white crystalline substance known as
SHABU containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.3
At his arraignment on November 5, 2003, Beran pleaded not guilty to the offense charged, and trial
followed.
The Facts
According to the prosecution, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon of August 26, 2003, 4 a
confidential informant (CI) went to the District Anti-Illegal Drug (DAID) Office of the Western Police
District (WPD) at the United Nations Avenue, Manila, and approached Police Officer 3 (PO3) Rodolfo
Enderina (Enderina) to report that a certain Joselito Beran, alias "Jose," a pedicab driver, was selling
prohibited drugs, particularly "shabu," in the vicinity of San Antonio Street in Tondo, Manila. P03
Enderina relayed the information to Police Colonel Marcelino Pedroso, Chief of DAID-WPD, who
then ordered him to form a buy-bust team to apprehend the suspect. At around 5 :00 p.m., the buybust team, composed of PO3 Enderina, PO3 Hipolito Francia, PO3 Benito Decorion (Decorion), PO2
Ernie Reyes, PO2 Alexander Delos Santos (Delos Santos) and PO3 Knowme Sia (Sia), who was to
act as the poseur-buyer, arrived in Tondo on board an owner-type jeep and two scooters. In the jeep
were PO3 Enderina, PO2 Delos Santos, and the CI, while the rest of the team rode in the scooters.

They parked near the Gat Andres Hospital and proceeded on foot towards San Antonio Street. As
arranged, PO3 Sia and the CI walked ahead of the others. PO3 Sia and the CI reached the target
area first, and there the CI saw Beran standing some 10 meters away near a ''poso" or deep-well.
After recognizing and pointing Beran to PO3 Sia, the CI approached him and the two men conversed
briefly. Then the CI signaled to PO3 Sia to join them, and he introduced PO3 Sia to Beran, who then
asked the CI how much PO3 Sia was buying. The CI replied, ''piso lang," or P100, and Beran took
out something from his pocket, a small, heat-sealed plastic sachet, which he then handed to PO3
Sia. PO3 Sia took the sachet and pretended to examine it discretely, after which he indicated to
Beran that he was satisfied with its content. He then took out a markedP100 bill which he handed to
Beran; all this time the back-up members of the buy-bust team were watching from strategic
locations around the vicinity.
Thereupon, PO3 Sia executed the pre-arranged signal of touching his hair to signify to the back-up
cops that the buy-bust sale of shabu had been consummated, even as he then placed Beran under
arrest. The back-up operatives quickly converged upon Beran, with PO2 Delos Santos arriving first,
to whom PO3 Sia then handed over the custody of Beran, while he kept the plastic sachet. The buybust team brought Beran to the DAID-WPD office, where PO3 Sia marked the confiscated plastic
sachet with the initials of Beran, JB. He also recorded the incident in the police blotter, and
accomplished the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (Exhibit F and F-1), and the Request for
Laboratory Examination (Exhibit G and G-1. He later brought the seized plastic sachet to the WPD
Crime Laboratory for examination, where after testing it was found to contain the prohibited drug
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.5
In his defense, Beran vehemently denied the above incident. Testifying alone in his defense, he
asserted that on August 26, 2003 at around 2:00 p.m., while he was resting alone upstairs in his
house, five WPD policemen arrived and ordered him to come with them. He resisted and asked why
they were arresting him, but without apprising him of his constitutional rights they handcuffed and
forcibly boarded him in an owner-type jeep and brought him to the WPD Headquarters. There, two of
his arrestors, PO3 Francia and PO3 Sia, demanded from him the amount of P20,000.00 in exchange
for his release without any charge. But he could not produce the amount they asked, and they
trumped up a charge against him of illegal sale of shabu. 6
The trial of Beran took all of seven years to wind up, mainly on account of many postponements
allegedly due to supervening illnesses or reassignments of the subpoenaed arresting officers. The
prosecution was able to present two witnesses, PO3 Francia and PO3 Sia, but only PO3 Sia gave a
witness account of the drug buy-bust itself. PO3 Francia admitted that he served as a mere look-out
to prevent any intruder from interfering in the buy-bust operation, and that he did not witness the
buy-bust transaction itself. As for PO3 Decorion, also a member of the buy-bust team, the RTC per
its Order7 dated July 29, 2009 agreed to dispense with his testimony after the parties stipulated that
as the designated driver of the buy-bust team, he did not see the actual exchange of drug and

money between Beran and PO3 Sia, nor did he witness the actual arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia.
Ruling of the RTC
On April 19, 2010, the RTC of Manila, Branch 13 rendered its judgment, 8 the dispositive portion of
which reads:
THEREFORE premises considered and the prosecution having established to a moral certainty the
guilt of the accused JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA JOSE of the crime charged, this Court in the
absence of any aggravating circumstance hereby sentences the Accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and to pay the fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), without any subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In the service of his sentence, the actual confinement under detention during the pendency of this
case shall be deducted from the said prison term in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.
The evidence presented is ordered transferred to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
for destruction.
SO ORDERED.9
Beran went up to the CA to interpose the following alleged errors in the RTC decision, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [BERAN] DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF
HIS ARREST AND THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED PROHIBITED
DRUG.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING [BERAN] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE
PROHIBITED DRUG.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [BERAN] DESPITE THE POLICE
OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165. 10
Ruling of the CA
In affirming in toto the RTC the CA ruled that Beran was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of a
valid and legitimate buy-bust operation, an entrapment to apprehend law breakers while in the act of
executing their criminal plan.11 Relying solely on the testimony of PO3 Sia, it found that Beran sold

the prohibited drug shabu to an undercover buyer, PO3 Sia; that Beran was arrested at the moment
of the consummation of the sale transaction and immediately brought to the DAID-WPD along with
the sachet of illegal drug confiscated from him; that when the substance was subjected to chemical
analysis by the WPD Drug Laboratory, the content thereof was shown to be methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.
The CA further held that the arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia without warrant was valid under Section 5(b)
of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that "a police officer or a
private person may, without a warrant arrest a person when an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it." It also cited Section 5(a) of Rule 113, wherein it provides
that "a police officer can arrest a person without warrant when in his presence the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense."
Quoted below at length are pertinent portions of the testimony of PO3 Sia which according to the CA
have proved beyond reasonable doubt the material facts attending the buy-bust and establishing the
guilt of Beran:
xxxx
============================
DIRECT
CONDUCTED
ACP
LIBERTAD
PO3
KNOW
============================

RASA

ON
ME

EXAMINATION
BY
WITNESS
SIA

xxxx
Q: How did you know that there was that informant who arrived at your office giving information
about drugs activities of a certain Beran?
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina formed a team in DAID office, ma'am.
Q: Did you know why Enderina formed a group at DAID?
A: He relayed to us that we have an Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation, ma'am.
Q: That you will have an Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation where and against whom?
A: Against one Joselito Beran alias Jose ma am.
Q: Where?
A: In the area of San Antonio Street Tondo Manila.

Q: Was there anytime that you saw them in front at your office when he relayed the information to
Enderina?
A: Yes maam.
Q: What time of the day or the night was that?
A: Between 3-4 pm of August 26 2003 ma am.
Q: And what did your team leader Rodolfo Enderina do as soon as he received that information? A:
He formed his men and then he directed all of us and placed the confidential information for
interrogation maam.
Q: As a matter of standard operating procedure what does an operative of SAID or DAID do before
launching a buy-bust operation?
A: First there must be an information to be received then there was a plan of operation and then the
documents are required to be accomplished prior to the conduct of a buy-bust operation maam.
Q: What documents if any were you required to prepare prior to your operation?
A: Our dispatch record.
Q: Do you have a copy of this dispatch record?
A: Yes maam.
Q: Can you show it to the Court?
A: It is with the custodial of DAID maam.
xxxx
ACP Rasa:
Q: Aside from the dispatch record what other documents did you prepare?
A: The buy-bust money, maam.
Q: Do you have the buy-bust money with you?
A: I will bring it on the next hearing maam.
Q: How much buy-bust money did you prepare?
A: P100.00, maam.
Q: Who supplied that P100.00 buy-bust money?

A: Our team leader, maam.

Q: Who is your team leader?
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, Maam.
Q: Aside from the dispatch record, the buy-bust money, what other preparations did you do before
launching on the operation of buy-bust against one Joselito Beran alias Jose?
A: There was a preparation of Pre-Operation Report and Coordination Sheet, however, we cannot
fax to the PDEA because the PDEA fax at that time was not fully operational, maam.
Q: What other documents aside from those already mentioned did you prepare?
A: That s all, maam.
Q: And what were the other instructions given to you by the team leader, Rodolfo Enderina?
A: During our briefing, I was then chosen as the designated poseur-buyer, maam.
Q: What else?
A: The marked money was marked by me and then during the briefing, it was agreed that the prearranged signal was to touch my hair as indication that the deed was done, ma am.
xxxx
Q: What time did you proceed to San Antonio?
A: Around 5:00 of August 26, 2003, maam.
Q: How many vehicles did you use?
A: We utilized one (1) owner type jeep and the others were on their respective motorcycle or scooter,
maam.
Q: And the others were aboard on scooters?
A: Yes, Maam.
Q: Who were inside the owner type jeep?
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, the confidential informant and PO1 (sic) Delos Santos, maam. Q: And
who took their scooters?
A: PO3 Benito Decorion and PO2 Ernie Reyes, maam.
Q: One scooter?

A: Two (2) scooters maam.

Q: Where did you park your vehicle?
A: We parked in the area of Gat Andres Hospital, maam.
xxxx
Q: As soon as you had parked your vehicles, what else happened?
A: When we parked our vehicle, PO3 Enderina grouped us and told us that at the area where we
were going, the vehicles could not enter San Antonio Street and after that, the confidential informant
was the first who proceeded to the target place, maam.
Q: You already said that you already parked your vehicles. So how did you arrive at San Antonio
Street?
A: On foot, ma'am.
Q: How did you scout or identify your target person?
A: Upon arrival in the area of San Antonio, the confidential informant was the first who arrived and
then in a few minutes later, the confidential informant pointed to one (1) male person in the area
of San Antonio, ma'am.
Q: You were saying that, the confidential informant went ahead of you?
A: No, ma'am. We were together, ma'am.
Q: Where did you first notice the presence of the accused?
A: Near the alley, maam, in the middle of San Antonio where there is a "poso".
Q: When pointed to you, how far were you from the accused or your target?
A: Approximately 8-10 meters, ma'am.
Q: What was the accused doing when he was pointed at by the confidential informant to you?
A: He was spotted standing, ma'am.
Q: Standing only?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What happened after you saw him standing?

A: The CI went ahead of me to approach the suspect, ma'am.

Q: When you said the CI was ahead of you, about how far away were you following him?
A: 3-4 meters, ma'am.
Q: What else happened?
A: After that, ma am, the CI and the subject were conversing.
Q: Did you hear what the conversation was all about?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: After that conversation, what happened next?
A: The CI signaled to me to come close to them, ma'am.
Q: As soon as you were already with the group or with the CI and the target person, what else did
you do?
A: I approached them, ma am, then the CI introduced me as the buyer of the prospected illegal
drugs.
Q: What was the reply or the action of Beran?
A: He told the CI magkano ba'', ma'am.
Q: And what did the CI say?
A: The CI told him piso lang . Piso means One Hundred Pesos, ma'am.
Q: After knowing that you were only interested to buy "piso'', what happened after?
A: After that Beran took out something from his pocket, maam.
Q: What was that?
A: Beran showed me and the CI a small plastic sachet, ma am.
Q After showing to you, what else did Beran do with the plastic?
A: The subject handed to me one (1) plastic sachet, maam.
Q: What did you do after it was handed to you?
A: discretely examined the contents of the plastic sachet and after that, the subject person
demanded for the payment of said stuff, maam.

Q: What did you do?

A: gave the marked buy-bust money, maam.
Q: What happened after that?
A: After that, the pre-arranged signal was executed, maam.
Q What was the pre-arranged signal agreed upon?
A: Touching of the hair, maam.
Q: Who was able to recover that buy-bust money?
A: Me, maam.
Q: What happened next?
A: The other back-up operatives arrived and PO2 Delos Santos was the first to respond x x x and I
gave the suspect to him for custody, maam.
Q: What did you do with that plastic that you bought from the accused Beran?
A: immediately placed him (sic) in my custody, maam, and later on it was marked and forwarded to
WPD Drug Laboratory Office for laboratory examination, maam.
Q: Who brought that plastic sachet for the laboratory examination?
A: Me, maam.
Q: Who placed the marking on that plastic sachet?
A: Me, maam.
Q What marking did you place?
A JB, maam.
Q: Where did you place the marking?
A: At the office, maam.
Q: If shown that plastic sachet, will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: Why?

