G.R. No.

188698 July 22, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
SONIA BERNEL NUARIN, Appellant.

No Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties

The courts a quo erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity in performance
that a police officer enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that
would induce him to falsify his testimony. The regularity of the performance of the police
officers’ duties leaves much to be desired in this case given the lapses in their handling of
the allegedly confiscated shabu. The totality of all the procedural lapses we previously
discussed effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus
delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame up and extortion. We have previously
held that these lapses negate the presumption that official duties have been regularly
performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance
and should make the presumption unavailable. We also entertain serious doubts on PO1
20

Manalo’s claim that they coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) before the buy-bust operation, as he admitted that there was no pre-operation
report or coordination sheet prepared by the police. Significantly, PO1 Manalo likewise
admitted that the police did not coordinate with the barangay officials of the subject area.
To our mind, these circumstances vis-à-vis the lapses made in the handling and
safekeeping of the alleged sachets of shabu puts in doubt the claim of the police that they
had conducted a legitimate buy-bust operation.

The ‘Marking’ Requirement vis-à-vis the Chain of Custody Rule

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No.
9165, defines chain of custody as "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."

A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other
related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. "Marking" means the
placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on
the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is
vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of
the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to
separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the
criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence

We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the initial markings as
reference. If at the first instance or opportunity, there are already doubts on who really
placed the markings on the seized sachets (or if the markings were made in accordance
with the required procedure), serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the
seized shabu that the prosecution introduced into evidence.

In addition, the records do not show that the sachets were marked in the presence of the
appellant. In People v. Sanchez, we explained that the "marking" of the seized items to
15

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. We explained therein that [t]his step initiates the process
16

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 29and on allegations of robbery or theft.

Significantly, PO1 Manalo and PO1 Mutia did not even mention that they marked the
seized plastic sachet in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest.

In People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna, the Court acquitted the
17

accused for the prosecution’s failure to clearly establish the identity of the person who
marked the seized drugs; the place where marking was made; and whether the marking
had been made in the accused’s presence.

contrary to the established facts, and to the pertinent law

and jurisprudence

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 173794

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Present:
 CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

- versus - BERSAMIN,

DEL CASTILLO, and

VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

Promulgated:

DARWIN RELATO y