A: I recognized the markings, maam.

Q: What did you use to mark it?
A: I think it was a pentel pen, ma'am.
Q: Aside from this drugs (sic) which you said they requested and you personally brought for
examination at the WPD Crime Laboratory, what other things did you do as soon as you arrived at
the office?
A: It was recorded it (sic) in our police blotter, ma'am, and the pertinent documents were prepared.
Q: Do you have a copy of the police blotter?
A: Yes, ma'am, but it's in the office.
Q: The buy-bust money and the dispatched report are also at your office. Can you bring all of those?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What was the result of the laboratory examination which you said you personally brought to the
laboratory?
A: It turned out to be positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, ma'am.
Q: What happened next after the examination?
A: After preparing the documents, we presented the case before the inquest fiscal, ma'am.
Q: Did you subject the accused for drug test?
A: I cannot remember, ma'am.
Q: You did not prepare a request for drug test?
A: I prepared the request for drug test, ma'am.
Q: And what was the result of the drug test?
A: I do not know the result, ma'am. Q: Can you bring the result of the drug test?
A: "Sa Crime Lab na lang po", ma'am.
x x x x.12
====================================
CONTINUATION
OF
CONDUCTED

DIRECT

EXAMINATION
BY:

FISCAL
PURIFICACION
====================================

A.

BARING-TUVERA

FISCAL TUVERA:
xxxx
Q: Mr. Witness, during your testimony on August 8, 2006, you were asked by former Prosecutor
Rasa if you will be able to identify the specimen which you said you bought from accused Joselito
Beran, do you remember having said that?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Will you still be able to identify the specimen if it will be shown to you again?
A: Yes, ma am. I was the one who. . . (interrupted)
Q: Will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes, ma am.
Q: And how will you be able to identify it, Mr. Witness?
A: I was the one who placed the marking on the alleged shabu.
Q: And what were the markings that you placed on the plastic sachet?
A: It was marked JB ma am.
Q: J?
A: JB.
Q: And will you kindly tell us who placed the markings JB on the plastic sachet?
A: I was the one who marked the specimen.
Q: And where did you place the markings Mr. Witness?
A: On the plastic sachet.
Q: At what time did you place the markings on the plastic sachet?
A: After the arrest of the suspect when he was brought to our office for investigation.
Q: In other words, when did you place the markings?
A: After 5 pm of August 23, 2003.

Q: And at what place Mr. Witness?

A: At the office.
Q: I am showing you Mr. Witness a plastic sachet, by the way, how many plastic sachets did you buy
from the accused?
A: One (1) plastic sachet.
Q: One plastic sachet only, Mr. Witness, I am showing you a plastic sachet with markings JB, will you
kindly tell us if that is the same plastic sachet that you bought from the accused and subsequently
marked at the police station?
A: This is the plastic sachet subject of the sale, I marked JB on the said plastic sachet.
FISCAL TUVERA: We manifest Your Honor that [t]he plastic sachet was already marked as Exhibit
B-1 for the prosecution.
Q: What did you use Mr. Witness in buying this shabu?
A: We utilized P100 bill.
Q: Do you have the genuine P100 bill with you now Mr. Witness?
(pause)
Q: Nasa iyo ba yung P100 bill?
A: I have it in my custody.
Q: You have it in your custody?
A: But I did not bring it today.
Q: Why did you not bring it today Mr. Witness?
A: I only knew ma am that I have my hearing on Joselito Beran but I forgot to bring it, next scheduled
hearing nalang po.
Q: Mr. Witness, before you used that buy-bust money to buy shabu from the accused Mr. Witness,
did you place markings on the P100 bill?
A: Yes maam
Q: And what were these markings did you place on the P100 bill?
A: I marked DAID at the left portion of the buy-bust money.

Q: And what else did you do aside from placing markings on the P100 bill?
A: The said money was then xeroxed for five (5) pieces and then the original was kept in our
custody.
x x x x.13
(Continuation of Direct-Examination of Witness PO3 Know me Sia by ACP Baring-Tuvera)
xxxx
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: Mr. Witness, you are here today for the continuation of your direct-examination. May we know if
you already brought with you the buy-bust money in connection with this case?
THE WITNESS
A: Yes, maam.
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: Will you kindly bring it out and show it to this Honorable Court so that the Court may be able to
appreciate it?
THE WITNESS
A: Here, maam.
COURT:
Q: The money is attached to a blank sheet of paper. Will you write something about it, the case
number?
THE WITNESS
A: Yes, your Honor.
ACP BARING-TUVERA:
Q: May I just have this identified, your Honor? Mr. Witness, you said that you were the one who
placed the markings on this One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bill. Will you kindly tell us on what part of
this money did you place the markings?
THE WITNESS
A: I marked DAID at the left center portion of the buy-bust money.

xxxx
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: Mr. Witness, you said that you were the one -you were the poseur-buyer in this case. If you will be
shown the item again, will you be able to identify it again Mr. Witness?
THE WITNESS
A: Yes, maam.
Q: I am showing to you Mr. Witness -and how will you be able to identify it?
A: I was the one who marked it.
Q: And what markings did you place on the plastic sachet?
A: JB, maam.
xxxx
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: And who were present when you marked this plastic sachet at the office?
THE WITNESS
A: The arresting officers maam, my companions in the conduct of the buy-bust operation, ma am.
THE COURT:
Q: Who?
THE WITNESS
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, PO2 Hipolito Francia.
THE COURT:
Q: In the presence of your fellow officers?
THE WITNESS
A: Yes, Your Honor.
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: How about the police investigator, was he also present when you place this markings?

THE WITNESS
A: In that case maam, I was also the investigator.
Q: You were also the investigator. And after you placed the markings on that plastic sachet Mr.
Witness, the plastic sachet containing shabu, what else did you do?
A: We prepared the laboratory examination, maam.
Q: Who prepared the request for laboratory examination?
A: I prepared it, maam.
Q: Okay. And after you prepared the request for laboratory examination, what else happened?
A: And then we submitted the said specimen to the crime laboratory for laboratory examination.
Q: Was the laboratory examination actually conducted on the plastic sachet that you submitted? A:
Yes, maam.
Q: And what was the result of the laboratory examination that was conducted on the specimen that
you submitted?
A: It yielded positive result for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, maam.
xxxx
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: After you have arrested or after the buy-bust operation Mr. Witness, do you remember having
executed any document?
THE WITNESS
A: I executed the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer. I also prepared the Referral for Inquest, the Request for
Drug Test and the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report.
x x x x.14
On cross-examination, PO3 Sia was asked why he omitted to mention in his affidavit his claimed
marking of the confiscated sachet of shabu. He could not explain his oversight except to say that he
"forgot to include a mention of the said fact, ma'am." 15
Our Ruling
According to the CA, the following elements are required to sustain Beran's conviction and these
have been shown to be present in the case below, namely: the identity of the buyer and the seller;
the object of the sale and the consideration; and the delivery of the thing sold and payment

therefor.16 It held that the prosecution was able to establish the following facts: the identities of the
poseur-buyer, PO3 Sia, and the seller, Beran; the object of the sale, shabu contained in a heatsealed plastic sachet handed by Beran to PO3 Sia; and, the consideration which PO3 Sia paid for
the staged purchase, a marked P100.00 bill confiscated in the possession of Beran. Thus, according
to the CA, a complete narrative was built of an illegal sale of shabu leading to the arrest of Beran by
PO3 Sia.
We disagree.
The crucial issue in this case is whether, to establish the corpus delicti the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized drug have been preserved in an unbroken chain of custody. We find no unbroken
chain of custody, and we rule that the prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the
crime charged. Beran must be set free.
Evidentiary
custody
sachet
integrity.17

gaps
of
cast

in
the
reasonable

the
confiscated
doubt

chain
on

of
plastic
its

It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself, must be
independently established beyond reasonable doubt. 18 In People v Pagaduan19 we ruled that proof
beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands that
unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose
core is the confiscated illicit drug. 20 The case of People v. Tan,21 cited in People of the Philippines v.
Datu Not Abdul,22 elucidates and reminds us why:
"By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of
shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be
planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds
all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra
vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties
for drug offenses. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and
prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants' guilt. It should have given more serious
consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and
many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the merits of the present
case.
Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established, and the chain of custody
requirement under R.A. No. 9165 performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that any
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 23 Blacks Law Dictionary describes
"chain of custody," as follows:

"In evidence, the one who offers real evidence, such as the narcotics in a trial of drug case, must
account for the custody of the evidence from the moment in which it reaches his custody until the
moment in which it is offered in evidence, and such evidence goes to weight not to admissibility of
evidence. Com. V. White, 353 Mass. 409, 232 N.E. 2d 335." 24
Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous
Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 nonetheless
explains the said term, as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of 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 use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition.
The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, as thus dispel unnecessary doubts as to the
identity of the evidence. To be admissible, the prosecution must establish by records or testimony
the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the possession of the police
officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time it
was offered in evidence.25
A review of the facts of this case will readily make evident that the appellate decision failed to take
note of vital gaps in the recording by the apprehending officers of authorized movements and
custody of the seized shabu as we shall point out, and these gaps compel us to rule that reasonable
doubt exists as to the identity of the very corpus of the offense herein charged, the sachet of shabu
recovered from Beran. In People v. Alcuizar,26 we reiterated the rule that under R.A. No. 9165 the
dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti and that to sustain a conviction the identity
and integrity of the drug must definitely be shown to have been preserved:
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from
the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily
open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any
doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show
that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accusedappellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails. 27 (Citation
omitted)
Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides

that to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized pursuant to a
buy-bust operation, or under a search warrant, the following procedures shall be observed by the
apprehending officers, to wit:
xxxx
(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;
x x x x.28
In People v. Dela Rosa29 we ruled that the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the
continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the possession of the police
officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time it
is offered in evidence.30 In the instant case, from the testimony of PO3 Sia it is clear that the
apprehending operatives did not, immediately after seizure and confiscation of the illegal item,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused, his representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and an elected public
official, notwithstanding that they were supposed to have been conducting a planned sting operation.
Indeed, it is not gratuitous to state that they took no efforts whatsoever to observe even a modicum
of the above procedures. Worse, the prosecution did not bother to explain why they failed to observe
them, although they knew these procedures were intended to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the item seized.
Moreover, none of the other witnesses of the prosecution could corroborate the culpatory narrative of
PO3 Sia at any of its material points to create the successive links in the custody of the seized drug.
Of the six-man buy-bust team, only PO3 Sia and PO3 Francia testified in court, and PO3 Francia
himself twice stated that he did not witness the actual buy-bust sale as it was taking-place:
(On Cross-examination of PO3 Francia by Atty. Anne Geraldine Agar)
xxxx
Q: And what was your participation in this case, Mr. Witness?

A; I acted as alalay or back-up, ma'am.

Q: Did you act as alalay on that day?
A; Yes, ma'am.
COURT:
Did you see what happened while you were acting as alalay or back-up?
WITNESS:
None, your Honor. Malayo po kasi ako.
COURT:
Wala pala, eh ..
ATTY.AGAR:
Nothing further, your Honor.
FISCAL:
Redirect, Your Honor.
COURT:
Proceed Fiscal.
Q: P03 Francia, you were one of those appointed to form a team?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: And you said, you were only as alalay ?
A: Yes, back-up, maam.
Q: What does an alalay or back-up do?
A: We are there to prevent any intruder that may prevent our operation, maam.
Q: How far were you positioned from the poseur-buyer?
A: More than 5-7 meters, maam.
Q: Was there any incident or intruder that stopped you from arresting the accused?
A: None, maam.

Q: From where you were, were you able to see the pre-arranged signal by the poseur-buyer?
xxxx
A: No, I did not see, maam.
Q: As a back-up, when did you come to see that the deal was consummated?
A: When my companions moved to Know me Sia to assist him, maam.
Q: And what was your last act at that time?
A: "Umalalay," maam.31
Incidentally, neither did PO3 Francia corroborate PO3 Sia's claim that he and PO3 Enderina were
present when he marked the subject sachet at the precinct.
In People v. Morales,32 we acquitted the accused due to the failure of the buy-bust team to
photograph and inventory the seized items or to give justifiable grounds for their non-observance of
the required procedures. In People v. Garcia, 33 the accused was acquitted because "no physical
inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the
circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules." 34 We issued the same ruling in
Bondad Jr. v. People,35 where the police without justifiable grounds did not inventory or photograph
the seized items. We reiterated the same ruling in People v. Gutierrez, 36People v.
Denoman,37 People v. Partoza,38 People v. Robles,39 and People v. dela Cruz.40 In all these cases,
we stressed the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures in Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 concerning the preservation of the chain of custody of confiscated drugs in a buy-bust
operation.
Further, in Mallillin v. People41 we emphasized that the chain of custody rule requires that there be
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the object seized was picked up to the time
it was offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched it would describe how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the possession of the
witness, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain.42
The RTC and CA both convicted Beran on the basis alone of the uncorroborated testimony of PO3
Sia, and despite the buy-bust team s unexplained non-observance of the procedures laid down in
Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165. As the Court of last resort, we are now called
upon to correct this error. Unlike in People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Mali y Quimno a k a
"Linda",43 where we found that the prosecution adequately established the unbroken links in the
chain of custody of the confiscated drug, and the apprehending officers were able to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized and justified their non-compliance with the above
procedures, in the instant appeal we rule that the chain of custody has not been established at all,

and thus the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug seized has not been preserved.
Contrary
to
buy-bust
shabu
was
presence
upon confiscation.

the
operation,
not
of

settled
(1)
Beran

rule
the
marked
(2)

in
in

a
confiscated
the
immediately

Concerning the marking of evidence seized in a buy-bust operation or under a search warrant, vis-avis the physical inventory and photograph, it must be noted that there are distinctions as to time and
place under Section 21 of R A No. 9165. Thus, whereas in seizures covered by search warrants, the
physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place of the search warrant, in
warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, consistent with the "chain of custody" rule. In People v. Sanchez 44 the Court held that:
"Physical
inventory
requirement
under
vis--vis "marking" of seized evidence

and
Section

photograph
21

While the first sentence of Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
9165 states that "the apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same," the
second sentence makes a distinction between warrantless seizures and seizures by virtue of a
warrant, thus:
"(a) x x x 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."
Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ and depend on
whether the seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through a warrantless seizure such
as a buy-bust operation.
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted
in the place where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in case of warrantless
seizures such as a buy-bust operation, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable;
however, nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from immediately conducting the physical
inventory and photography of the items at the place where they were seized, as it is more in keeping

with the law's intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value.
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of
marking of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon
apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities
are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of
custody" rule requires that the marking of the seized itemsto truly ensure that they are the same
items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the
presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the
process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as
well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section
29 and on allegations of robbery or theft. 45 (Citations omitted and emphases in the original)
It needs no elaboration that the immediate marking of the item seized in a buy-bust operation in the
presence of the accused is indispensable to establish its identity in court. PO3 Sia admitted that he
marked the sachet of shabu only at the DAID-WPD precinct, several kilometers from the buy-bust
scene, as well as impliedly admitted that Beran was not then present. Indeed, none of the buy-bust
team attested that they saw him take custody of the confiscated shabu and later mark the sachet at
the DAID-WPD office.
Also, the operatives rode in separate vehicles on the trip back to the WPD, and PO3 Sia took a
scooter with another teammate, who could then have attested as to his exclusive custody of the
subject drug, but that person was not presented to affirm this fact. So even granting that P03 Sia did
mark the same sachet at the precinct, breaks in the chain of custody had already taken place, first,
when he confiscated it from Beran without anyone observing him do so and without marking the
subject sachet at the place of apprehension, and then as he was transporting it to the precinct, thus
casting serious doubt upon the value of the said links to prove the corpus delicti.
It has been held that "while a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an
unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its
susceptibility
to
alteration,
tampering,
contamination
and
even
substitution
and
46
exchange." Moreover, as the investigator of the case, PO3 Sia claimed that he personally took the
drug to the laboratory for testing, but there is no showing who the laboratory technician was who
received the drug from him. The records also show that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory
only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight.
All these leave us with no conclusion but that there is serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised.
Lapses
the
R.A.
terms

in
the
requirements
No.
9165
of

strict
of
must
their

compliance
Section
21
be
explained
justifiable

with
of
in
grounds,

and
the
value
of
the
shown to have been preserved.

integrity
evidence

and
seized

must

evidentiary
be

In People v. Coreche,47 we explained that the above-cited rules are intended to narrow the window of
opportunity for tampering with evidence, as expressed in Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165.1wphi1 As
noted by the Court which is worth stating:
RA 9165 is silent on when and where marking should be done. On the other hand, its implementing
rules provide guidelines on the inventory of the seized drugs, thus: "the physical inventory x x x shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at
the office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures"
(Section 21(a) of Implementing Rules and Regulations). In People v. Sanchez G.R. No. 175832, 15
October 2008, 569 SCRA 194), we drew a distinction between marking and inventory and held that
consistent with the chain of custody rule, the marking of the drugs seized without warrant must be
done "immediately upon confiscation" and in the presence of the accused.
The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found legislative
expression in Section 21(1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and
paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of
inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs the
duty to "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." Although RA 9165 is silent on the effect of non-compliance with Section 21(1),
its implementing guidelines provide 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." We have interpreted this provision to mean that the prosecution bears the burden
of proving "justifiable cause" (People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, 25
February 2009, 580 SCRA 259).48
In Sanchez, we recognized that under varied field conditions the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible, and we ruled that under
the implementing guidelines of the said Section "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."49 But we added that the prosecution bears the burden of proving justifiable
cause."
Thus, in Almorfe, we stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain

the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence
had nonetheless been preserved. 50 In People v. de Guzman,51 we emphasized that the justifiable
ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these
grounds are or that they even exist.52
In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer an explanation for why an inventory and
photograph of the seized evidence was not made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the
police station, as required by the Implementing Rules in case of warrantless arrests, or why the
marking of the seized item was not made at the place of seizure in the presence of Beran. Indeed,
the very identity of the subject shabu cannot be established with certainty by the testimony alone of
PO3 Sia since the rules insist upon independent proof of its identity, such as the immediate marking
thereof upon seizure. And as we already noted, PO3 Sia claimed that he personally transported the
shabu to the WPD station, yet other than his lone testimony there is no other evidence of his
exclusive and uninterrupted custody during the interval from seizure and transportation to turn over
at the WPD. Then, the record shows that PO3 Sia submitted the sachet of shabu for laboratory
examination only the next day,53 and therefore presumably he retained custody of the subject sachet
overnight. In view of his self-serving admission that he marked the sachet only at the precinct, but
without anyone present, along with his lack of mention of the laboratory technician or officer who
received the sachet from him, the charge that the subject drug may have been tampered with or
substituted is inevitable.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated March 9, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04466 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Joselito Beran y Zapanta is hereby ACQUITTED of the
charge of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. His immediate RELEASE from
detention is hereby ORDERED unless he is being held for another lawful cause. Let a copy of this
Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate
implementation, who is then also directed to report to this Court the action he has taken within five
(5) days from his receipt of this Decision.

G.R. No. 191366

December 13, 2010

PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y NGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, and
RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, Accused-Appellants.

DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the August 7, 2009 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269,
which affirmed the February 13, 2008 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan
City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2006-0525-D, finding the accused guilty of violating Section 13, in relation to
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings.
The Facts
The Information indicting the accused reads:
That on or about the 2nd day of September 2006, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ARNOLD MARTINEZ y ANGELES, EDGAR
DIZON y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ y CAROLINO, ROLAND DORIA y DIAZ and RAFAEL GONZALES y
CUNANAN, without authority of law, confederating together, acting jointly and helping one another, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, sniff and possess dangerous drugs (shabu residues) contained in
empty plastic sachets and rolled aluminum foil, during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the
proximate company of at least two (2) person[s].
Contrary to Section 13, Article II, R.A. 9165.3
Version of the Prosecution
As culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Police Officer 1 Bernard Azardon (PO1 Azardon),
one of the apprehending officers, and Police Inspector Lady Ellen Maranion (P/Insp. Maranion), the forensic
chemical officer, it appears that on September 2, 2006, at around 12:45 oclock in the afternoon, PO1
Azardon was on duty at the Police Community Precinct II along Arellano Street, Dagupan City, when a
concerned citizen entered the precinct and reported that a pot session was going on in the house of accused
Rafael Gonzales (Gonzales) in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon receipt of the report, PO1 Azardon,
PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and members of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team
hied to Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon inquiry from people in the area, the house of Gonzales was
located.
As the police officers entered the gate of the house, they saw accused Orlando Doria (Doria) coming out of
the side door and immediately arrested him. Inside the house, they saw accused Gonzales, Arnold
Martinez (A. Martinez), Edgar Dizon (Dizon), and Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a room. The four were
surprised by the presence of the police. In front of them were open plastic sachets (containing shabu
residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of used aluminum foil.
The accused were arrested and brought to the police precinct. The items found in the room were seized and
turned over to the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime Laboratory Officer, P/Insp. Maranion. The latter

conducted a laboratory examination on the seized items and all 115 plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used
aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride. The accused were subjected to a drug test and, except for Doria, they were found to be
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Version of the Defense
The defense, through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez, Dizon, and R. Martinez, claimed that in the morning
of September 2, 2006, the three of them were along Arellano Street in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City, to
meet with a certain Apper who bumped the passenger jeep of R. Martinez and who was to give the materials
for the painting of said jeep. As they were going around the subdivision looking for Apper, they saw Gonzales
in front of his house and asked him if he noticed a person pass by. While they were talking, Doria arrived. It
was then that five to seven policemen emerged and apprehended them. They were handcuffed and brought
to the police station in Perez, Dagupan City, where they were incarcerated and charged with sniffing shabu.
The Ruling of the RTC
The case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer to evidence.
On February 13, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositve portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ARNOLD MARTINEZ y
Angeles, EDGAR DIZON y Ferrer, REZIN MARTINEZ y Carolino, and RAFAEL GONZALES y Cunanan
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings defined and penalized under Section 13 in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act 9165, and each of them is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine in the
amount of P500,000.00, and to pay the cost of suit.
The subject items are hereby forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with
the law.
SO ORDERED.4
The RTC was of the view that the positive testimony of prosecution witness PO1 Azardon, without any
showing of ill-motive on his part, prevailed over the defenses of denial and alibi put up by the accused. The
accused were held to have been in constructive possession of the subject items. A conspiracy was also found
present as there was a common purpose to possess the dangerous drug.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the RTC as to the constructive
possession of the dangerous drugs by the accused. It further held that although the procedure regarding the
custody and disposition of evidence prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with,
the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were nonetheless safeguarded. The CA was of the view
that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was not sufficiently controverted by the

accused.
Not in conformity, the accused now interposes this appeal before this Court praying for the reversal of the
subject decision, presenting the following
Assignment of Errors
For accused Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon and Rezin Martinez
1. The lower court erred in finding the accused-appellants to be having a pot session at the time of
their arrest;
2. The lower court erred in not seeing through the antics of the police to plant the shabu
paraphernalia to justify the arrest of the accused-appellants without warrant;
3. The lower court erred in not finding that the corpus delicti has not been sufficiently established;
4. The lower court erred in not finding the uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Azardon insufficient to
convict the accused-appellants of the crime charged;
5. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused-appellants.
For accused Rafael Gonzales
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED DRUG.
After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary records, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove
the guilt of the accused. The principal reasons are 1] that the evidence against the accused are inadmissible;
and 2] that granting the same to be admissible, the chain of custody has not been duly established.
Illegal Arrest, Search and Seizure
Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such issue before
arraignment.5 However, this waiver is limited only to the arrest. The legality of an arrest affects only the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry
with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. 6
Although the admissibility of the evidence was not raised as in issue by the accused, it has been held that this

Court has the power to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary in arriving at a just
decision,7especially when the transcendental matter of life and liberty is at stake. 8 While it is true that rules of
procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, they nevertheless must not be
met at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules
of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it.
Technicalities should never be used to defeat substantive rights. 9 Thus, despite the procedural lapses of the
accused, this Court shall rule on the admissibility of the evidence in the case at bench. The clear infringement
of the accuseds right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be ignored.
The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its citizens
as well as into their houses, papers and effects.10 Sec. 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 2. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
This constitutional guarantee, however, is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures without
warrant. Arrests and seizures in the following instances are allowed even in the absence of a warrant (i)
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 11 (ii) search of evidence in "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving
vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; and (vii) exigent and
emergency circumstances.12
This case would appear to fall under either a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest or a plain view
search, both of which require a lawful arrest in order to be considered valid exceptions to the constitutional
guarantee. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the circumstances under which
a warrantless arrest is lawful. Thus:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
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;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where
he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of

Rule 112.
A review of the facts reveal that the arrest of the accused was illegal and the subject items were confiscated
as an incident thereof. According to the testimony of PO1 Azardon and his Joint Affidavit 13 with PO1 Dela
Cruz, they proceeded to, and entered, the house of accused Gonzales based solely on the report of a
concerned citizen that a pot session was going on in said house, to wit:
Q: I go back to the information referred to you by the informant, did he not tell you how many persons were
actually conducting the pot session?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you went to the place of Rafael Gonzales, of course you were not armed with a search warrant,
correct?
A: None, sir.
Q: Before the information was given to you by your alleged informant, you did not know personally Rafael
Gonzales?
A: I have not met [him] yet but I heard his name, sir.
Q: When this informant told you that he was told that there was [an] ongoing pot session in the house of
Rafael Gonzales, was this report to you placed in the police blotter before you proceeded to the house of
Rafael Gonzales?
A: I think it was no longer recorded, sir.
Q: In other words, you did not even bother to get the personal data or identity of the person who told you that
he was allegedly informed that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: What I know is that he is a jeepney driver of a downtown jeepney but he does not want to be identified
because he was afraid, sir.
Q: And likewise, he did not inform you who told him that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of
Rafael Gonzales?
A: No more, sir.
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately formed a group and went to the
place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
Q: When you were at the open gate of the premises of Rafael Gonzales, you could not see what is happening

inside the house of Rafael Gonzales?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not also see the alleged paraphernalia as well as the plastic sachet of shabu on the table while
you were outside the premises of the property of Rafael Gonzales?
xxx
Q: Before they entered the premises they could not see the paraphernalia?
COURT: Answer.
A: Of course because they were inside the room, how could we see them, sir.
Q: But still you entered the premises, only because a certain person who told you that he was informed by
another person that there was an ongoing pot session going on inside the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And that is the only reason why you barged in inside the house of Rafael Gonzales and you arrested the
persons you saw?
A: Yes, sir.14
Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to this case. Paragraphs (a) and (b), on the other hand, may
be applicable and both require probable cause to be present in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid.
Probable cause has been held to signify a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious mans belief that the person accused is guilty of the
offense with which he is charged.15
Although this Court has ruled in several dangerous drugs cases 16 that tipped information is sufficient probable
cause to effect a warrantless search, 17 such rulings cannot be applied in the case at bench because said
cases involve either a buy-bust operation or drugs in transit, basically, circumstances other than the sole tip of
an informer as basis for the arrest. None of these drug cases involve police officers entering a house without
warrant to effect arrest and seizure based solely on an informers tip. The case of People v. Bolasa 18 is
informative on this matter.
In People v. Bolasa, an anonymous caller tipped off the police that a man and a woman were repacking
prohibited drugs at a certain house. The police immediately proceeded to the house of the suspects. They
walked towards the house accompanied by their informer. When they reached the house, they peeped inside
through a small window and saw a man and woman repacking marijuana. They then entered the house,
introduced themselves as police officers, confiscated the drug paraphernalia, and arrested the suspects. This
Court ruled:
The manner by which accused-appellants were apprehended does not fall under any of the above-

enumerated categories. Perforce, their arrest is illegal. First, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge
that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants had just committed, were committing, or were about to
commit a crime. Second, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor
did they have any reasonable ground to believe that accused-appellants committed it. Third, accusedappellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a penal establishment.
Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain view. First, there was no valid intrusion. As already
discussed, accused-appellants were illegally arrested. Second, the evidence, i.e., the tea bags later on found
to contain marijuana, was not inadvertently discovered. The police officers intentionally peeped first through
the window before they saw and ascertained the activities of accused-appellants inside the room. In like
manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search,
a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot even fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for the
evidence at hand is bereft of any such showing.
On the contrary, it indicates that the apprehending officers should have conducted first a surveillance
considering that the identities and address of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After
conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause for arresting accusedappellants, they should have secured a search warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The arrest
being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every evidence thus obtained during the
illegal search cannot be used against accused-appellants; hence, their acquittal must follow in faithful
obeisance to the fundamental law.19
It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable
cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when the suspicion, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing an offense, is
based on actual facts, that is, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. 20
As to paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time
of the arrest, accused had just committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime, as they had no
probable cause to enter the house of accused Rafael Gonzales in order to arrest them. As to paragraph (b),
the arresting officers had no personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead them to believe
that the accused had just committed an offense. As admitted in the testimony of PO1 Azardon, the tip
originated from a concerned citizen who himself had no personal knowledge of the information that was
reported to the police:
Q: Mr. Witness, you claimed that the reason for apprehending all the accused was based on a tip-off by an
informant?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What exactly [did] that informant tell you?

A: He told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of one of the
accused Rafael Gonzales, sir.
Q: You mean to say that it was not the informant himself to whom the information originated but from
somebody else?
A: That was what he told me, sir.
Q: Because of that you proceeded to where the alleged pot session was going on? [No Answer]
Q: Did you[r] informant particularly pinpointed [sic] to where the alleged pot session was going on?
A: No more because he did not go with us, sir.
Q: So you merely relied on what he said that something or a pot session was going on somewhere in Arellano
but you dont know the exact place where the pot session was going on?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And your informant has no personal knowledge as to the veracity of the alleged pot session because
he claimed that he derived that information from somebody else?
A: This is what he told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot session, sir.
Q: Despite of [sic] that information you proceeded to where?
A: Trinidad Subdivision, sir.
xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, did your informant named [sic] those included in the alleged pot session?
A: No, sir.
Q: That was, because your informant dont [sic] know physically what was really happening there?
A: He was told by another person that there was an ongoing pot session there, sir.21 [Emphasis supplied]
Neither can it be said that the subject items were seized in plain view. The elements of plainview are: (a) a
prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be
where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and, (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search.22
The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as the police officers intentionally entered the house with no
prior surveillance or investigation before they discovered the accused with the subject items. If the prior
peeking of the police officers in Bolasa was held to be insufficient to constitute plain view, then more so

should the warrantless search in this case be struck down. Neither can the search be considered as a search
of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search, a customs search, a stop and frisk, or one under
exigent and emergency circumstances.
The apprehending officers should have first conducted a surveillance considering that the identity and
address of one of the accused were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining
the existence of probable cause, then a search warrant should have been secured prior to effecting arrest
and seizure. The arrest being illegal, the ensuing search as a result thereof is likewise illegal. Evidence
procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. 23 The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are thus
inadmissible. The drug, being the verycorpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, its
inadmissibility thus precludes conviction, and calls for the acquittal of the accused.
As has been noted previously by this Court, some lawmen, prosecutors and judges have glossed over illegal
searches and seizures in cases where law enforcers are able to present the alleged evidence of the crime,
regardless of the methods by which they were obtained. This attitude tramples on constitutionally-guaranteed
rights in the name of law enforcement. It is ironic that such enforcement of the law fosters the breakdown of
our system of justice and the eventual denigration of society. While this Court appreciates and encourages
the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we
nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and
the law.24
Chain of Custody
Even granting that the seized items are admissible as evidence, the acquittal of the accused would still be in
order for failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the chain of custody requirement in dangerous
drugs cases.
The accused contend that the identity of the seized drug was not established with moral certainty as the chain
of custody appears to be questionable, the authorities having failed to comply with Sections 21 and 86 of R.A.
No. 9165, and Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) Resolution No. 03, Series of 1979, as amended by Board
Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990. They argue that there was no prior coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), no inventory of the confiscated items conducted at the crime scene, no
photograph of the items taken, no compliance with the rule requiring the accused to sign the inventory and to
give them copies thereof, and no showing of how the items were handled from the time of confiscation up to
the time of submission to the crime laboratory for testing. Therefore, the corpus delicti was not proven,
thereby producing reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Thus, they assert that the presumption of innocence in
their favor was not overcome by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in
possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.25 Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of
R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have

occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2)
persons.
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and,
thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction. In order to establish the existence of the drug, its chain of
custodymust be sufficiently established. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts
regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of
the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. 26 Malillin v.
People was the first in a growing number of cases to explain the importance of chain of custody in dangerous
drugs cases, to wit:
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 and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 27
Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, 28 defines chain of custody as follows:
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;
Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity
and integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
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 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.

People v. Habana thoroughly discusses the proper procedure for the custody of seized or confiscated items in
dangerous drugs cases in order to ensure their identity and integrity, as follows:
Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who
would then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession
of the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance
from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive
tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then
identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime
laboratory.
If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the same. In this way the
substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused.
Further, after the laboratory technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he
should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a new seal since the police officers
seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe the sealed condition of the plastic
container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its integrity.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police
officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how
briefly ones possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not
been tampered with or substituted while in his care. 29
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborates, and
provides for, the possibility of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure:
(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.
[Emphasis supplied]
Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not necessarily render the
seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, provided that (i) there is a justifiable ground for such noncompliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this

case, however, no justifiable ground is found availing, and it is apparent that there was a failure to properly
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from
the time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. A review of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the documentary records of the case reveals irreparably broken links in the chain of custody.
According to the apprehending police officers in their Joint Affidavit, the following were confiscated from the
accused, to wit:
a) Several pcs of used empty plastic sachets containing suspected shabu residues.
b) Eight used (8) disposable lighters ( two (2) pcs colored orange, two (2) pcs colored yellow, one (1) pc
colored green & one (1) pc colored white ).
c) Several pcs of used rolled aluminum foil containing suspected shabu residues.
d) Several pcs of used cut aluminum foil containing suspected shabu residues.
e) One (1) pc glass tube containing suspected shabu residues.30
[Emphases supplied]
At the police station, the case, the accused, and the above-mentioned items were indorsed to Duty
Investigator Senior Police Officer 1 Pedro Urbano, Jr. (SPO1 Urbano) for proper disposition.31 A letter-request
for laboratory examination was prepared by Police Superintendent Edgar Orduna Basbag for the following
items:
a) Pieces of used empty small plastic sachets with suspected shabu residues marked "DC&A-1."
b) Pieces of used rolled and cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues marked "DC&A-2."
c) Pieces of used cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues marked "DC&A-3."32
[Emphases supplied]
The letter-request and above-mentioned items were submitted to P/Insp. Maranion by SPO3 Froilan Esteban
(SPO3 Esteban). Final Chemistry Report No. D-042-06L listed the specimens which were submitted for
testing, to wit:
SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:
A A1 to A115 One Hundred fifteen (115) open transparent plastic sachet with tag each containing
suspected shabu residue without markings.
B B1 to B11 Eleven (11) rolled used aluminum foil with tag each containing suspected shabu
residuewithout markings.
C C1 to C49 Forty-nine (49) used aluminum foil with tag each containing suspected shabu

residuewithout markings.33
[Emphases supplied]
Three days after the subject items were seized, or on September 5, 2006, a Confiscation Receipt was issued
by PO1 Azardon and PO1 Dela Cruz, which reads:
DCPS AID SOTG 05 September 2006
CONFISCATION RECEIPT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on or about 12:45 noon of September 4, 2006, we together with our precinct
supervisor, SPO4 Pedro Belen Jr., and SWAT members composed of SPO1 Marlon Decano, PO3 Manuel
Garcia, PO2 Adriano Cepiroto and PO1 Aldrin Guarin apprehended the following names of persons of
ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, 37 yrs old, married, jobless, a resident of Lucao Dist., this city; EDGAR
DIZON Y FERRER, 36 yrs old, single, tricycle driver, a resident of 471 Lucao Dist., this city. REZIN
MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, 44 yrs old, married, jitney driver, a resident of Lucao Disttrict this city; ROLAND
DORIA Y DIAZ, 39 yrs old, married, businessman, resident of Cabeldatan, Malasiqui, Pangasinan and
RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, 49 yrs old, separated, jobless and a resident of Trinidad Subd., ArellanoBani this city.
Suspects were duly informed of their constitutional rights and were brought to Dagupan City Police Station,
Perez Market Site Dagupan City and indorsed to Duty Desk Officer to record the incident and the sachet of
suspected Shabu Paraphernalias were brought to PNP Crime Laboratory, Lingayen, Pangasinan for
Laboratory Examination.
Seizing Officer:
(sgd.)
PO1
Affiant

Bernard

Remarks:
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed34

(sgd.)
Azardon PO1
Affiant

Alejandro

Dela

Cruz

[Emphases supplied]
The 115 open transparent plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 (of the 49) pieces of
used aluminum foil, all containing shabu residue, as identified in the Final Chemistry Report, were presented
in court and marked as Exhibits "H" and series, "I" and series, and "J" and series, respectively. Said items
were identified by PO1 Azardon and P/Insp. Maranion at the witness stand. 35
The CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject items were properly preserved as there
was sufficient evidence to prove that the items seized from the accused were the same ones forwarded to the
crime laboratory for examination, as shown in the Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for laboratory
examination.
A review of the chain of custody indicates, however, that the CA is mistaken.
First, the apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. After seizure and confiscation
of the subject items, no physical inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused, or their
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. Thus,
no inventory was prepared, signed, and provided to the accused in the manner required by law. PO1
Azardon, in his testimony,36admitted that no photographs were taken. The only discernable reason proffered
by him for the failure to comply with the prescribed procedure was that the situation happened so suddenly.
Thus:
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately formed a group and went to the
place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Such that you did not even inform the PDEA before you barged in that place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: It was so suddenly, [sic] sir.
Q: And that explains the reason why you were not able to have pictures taken, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.37
[Emphasis supplied]
The Court does not find such to be a justifiable ground to excuse non-compliance. The suddenness of the
situation cannot justify non-compliance with the requirements. The police officers were not prevented from
preparing an inventory and taking photographs. In fact, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides
specifically that in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and photographs shall be done at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Whatever effect the suddenness of the
situation may have had should have dissipated by the time they reached the police station, as the suspects
had already been arrested and the items seized. Moreover, it has been held that in case of warrantless
seizures nothing prevents the apprehending officer from immediately conducting the physical inventory and

photography of the items at their place of seizure, as it is more in keeping with the laws intent to preserve
their integrity and evidentiary value.38
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some
cases are People v. Garcia,39 People v. Dela Cruz,40 People v. Dela Cruz,41 People v. Santos, Jr.,42 People v.
Nazareno,43 People v. Orteza,44 Zarraga v. People,45 and People v. Kimura.46
Second, the subject items were not properly marked. The case of People v. Sanchez is instructive on the
requirement of marking, to wit:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of
"marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension
is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the
police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the
"marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended
violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons
from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment
suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.
For greater specificity, "marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initials and signature on the item/s seized. x x x Thereafter, the seized items shall be placed in an envelope or
an evidence bag unless the type and quantity of the seized items require a different type of handling and/or
container. The evidence bag or container shall accordingly be signed by the handling officer and turned over
to the next officer in the chain of custody.47 [Emphasis in the original]
Nowhere in the testimony of PO1 Azardon or in his Joint Affidavit with PO1 Dela Cruz does it appear that the
subject items were at all marked. It was only in the letter-request for laboratory examination that the subject
items were indicated to have been marked with "DC&A-1," "DC&A-2" and "DC&A-3." There is no showing,
however, as to who made those markings and when they were made. Moreover, those purported markings
were never mentioned when the subject items were identified by the prosecution witnesses when they took
the stand.
The markings appear to pertain to a group of items, that is, empty plastic sachets, rolled and cut aluminium
foil, and cut aluminium foil, but do not specifically pertain to any individual item in each group. Furthermore, it
was only in the Chemistry Report 48 that the precise number of each type of item was indicated and
enumerated. The Court notes that in all documents prior to said report, the subject items were never
accurately
quantified
but
only
described
as
"pieces," 49 "several
pcs,"50 and
"shabu
51
paraphernallas." Strangely, the Chemistry Report indicates that all the subject items had "no markings,"
although each item was reported to have been marked by P/Insp. Maranion in the course of processing the
subject items during laboratory examination and testing. 52Doubt, therefore, arises as to the identity of the
subject items. It cannot be determined with moral certainty that the subject items seized from the accused

were the same ones subjected to the laboratory examination and presented in court.
This Court has acquitted the accused for the failure and irregularity in the marking of seized items in
dangerous drugs cases, such as Zarraga v. People,53 People v. Kimura,54 and People v. Laxa.55
Third, the Confiscation Receipt relied upon by the prosecution and the courts below gives rise to more
uncertainty. Instead of being prepared on the day of the seizure of the items, it was prepared only three days
after. More important, the receipt did not even indicate exactly what items were confiscated and their quantity.
These are basic information that a confiscation receipt should provide. The only information contained in the
Confiscation Receipt was the fact of arrest of the accused and the general description of the subject items as
"the sachet of suspected Shabu paraphernallas were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory." The receipt is
made even more dubious by PO1 Azardons admission in his testimony 56 that he did not personally prepare
the Confiscation Receipt and he did not know exactly who did so.
Fourth, according to the Certification 57 issued by the Dagupan Police Station, the subject items were indorsed
by PO1 Dela Cruz to Duty Investigator SPO1 Urbano for proper disposition. These were later turned over by
SPO3 Esteban to P/Insp. Maranion. There is, however, no showing of how and when the subject items were
transferred from SPO1 Urbano to SPO3 Esteban.
Fifth, P/Insp. Maranion appears to be the last person in the chain of custody. No witness testified on how the
subject items were kept after they were tested prior to their presentation in court. This Court has highlighted
similar shortcomings in People v. Cervantes,58 People v. Garcia,59 People v. Sanchez,60 and Malillin v.
People.61
More irregularities further darken the cloud as to the guilt of the accused. Contrary to PO1 Azardons
testimony62that they were tipped off by a concerned citizen while at the police station, the Letter 63 to the
Executive Director of the DDB states that the apprehending officers were tipped off "while conducting
monitoring/surveillance." Said letter also indicates, as does the Confiscation Receipt, that the arrest and
seizure occurred on September 4, 2006, and not September 2, 2006, as alleged in the Information. It was
also mentioned in the aforementioned Certification of the Dagupan Police and Joint Affidavit of the police
officers that a glass tube suspected to contain shabu residue was also confiscated from the accused.
Interestingly, no glass tube was submitted for laboratory examination.
In sum, numerous lapses and irregularities in the chain of custody belie the prosecutions position that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the subject items were properly preserved. The two documents specifically
relied on by the CA, the Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for laboratory examination, have been
shown to be grossly insufficient in proving the identity of the corpus delicti. The corpus delicti in dangerous
drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the
prohibited drug is essential before the accused can be found guilty.64
Regarding the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA provided in Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, in People v.
Sta. Maria,65 this Court held that said section was silent as to the consequences of such failure, and said
silence could not be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA

illegal, nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Section 86 is explicit only in saying that
the PDEA shall be the "lead agency" in the investigation and prosecution of drug-related cases. Therefore,
other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as
illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter.
Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of
the evidence but only its weight. 66 Thus, had the subject items in this case been admissible, their evidentiary
merit and probative value would be insufficient to warrant conviction.
It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the police officers, the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duty should prevail. However, such presumption obtains only when there is no
deviation from the regular performance of duty.67 Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, the
presumption of regularity cannot stand.
In this case, the official acts of the law enforcers were clearly shown and proven to be irregular. When
challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the
presumption of innocence of the accused.68
This Court once again takes note of the growing number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to the
failure of law enforcers to observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure under the
law.69 Some bona fide arrests and seizures in dangerous drugs cases result in the acquittal of the accused
because drug enforcement operatives compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized items. It
behooves this Court to remind law enforcement agencies to exert greater effort to apply the rules and
procedures governing the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs.
It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be
possible. Thus, as earlier stated, non-compliance therewith is not necessarily fatal. However, the lapses in
procedure must be recognized, addressed and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity
and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. 70
On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be instructive on Sec. 11 71 (Possession of Dangerous
Drugs) and Sec. 1572 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are filed by
law enforcers. This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where
the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of residue, being
subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the
intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use,
provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The minimum penalty
under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one
day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months
rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would
frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover for
a second chance at life.

In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug
paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for use of dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was
legal, the evidence obtained admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed
charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there was no residue at all, they
should have been charged under Sec. 1473 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the
maximum penalty under Sec. 1274(Possession of Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any person who shall possess any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum penalty is
imprisonment of four years and a fine of P50,000.00. In fact, under the same section, the possession of such
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the possessor has used a
dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Sec. 15.1avvphi1
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls on law
enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the
presence of dangerous drugs is only and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required
under Sec. 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford the accused a chance to be
rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of dangerous drugs should only be done when
another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the possession of the
accused as provided for in Sec. 15.
WHEREFORE, the August 7, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment entered ACQUITTING the accused and ordering their
immediate release from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for
immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within
five days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the DirectorGeneral, Philippine National Police, and the Director-General, Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency, for their
information and guidance.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, is directed to turn over the seized items to the Dangerous
Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

G.R. No. 190621

PEOPLE
vs.

February 10, 2014

OF

THE

PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

GLENN SALVADOR y BAL VERDE, and DORY

GLENN SALVADOR y BALVERDE, Accused-Appellant.

ANN

PARCON

DEL

ROSARIO, Accused,

DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the
accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved. 1
Factual Antecedents
For review is the Decision2 dated September 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No.
03230 that affirmed in toto the January 15, 2008 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82, Quezon
City, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-120799-800. The said RTC Decision found. Glenn Salvador y Balverde
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (illegal sale), and accused Dory Ann Parcon
y Del Rosario (Parcon) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 (illegal possession), both of
Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
The Information4 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 filed against appellant in Criminal Case No. Q-03120799 has the following accusatory portion:
That on or about the 3rd day of September, 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, one (1)
plastic sachet of white crystalline substance containing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
While the pertinent portion of the Information 6 for violation of Section 11 of Article II, RA 9165 filed against
Parcon in Criminal Case No. Q-03-120800 is as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of September, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
have in his/her possession and control one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline substance containing zero point
zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
Upon motion of the prosecution, 8 the cases were consolidated. On November 4, 2003, appellant and Parcon
were arraigned. They entered separate pleas of not guilty. 9

During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the following facts which the prosecution offered for
stipulation:
x x x [T]hat [Police Inspector Leonard T. Arban (P/Insp. Arban)] is a Forensic Chemist of the PNP; that he
received a letter-request for Laboratory Examination for certain specimen which was marked as Exhibit "A"; that
together with the said request is a brown envelope marked as Exhibit "B"; that said brown envelope contained a
plastic sachet marked as Exhibit "B-1" and thereafter he conducted the examination of the said specimen and
submitted a report marked as Exhibit "C"; the findings thereon that the specimen was positive for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride was marked as Exhibit "C-1" and the signature of the said police officer was
marked as Exhibit "C-2". Thereafter, said police officer turned over the said evidence to the Evidence Custodian
and retrieved the same for purposes of the hearing today.10
Trial ensued. Parcon failed to attend the scheduled hearings, hence, she was tried in absentia. 11
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented PO2 Sofjan Soriano (PO2 Soriano) to testify on the entrapment operation that
resulted in the arrest of appellant and Parcon. From his testimony,12 the following facts emerged:
While PO2 Soriano was on duty in Police Station 2, Baler Street, Quezon City on September 2, 2003, a
confidential informant (CI) arrived at around 9:00 a.m. and reported that a certain alias Bumski was engaged in
the illicit sale of dangerous drugs in Barangay Pag-asa, Quezon City. PO2 Soriano immediately relayed this
information to Police Chief Inspector Joseph De Vera (P/C Insp. De Vera). A surveillance operation conducted
the same day on alias Bumski, who turned out to be the appellant, confirmed the report. Thus, a police team was
formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Soriano was designated as poseur-buyer while PO2 Richard
Vecida, PO1 Alexander Pancho, PO1 Alvin Pineda (PO1 Pineda) and P/C Insp. De Vera would serve as his
backup.
At around 2:45 p.m. of September 3, 2003, the team arrived at Road 10, Barangay Pag-asa, Quezon City. PO2
Soriano and the CI proceeded to appellants house while the rest of the buy-bust team positioned themselves
within viewing distance. The CI introduced PO2 Soriano to appellant as a drug dependent who wanted to
purchase P200.00 worth of shabu. During their conversation, Parcon arrived and asked appellant for shabu.
Appellant gave her a small heat-sealed plastic sachet that she placed in her coin purse. Thereafter, PO2 Soriano
handed to appellant the buy-bust money consisting of two 100-peso bills and the latter, in turn, gave him a heatsealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Soriano then immediately arrested appellant
and recovered from his right hand pocket the buy bust money. At this juncture, PO2 Sorianos teammates rushed
to the scene. PO1 Pineda arrested Parcon and recovered from her a plastic sachet also containing white
crystalline substance.
Appellant and Parcon were then taken to the Baler Police Station. The items recovered during the buy-bust
operation were marked by PO2 Soriano as "SJ-03" and "AP-03" and turned over to the designated investigator,
PO1 Vicente Calatay (PO1 Calatay). PO1 Calatay then prepared a letter-request for laboratory examination,
which, together with the confiscated specimen, was brought by PO2 Soriano to the PNP Crime Laboratory.

The prosecution intended to present PO1 Calatay and PO1 Pineda as witnesses, but their testimonies were
likewise dispensed with after the defense agreed to stipulate on the following facts:
PO1 Calatay
[T]hat he was the police investigator assigned to investigate these cases; that in connection with the
investigation that he conducted, he took the Joint Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 Richard Vecida, PO2 Sofjan Soriano,
PO1 Alvin Pineda, and PO1Alexander Pancho marked as Exhibits "F" and "F-1"; that the specimen[s] consisting
of two (2) plastic sachets marked as Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" were turned over to him by the arresting officers;
that in connection therewith, he prepared the request for laboratory examination marked as Exhibit "A" and
received a copy of the Chemistry Report, the original of which was earlier marked as Exhibit "C"; that the buybust money consisting of two (2) pieces of Php100.00 bill marked as Exhibits "D" and "E" were likewise turned
over to him by the arresting officer; that he thereafter prepared a letter referral to the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City marked as Exhibits "G" and "G-1". 13
PO1 Pineda
[T]hat he was part of the buy-bust team which conducted a buy[-]bust operation on September 3, 2003 at about
2:45 a.m. at Road 10, Pag-asa, Quezon City; that he acted as back-up to PO2 Sofjan Soriano, the poseur buyer
in the said operation; that he was with PO2 [Richard] Vecida and PO1 Alexander Pancho during said operation;
that after the consummation of the transaction between PO2 Sofjan Soriano and Glenn Salvador, he assisted in
the arrest of accused Doryann Parcon; that upon [body] search of accused Parcon, he recovered from the latter
a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance; that said plastic sachet was marked as Exhibit "B-2". 14
Version of the Defense
In his testimony,15 appellant claimed that at about 11:00 p.m. of September 2, 2003, he was parking his tricycle
outside his residence at 135 Road 10, Brgy. Pag-asa, Quezon City when a patrol car suddenly stopped in front
of his house. Three policemen alighted, aimed their guns at him, and forced him to board their vehicle. Already
inside were two men in handcuffs sitting on the floor. The police car then proceeded to Police Station 2 in Baler,
Quezon City, where he and the two other men were taken to a room and frisked by policemen who
demandedP20,000.00 from each of them. They were told to call their relatives to inform them of their arrest for
engaging in a pot session. When appellant refused to oblige, PO2 Soriano said to him: "matigas ka, hindi ka
marunong makisama dapat sayo ikulong." He was thereafter detained and no longer saw the two men he
mentioned. Two days later, he was presented to the Prosecutors Office for inquest.
Appellant accused the police officers of falsehood but could not file a case against them since his parents were
in the Unites States of America and he did not know anyone else who could help him. He denied knowing
Parcon and the arresting officers and claimed that he saw Parcon for the first time during the inquest and the
arresting officers when they arrested him.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of

appellant and Parcon for the crimes charged. It did not find impressive appellants claim of extortion by the police
officers and instead upheld the buy-bust operation which it found to have been carried out with due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards. It ruled that absent proof of evil motive on the part of the police, the
presumption of regularity which runs in their favor stands. Thus, the dispositive portion of the RTCs Decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused GLENN SALVADOR y
BALVERDE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 charged in
Criminal Case No. Q-03-120799. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) PESOS.
On the other hand, judgment is likewise rendered in Criminal Case No. Q-03-120800 finding accused DORY
ANN PARCON y DEL ROSARIO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 11, Article II of the
same Act. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE
(12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as MINIMUM to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS as MAXIMUM and to pay a fine in the
amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS.
SO ORDERED.16
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.17 In his Brief,18 he imputed to the RTC the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DECLARING THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED
DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. No. 9165.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE APPREHENDING TEAM TO
PROVE ITS INTEGRITY.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BASED ONLY ON PO2
SOFJAN SORIANOS TESTIMONY.19
Aside from the prosecutions failure to prove the elements constituting the crime of illegal sale of shabu,
appellant asserted that the apprehending officers failed to immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same as mandated by Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165; that the
chain of custody was broken since PO2 Soriano could not determine with certainty whether the plastic sachet
allegedly seized from him was the same specimen subjected to laboratory examination; that the prosecution was
unable to substantiate its claim that the two 100-peso bills were the same money used in purchasing shabu

since the said bills were neither dusted with fluorescent powder nor was he subjected to fingerprint examination;
that the failure to coordinate the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was
prejudicial to his substantive right; and, that PO2 Soriano and the buy-bust team did not accord him due process
by failing to apprise him of his rights after he was arrested.
The People of the Philippines, on the other hand, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserted in
its Brief20 that the Decision of the RTC must be affirmed since the guilt of appellant was established beyond
reasonable doubt; that the prosecution proved all the elements of the illegal sale of drugs; that the testimonies of
the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation and their positive identification of appellant as the seller
of the shabu prevail over the latters denial; that the chain of custody of the illegal drug seized from appellant
was sufficiently established; that the failure to use fluorescent powder in the marked money does not result in a
failure of the buy-bust operation since the same is not a prerequisite to such operation; that the failure of the law
enforcers to conduct a physical inventory or to photograph the seized items in accordance with Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal; that the failure of the buy-bust team to coordinate with the PDEA does not
invalidate appellants arrest; that PO2 Sorianos failure to recall the markings on the specimen shows that he
was not coached as a witness; that appellants defenses of denial and frame-up are unconvincing; and that the
failure to apprise appellant of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest is not fatal since such rights apply
only against extrajudicial confessions.
In its Decision, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. Anent the defects in the chain of custody alleged by
appellant, the said court ruled that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs sold by
appellant to PO2 Soriano was taken to the police station and marked therein and then forwarded to the crime
laboratory where it was found positive for shabu; the marked money used in the buy-bust operation was the
same money introduced in evidence; and that the failure of the arresting team to faithfully observe the
requirements of conducting physical inventory and coordinating the buy-bust operation with PDEA are not fatal
since the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were preserved. Thus, the dispositive portion of
the CAs Decision, viz:
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is perforce dismissed. Accordingly,
the assailed decision dated January 15, 2008 insofar as the accused-appellant Glenn Salvador Y Balverde is
affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.21
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.22
On February 8, 2010, the parties were directed to file their supplemental briefs. 23 The OSG opted to adopt the
brief it submitted before the CA as its appeal brief while appellant filed a Supplemental Brief 24 which, however,
contains practically the same arguments he advanced before the CA. Again, aside from questioning the finding
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against him, appellant questions the arresting officers alleged failure to comply
with the chain of custody rule.

Our Ruling
The
All
the
illegal
sale
established in this case.

appeal
elements

is
for
of

the
shabu

unmeritorious.
prosecution
of
were
sufficiently

In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be
established: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti"25 or the illicit drug in evidence. "[T]he commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
x x x merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of
money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place." 26
In this case, the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of shabu. The testimony of
PO2 Soriano reveals that an entrapment operation was organized and conducted after they confirmed through a
surveillance operation the information that appellant is engaged in drug peddling activities. Designated as a
poseur-buyer, PO2 Soriano, together with the CI, approached appellant outside his residence. After having been
introduced by the CI to appellant as a drug user, PO2 Soriano asked appellant if he could purchase P200.00
worth of shabu. PO2 Soriano handed to appellant the marked money consisting of two P100 bills and the latter,
in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu. PO2 Soriano then arrested appellant and recovered the buy-bust
money from the latter. Immediately thereafter his back-up who were monitoring the transaction from viewing
distance arrived. Forensic examination subsequently confirmed that the contents of the sachets bought from
appellant and recovered from Parcon were indeed shabu.
Prosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation. Their narration of the incident, "buttressed by the presumption that they have regularly performed their
duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight." 27 Here, the CA affirmed the
RTCs ruling that the testimonies and facts stipulated upon were consistent with each other as well as with the
physical evidence. Thus, there is no justification to disturb the findings of the RTC, as sustained by the CA, on
the matter.
The
are unavailing.

defenses

of

denial

and

frame-up

The Court cannot convince itself to reverse the finding of facts of the lower courts on the basis of appellants selfserving allegations of denial and extortion/frame-up.
Denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecution witness. "A defense of denial which is
unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving,
deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and

probable testimony on affirmative matters."28

Appellant cannot likewise avail of the defense of frame-up which "is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can
easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law." 29 To
substantiate this defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the buy-bust team
was inspired by improper motive or was not properly performing its duty.30 Here, there is no evidence that there
was ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team. In fact, appellant himself admitted that he did not know the police
officers prior to his arrest. There could therefore be no bad blood between him and the said police officers.
Moreover, there was no proof that the arresting officers improperly performed their duty in arresting appellant
and Parcon.
Non-compliance
Article
II
not fatal.

of

with
Republic

Act

Section
No.

9165

21,
is

In arguing for his acquittal, appellant heavily relies on the failure of the buy-bust team to immediately photograph
and conduct a physical inventory of the seized items in his presence. In this regard, Section 21(1), Art. II of RA
9165 provides:
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 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;
However, failure to strictly comply with the above procedure will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items
inadmissible in evidence. Substantial compliance is allowed as provided for in Section 21(a) of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 9165.31 This provision reads:
(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. (Emphasis supplied).
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and
photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render
inadmissible in evidence the items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules stating that
it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence have not been preserved. 32 "What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." 33
The links in the chain of custody must be established.
"The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved for as long as the chain of custody of
the same are duly established." 34 "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. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who had temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of
custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition." 35
There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, namely: "first, the seizure
and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second,
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and, fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court." 36
In this case, the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu.
There is no evidence that PO2 Soriano lost possession and control of the seized shabu from the time it was
recovered from the appellant until its turnover to the police station. He marked the seized item immediately upon
arrival at the police station. He turned it over to PO1 Calatay, the investigating officer, who prepared the letter
request for the laboratory examination of the contents of the plastic sachets. These facts were admitted by the
appellant.37
On the same day, PO2 Soriano personally brought the letter request and specimens to the PNP Crime
Laboratory where they were received by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Arban who conducted the examination on the
specimens submitted. During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the purpose for which P/Insp. Arbans
testimony was being offered.38 The marked sachet of shabu and the marked money used in purchasing the
same were both presented in evidence.
Appellants contention that the marking of the seized sachets of shabu should have been made in his presence
while at the scene of the crime instead of in the police station fails to impress. It is clear from the earlier cited
Sec. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 that in a buy-bust situation, the marking of the
dangerous drug may be done in the presence of the violator in the nearest police station or the nearest office of

the apprehending team. Appellant should not confuse buy-bust situation from search and seizure conducted by
virtue of a court-issued warrant. It is in the latter case that physical inventory (which includes the marking) is
made at the place where the search warrant is served. Nonetheless, "non-compliance with [the] 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."39
Appellants claim that the testimony of PO2 Soriano does not deserve credence due to his failure to identify
and/or recall the markings he made on the subject specimen also fails to convince. His failure to immediately
recall the markings on the specimens only show that he is an uncoached witness. 40 "Such momentary lapse in
memory does not detract from the credibility of his testimony as to the essential details of the incident." 41 It must
also be considered that aside from the fact that police officers handle numerous cases daily, he testified three
years after appellants arrest. It is therefore understandable that PO2 Soriano could no longer easily remember
all the details of the incident.
Lastly, appellants argument that the entrapment operation is fatally flawed for failure of the buy-bust team to
coordinate with the PDEA deserves scant consideration. "[C]oordination with PDEA, while perhaps ideal, is not
an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation;" 42 it is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with
the PDEA.43
Penalty
All told, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Under
this law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346, 44 only life
imprisonment and fine shall be imposed.45 Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is
proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed in toto the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82, insofar as the conviction of Glenn Salvador y
Balverde for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 9346,
and the penalty of life imprisonment and payment of fine of P500,000.00 imposed upon him are concerned, is
AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. 205610

July 30, 2014

PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RAMONITO VILLARTA y RIVERA and ALLAN ARMENTA y CABILES, Accused-Appellants.

DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision 1 dated 20 July 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04953
affirming the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) Joint Decision3 dated 26 October 2010 in Criminal Case Nos. 14948-D,
14949-D, 14950-D, 14951-D and 14952-D, convicting herein appellant Ramonita Villarta y Rivera alias Monet
(Villarta) for Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,'' and herein appellant Allan Armenta yCabiles alias Ambo
(Armenta) for Violation of Section 11 of the same law.
Appellant Villarta was charged in three (3) separate Informations, 4 all dated 24 April 2006, for Violation of
Sections 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 15 (Illegal Use of
Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14948-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [herein appellant
Villarta], not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver
and give away to [Police Officer 2 (PO2) Ronald R. Caparas], a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the
test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.5 (Emphasis supplied).
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14949-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [appellant
Villarta], not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for ephedrine, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.6 (Emphasis supplied).
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14950-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [appellant
Villarta], not being lawfully authorized by law to use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body a methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and,
that this is the first offense of the [appellant Villarta] under Section 15, of the abovecited law, who after a
confirmatory urine test, was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.7 (Emphasis supplied).
Appellant Armenta was charged in two (2) separate Informations, 8 all dated 24 April 2006, for Violation of
Sections 11 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14951-D

On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [the herein appellant
Armenta], not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for ephedrine, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.9 (Emphasis supplied).
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14952-D
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [appellant
Armenta], not being lawfully authorized by law to use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body a THC-metabolites, a dangerous drug, and, that this is the
first offense of the [appellant Armenta] under Section 15, of the above-cited law, who after a confirmatory urine
test, was found positive tothe test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
above-cited law.10 (Emphasis supplied).
Upon arraignment,11 both appellants pleaded NOT GUILTY to the respective charges against them. Thereafter,
joint trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented PO2 Ronald R. Caparas (PO2 Caparas), who acted as the poseur-buyer in the buybust operation conducted against appellant Villarta; 12 PO2 Jesus Cambronero (PO2 Cambronero), who acted as
the immediate back-up of PO2 Caparas; 13 and Police Senior Inspector Sandra Decena Go (P/Sr. Insp. Go), the
forensic chemical officer who conducted physical, chemical and confirmatory tests on the items seized from the
appellants.14 The testimony, however, of the other prosecution witness PO1 Allan Mapula (PO1 Mapula) was
dispensed with per stipulation of the parties that: (1) he is the investigating officer in these cases; and (2) he was
the one who prepared the Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 Caparas and the Request for Laboratory Examination, aswell
as the Request for Drug Test.15
On the side of the defense, both appellants were presented to contradict all the allegations of the prosecution. 16
The respective versions of the prosecution and the defense, as accurately summarized by the Court of Appeals,
are as follows:
On 19 April 2006 at around 9:30 oclock in the evening, PO2 [Caparas] was at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) office in Pasig City. A confidential informant arrived and spoke with
Police Inspector Ronaldo Pamor [P/Insp. Pamor]. The informant gave the tip that a certain MONET was selling
shabualong Urbano Velasco Avenue, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. As a result, [P/Insp. Pamor] conducted a short
briefing attended by [Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1)] Baltazar, PO2 Camb[r]onero, PO2 Monte, [Police Officer 1
(PO1)] Caridad, PO1 Mapula and PO2 Caparas. [P/Insp.] Pamor instructed PO1 Mapula to prepare a preoperational report17 to be submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and directed PO1
Caparas to act as the poseur-buyer while PO2 Camb[r]onera was to serve as his back-up.
In preparation for their operation, PO2 Caparas marked two pieces of the One-Hundred Peso (P100.00) bill with
his initials "RRC" on the lower right portion. Tout de suite, the team, together with the confidential informant

proceeded to Velasco Avenue. There, they went inside an alley located at the Cupa Compound. However, they
learned from the two persons standing along the alley that MONET had already left. [P/Insp.] Pamor instructed
the informant to inform them whenever MONET would return.
The following day, at about 5:00 oclock in the afternoon, the confidential informant called and tolda member of
the SAID-SOTF that MONET was already in the target place.Subsequently, the buy-bust team met with the
former at the market terminal. PO2 Caparas and the informant again proceeded to Velasco Avenue. When they
reached Cupa Compound, the latter secretly told PO2 Caparas that MONET was standing at the alley. They
approached MONET. The informant then told him: "Pare iiscore to" referring to PO2 Caparas. He told MONET
that he would buy P200.00 worth of shabuafter which, he handed MONET the money. At this point, a male
person arrived and asked MONET: "Pare, meron pa ba?" MONET retorted: "Dalawang piraso na lang ito." The
male person then gave MONET P100.00. Immediately thereafter, MONET handed one sachet to PO2 Caparas
and the other one to the male person. PO2 Caparas examined the sachet and gave the pre-arranged signal by
wearing his cap. He then introduced himself as a police officer, and arrested MONET who was identified as
[herein appellant] Ramonito Villarta [y Rivera]. When the other members of the team arrived, PO2 Caparas told
PO2 Camb[r]oner[o] thatthe other male person was also possessing shabu. In a bit, he was also apprehended
and identified later on as [herein appellant] Allan Armenta [y Cabiles] @ AMBO. PO2 Caparas recovered from
MONET the marked money and one plastic sachet while PO2 Camb[r]onero recovered from AMBO the other
plastic sachet. Both PO2 Caparas and PO2 Camb[r]onero marked the items they had seized.
At the police station, PO1 Mapula prepared the requests for drug test and laboratory examination. Thereafter,
the seized items were brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. Forensic Chemical Officer
[P/Sr. Insp. Go] received the above-mentioned requests and conducted laboratory tests on the subject
specimens. The seized drugs gave positive result for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Likewise, the drug tests
showed that the respective urine samples of MONET and AMBO were positive for methamphetamine and THC
metabolites, both of which are dangerous drugs.
The defense proffered a divergent version of the facts.
Both MONET and AMBO denied the charges. MONET asseverated that between 3:00 oclock and 4:00 oclock
inthe afternoon of 19 April 2006, he was resting in the room he was renting. Suddenly, four armed male persons
entered looking for a certain "Jay Jay." When he replied that he did not know such person, he was brought and
detained in Pariancillo. It was there where he first met AMBO.
On the other hand, AMBO maintained that between 1:00 oclock and 2:00 oclock in the afternoon on evendate
while waiting for a tricycle in front of the 7-11 Store, three armed persons approached him. One of them placed
his arm around his shoulder, the other one handcuffed him, while the third called for a tricycle. Subsequently, he
was brought to the Pariancillo Headquarters. When heasked why he was arrested, the aforesaid men did not
answer him. At the headquarters, he was frisked since they were looking for a cellular phone which he had
allegedly snatched. When nothing was found with him, he was mauled and forced to confess where he brought
the phone. It was there where he got to know MONET.18
On 26 October 2010, the RTC, after considering the testimonies of both parties, rendered its Joint Decision,the

decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. 14948-D, this Court finds the [herein appellant] Ramonito Villarta yRivera aliasMonet,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002, and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency;
2) In Criminal Case No. 14949-D and Criminal Case No. 14951-D, this Court finds the [appellants] Ramonito
Villarta yRivera aliasMonetand Allan Armenta yCabiles alias Ambo, guiltybeyond reasonable of the crime of
Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of
2002 and they are each sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day,
as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
3) Criminal Case No. 14950-D and Criminal Case No. 14952-Dfor Violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 against [appellants] Ramonito Villarta y
Rivera alias Monetand Allan Armenta y Cabiles aliasAmbo are ordered DISMISSED.
In the meantime, the Branch Clerk ofCourt is directed to transmit the dangerous drugs, "ephedrine," subject of
these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its disposition in accordance with law. 19 (Emphasis
supplied).
The RTC elucidated that the prosecution has sufficiently established all the elements for a successful
prosecution of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, which is in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. PO2 Caparas, who acted as the poseur-buyer, specifically stated that appellant Villarta sold tohim oneheat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance worth P200.00. It was
seized and later on found positive to the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Their transaction was proven
bythe actual exchange of the marked money consisting of two P100.00-pesobills, and the drug sold. PO2
Caparas positively identified appellant Villarta as the seller of the said oneheat sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance, which was later on confirmed as ephedrine, a dangerous drug, by P/Sr.
Insp. Go, the Forensic Chemist, who performed laboratory examination on all the seized items. 20
As for the charge of illegal possession of prohibited drugs, which is in violation of Section 11, Article II ofRepublic
Act No. 9165, against both appellants, the RTC also found that all the elements thereof were completely
satisfied. When the appellants werearrested by PO2 Caparas and PO2 Cambronero, they were both found in
possession of dangerousdrugs. Both of them could not present any proof orjustification that they were fully
authorized by law to possess the same. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facieevidence of
animus possidendior intent to possess.21
In dismissing the charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No.

9165, against both appellants, the RTC applied the provisoof the afore-stated Section 15. The RTC, thus, held
that when a person is found tohave possessed and used dangerous drugs at the same time, Section 15 shall not
be applicable in which case the provisions of Section 11 shall apply.22
The RTC likewise held that despite the non-compliance with the requirements of physical inventory and
photograph of the seized items, the integrity and evidentiary value of the same were properly preserved because
the chain of custody appears not to havebeen broken. Thus, in its entirety, there was substantial compliance with
the law.23
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Joint Decision dated 26 October 2010. 24
Hence, the present appeal raising the same assignment of errors in their Appellants Brief filed before the Court
of Appeals, towit: (a) the trial court gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the [appellants] despite the obvious
non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under Republic Act No.
9165; and (b) the trial court gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the [appellants] notwithstanding the failure
of the prosecution to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized dangerous drugs. 25
This Court sustains appellants conviction.
Essentially, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be
disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor
of the witnesses while testifying.26 This rule finds aneven more stringent application where said findings are
sustained by the Court of Appeals27 as in this case.
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the lower courts
findings that, indeed, the appellants guilt on the respective charges against them were sufficiently proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like ephedrinein this case, the following elementsmust
be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller, the object
and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.What is material is
proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous
drugs seized as evidence. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the
consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.
Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was
accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is considered consummated
by the delivery of the goods.28
In the present case, this Court totallyagrees with the lower courts that the aforesaid elements of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs were adequately and satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
To note, appellant Villarta, who was caught in flagrante delicto, was positively identified by PO2 Caparas, who
acted as the poseur-buyer, as the same person who sold the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
acontaining 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, later confirmed as ephedrine, for a consideration

ofP200.00.The said one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of ephedrinewas presented in court, which PO2
Caparas identified to be the same object sold to him by appellant Villarta. Moreover, the same bears the
markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06, which he had written at the scene of the crime. "RRV" represents the initials of
appellant Villarta while "RRC" represents the initials of PO2 Caparas. The marking "04-20-06" represents the
date the said drug was seized. PO2 Caparas similarly identified in court the recovered marked money from
appellant Villarta consisting of two P100.00-peso bills in the total amount of P200.00 with markings "RRC" on the
lower right portion thereof.29
Likewise, the testimony of PO2 Caparasclearly established in detail how his transaction with appellant Villarta
happened starting from the moment their informant introduced him to appellant Villarta as someone interested in
buying his stuff, up to the time he handed to appellant Villarta two P100.00 peso bills marked money amounting
toP200.00and, in turn, appellant Villarta handed him the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of
ephedrinethus consummating the sale transaction between them. PO2 Caparas caused the one-heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet of ephedrineto be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The item weighing 0.02
gram was tested positive for ephedrineas evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-355-06 30 prepared by P/Sr.
Insp. Go, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City.31
From the foregoing, it is already beyond question that appellant Villartas guilt for illegal sale of ephedrine, a
dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RepublicAct No. 9165 was proven by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to the prosecution ofillegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proved: (a)
the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c) the
accused was freely and consciouslyaware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 32
In the case under consideration, this Court also conforms to the lower courts findings that all the elementsof
illegal possession of dangerous drugs were adequately proven by the prosecution.
It bears emphasis that when the sale transaction between PO2 Caparas and appellant Villarta was on-going,
another male person, who was later on identified to be appellant Armenta, came in and also bought one-heat
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance later on confirmed to be
ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Upon the consummation of the sale transaction,between PO2 Caparas and
appellant Villarta, the former gave the pre-arranged signal by wearing his cap. PO2 Caparas then introduced
himself as the police officer and arrested appellant Villarta. PO2 Caparas then recovered from appellant Villarta
the marked money and another one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white
crystalline substance later on confirmed as ephedrine, a dangerous drug. When the immediate back-up officer,
PO2 Cambronero, arrived, PO2 Caparas informed him that appellant Armenta was in possession of one-heat
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance,which the latter just bought
from appellant Villarta. Thus, appellant Armenta was also apprehended and PO2 Cambronero recovered from
him one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance confirmed to
be ephedrine, a dangerous drug. 33 Clearly, both appellants were found in possession of dangerous drugs. As
observed by the RTC, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, both appellants could not present any proof or

justification that they were fully authorized by law to possess the same. Having been caught in flagrante delicto,
there is prima facieevidence of animus possidendior intent to possess.
Now, going to the issue raised by the appellants on the failure of the prosecution to comply with Section
21,Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, this Court similarly affirms the findings of both lower courts that such
failure will not render the appellants arrestillegal or the items seized/confiscated from them inadmissible.
In People v. Ventura,34 this Court held that:
The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs,
among others, is provided under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:
(1) 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.1wphi1
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements
said provision, stipulates:
(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: x x x 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.
Under the same proviso, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over saiditems, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.
Clearly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is centered on the preservationof the
integrityand evidentiary valueof the seized items. 35 (Emphasis supplied). The chain of custody requirement
performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so
much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the
prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the
time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. 36
In the case at bench, after PO2 Caparas seized and confiscated the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing 0.02 gram of ephedrine, which was the subject of the sale transaction, as well as the one heat-sealed

transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine, which was recovered from appellant Villarta after
he was arrested and ordered to empty his pocket, and the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, the
former immediately marked the seized drugs atthe place of arrest. He put the markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06 on
the seizeddrug subject of the sale and the markings RRV/RRC on the seized drug recovered from appellant
Villarta. PO2 Cambronero, the immediate back-up of PO2 Caparas, also recovered from appellant Armenta oneheat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine. PO2 Cambronero, who was then
beside PO2 Caparas, similarly marked the seized drug from appellant Armenta at the place of arrest. They then
brought the appellants, together with the seized items at their station. Where PO1 Mapula, the investigating
officer, prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination, 37 the Request for Drug Test38 and the Affidavit of Arrest
of PO2 Caparas.39 Thereafter, PO2 Caparas personally brought all the seized items to the crime laboratory for
examination. The seized items were examined by P/Sr. Insp. Go and they all yielded positive results for
ephedrine, a dangerous drug. When the seized items were offered in court, they were all properly identified by
the prosecution witnesses. These facts persuasively proved that the three plastic sachets of ephedrine
presented in court were the same items seized from the appellants during the buy-bust operation.The integrity
and evidentiary value thereof were duly preserved.
It has been judicially settled that in buy-bust operations, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended
the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their
duties regularly. This presumption is overturned only if there is clear and convincing evidence that they were not
properly performing their duty or that they were inspired by improper motive. 40 In this case, there was none.
In comparison to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, all that the appellants could muster is the
defense of denial and frame-up. Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as
easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of
DangerousDrugs Act. The defense of frameup or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence
because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official
duties.41 In the present case, the bare denial of the appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the
prosecution witnesses.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 July 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
04953 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

G.R. No. 193385

December 1, 2014

PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DATSGANDAWALI y GAPAS and NOL PAGALAD y ANAS, Accused-Appellants.
For final review is the June 21, 2010 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
03736, which affirmed the November 18, 2008 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 of

Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-03-118597 finding appellants Dats Gandawali y Gapas (Gandawali)
and Nol Pagalad3 y Anas (Pagalad) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Factual Antecedents
On July 3, 2003, an Information 4 for Violation of Section Article II of RA 9165 was filed against Gandawali
and Pagalad, viz:
That on or about the 30th day of June 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring
together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, not being authorized by law tosell, dispense,
deliver[,] transport, or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell,
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker inthe said transaction, zero point twenty four (0.24)
gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride[,] a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
When arraigned on September 3,2003, both Gandawali and Pagalad pleaded "not guilty" 6 to the charge.
Pre-trial and trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On June 30, 2003, a confidential informant informed the Baler Police Station 2 that a possible drug deal
would take place at the corner of Sto. Nio St. and Roosevelt Avenue, San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon
City. A buy-bust team was thereupon created composed of P/Insp. Joseph de Vera (P/Insp. DeVera), as
team leader; PO2 Sofjan Soriano (PO2 Soriano), as the poseur-buyer who was given a P500.00 bill as
buy-bust money; and PO1 Alvin Pineda (PO1 Pineda), PO1 Ernesto Sarangaya (PO1 Sarangaya), PO2
John John Sapad (PO2 Sapad), and PO2 Eric Jorgensen (PO2Jorgensen), as members.
The team along with the informant proceeded to the target area and arrived there at at around 1:30 p.m. In
accordance with the plan, PO2 Soriano and the informant approached Gandawali and Pagalad, while the
rest of the team positioned themselves strategically. The informant introduced PO2 Soriano to appellants
as a drug dependent who wanted to buy shabuworth P500.00. As Pagalad first asked for payment, PO2
Soriano gave theP500.00 billto Gandawali. Gandawali, in turn, gavethe money to Pagalad who took a small
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from his pocket. Pagalad gave the plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance to Gandawali, who then handed the same to PO2 Soriano. Thereupon, PO2 Soriano
signaled to his team members by taking off his cap. He then arrested appellants together with PO1
Sarangaya, and the latter recovered from Pagalad the P500.00 bill used as buy-bust money. Appellants
were thereafter brought to the Baler Police Station 2.
PO2 Soriano marked the plastic sachetwith the initials "ES-6-30-03" (the initials of PO1 Sarangaya) and
together with the P500.00 bill, turned them over to the desk officer for proper disposition. Thereafter,
P/Insp. De Vera prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination. 7 On the same day, PO2 Soriano and the
other team members submitted the plastic sachet to P/Insp. Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. (P/Insp. Banac) at

the Central Police District Crime Laboratory Office where a qualitative examination of its contents was
made. The specimen, as found by P/Insp. Banac, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu, a dangerous drug.8 Version of the Defense
Appellants denied the accusation against them and claimed extortion. Their version of the incident is as
follows:
At about 6:35 a.m. of June 30, 2003,while waiting for a bus at Litex, Fairview, Quezon City, Pagalad was
arrested for unknown reason by PO1 Sarangaya. When questioned, he told the arresting officer that he has
a companion Gandawali, who was likewise later arrested. Both were then brought to Police Station 2 at
Baler, Quezon City where PO1 Sarangaya demanded from them P15,000.00 in exchange for their release.
Unfortunately, they were unable to produce the money, hence,their incarceration.
Gandawali and Pagalad explained that despite their wrongful apprehension and the polices act of
extortion, they did not file any case against them because they were afraid and were also unfamiliar with
the procedures in filing a case.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Finding sufficient evidenceto sustain a finding of guilt, the RTC convicted appellants through a
Decision9 dated November 18, 2008, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused DATS GANDAWALI y
GAPAS and NOL PAGALAD y ANAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of x x x violation of Section 5, Article
II of R.A. 9165. Accordingly, they are hereby sentencedto suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
each to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.10
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA found no reason to overturn appellants conviction.
Thus, the dispositive portion ofits June 21, 2010 Decision 11 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment promulgated by Branch 82, Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, inCriminal Case No. Q-03-118597 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.12
Issues
Appellants argue that all the elements of the offense charged were not proven and that the police officers

failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
All the elements of the offense charged were duly established by the prosecution.
The essential requirements for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, such as
shabuare: "(1) the identity ofthe buyer and the seller, the object and consideration ofthe sale; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 13 Equally settled is the rule that "[t]he delivery of the
illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate
the buy-bust transaction."14Here, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its burden of
establishing all the aforesaid elements. The prosecution positively identified appellants as the sellers of the
seized substance which was later found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug. Appellants sold the drug to PO2 Soriano, the police officer who acted asthe poseur-buyer, and
received from the latter the P500.00 buy-bust money aspayment therefor.
Appellants contention that the consideration of the sale was not established since the buy-bust money was
notpresented as evidence is unavailing. Suffice it to say that "[n]either law nor jurisprudence requires the
presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation x x x." 15 "It is sufficient to show that the illicit
transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delictiin evidence. These
weredone, and were proved by the prosecutions evidence." 16
The integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized from appellants were duly proven by the
prosecution to have been properly preserved; its identity, quantity and quality remained untarnished.
Appellants persistently argue that the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the identity of the
substance seized and the preservation of its integrity. They assert that the apprehending officers failed to
observe the procedures for the custody and disposition of the seized drug as laid down in Section 21(1),
Article II of RA 9165, particularly the conduct of physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized
item.
The Court finds appellants contentions unconvincing.
Section 21(1),17 Article II of RA 9165 clearlyoutlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and
disposition of seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a
photograph thereof 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. The explicit directive of the above statutory provision notwithstanding, the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the said law provide a saving clause whenever the procedures laid

down in the law are not strictly complied with, to wit:

x x x 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. 18
Thus, gleaned from a plain reading of the implementing rules, the most important factor is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt
orinnocence of the accused.19 As long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly
preserved, strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of RA 9165 may be disregarded. 20
In this case, while it was admitted by PO1 Sarangaya that no physical inventory of the seized item was
madeand no photograph thereof was taken as mandated by law, and also while the reason given for such
failure appears to be unsatisfactory, i.e., PO1 Sarangaya was not familiar with Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 since the said law was just then newly implemented, 21 it was nonetheless shown that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item had been preserved and kept intact. The crucial links in the chain of
custody of the seized drug subject matter of the case, from the time Gandawali handed it to the
poseurbuyer up to its presentation as evidence in court, were duly accounted for and shown to have not
been broken.
To recap, the prosecution established that after the seizure of the small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance and of the buy-bust money from appellants possession, PO2 Soriano marked the
sachet with "ES 6-30-03," the initials of PO1 Sarangaya. The police officers thereafter took appellants and
the recovered items to the desk officer who investigated the case. After the investigation, a request for
laboratory examination was prepared by P/Insp. De Vera. On the same day, the confiscated small plastic
sachet bearing the same marking, "ES-06-30-03," and the request were thereupon brought by PO2 Sapad,
a member of the team, together with PO2 Soriano and some others to the Central Police District Crime
Laboratory Office and were received by P/Insp. Banac for examination. P/Insp. Banac conducted a
laboratory examination of the 0.24 gram of white crystalline substance found inside the plastic sachet
marked with "ES-06-30-03," which per Chemistry Report No. D-555-03 tested positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride. During trial, and based on the marking he placed, PO2 Soriano
identified the seized item as the very same sachet containing shabuthat he bought and recovered from
appellants. He also identified appellants to be the same persons who sold the shabu to him. Moreover, as
gleaned from the Pre-Trial Order, P/Insp. Banac, the chemist, brought the specimen himself to the court
during the scheduled hearing.
Following the above sequence of events, the Court entertains no doubt that the sachet containing white
crystalline substance sold by appellants to the poseurbuyer was the same one marked with "ES-06-30-03,"
which was submitted for laboratory examination, found positive for shabu,and later presented to the court
during the trial as the corpus delicti. Contrary therefore to appellants claim, "the totality of evidence
presented by the prosecution leads to an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated item from
[appellants]. Though there were deviations from the required procedure, i.e., making physical inventory and

taking of photograph of the seized item, still, the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug
seized from [appellants] were duly proven by the prosecution to have been properly preserved; its identity,
quantity and quality remained untarnished." 22
Appellants defense of extortion and/or frame-up must fail.
"The defense of extortion and/or frame up is often put up in drug cases in order to cast doubt on the
credibility of police officers. This is a serious imputation of a crime hence clear and convincing
evidencemust be presented to support the same. There must also be a showing that the police officers
were inspired by improper motive." 23 In this case, appellants claim that PO1 Sarangaya tried to extort from
them P15,000.00 in exchange for their release after they were arrested. However, they failed to
substantiate this allegation with clear and convincing evidence.1wphi1Neither were they able to show that
the said police officer was impelled by improper motive in imputing the offense against them. Consequently,
appellants defense of extortion and/or frame-up must fail.
Conspiracy between appellants in the sale of illegal drug was likewise duly established by the prosecution.
In line with the principle that an appeal in a criminal case throws wide open the whole case for review
whether raised as an issue or not, the Court finds it imperative to make a brief discussion on the conspiracy
angle of this case considering that the courts below failed to pass uponthe same.
"To establish the existence of conspiracy, direct proof is not essential. Conspiracy may be inferred from the
acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are
indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest." 24 The series of overt acts as
recounted by the prosecution witnesses unmistakably show that appellants were in concert and shared a
common interest in selling the shabu. Thus, when P02 Soriano gave the P500.00 bill to Gandawali, the
latter handed the money to Pagalad; when Pagalad took a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
from his pocket, he gave it to Gandawali who, in tum, gave the same to P02 Soriano; and when P02
Soriano announced their arrest, both appellants tried to escape. Clearly, there was conspiracy between
them to sell and deliver a dangerous drug. In view thereof, they are liable as co-principals regardless of
their participation in the commission of the offense.
Appellants are not eligible for parole.
The Court agrees with the penalty of life imprisonment and payment of fine of P500,000.00 imposed by the
lower courts upon appellants. It must be emphasized, however, that appellants are not eligible for parole. 25
WHEREFORE, the June 21, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03736 is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants DATS GANDAWALI y GAPAS and NOL PAGALAD y
ANAS shall not be eligible for parole.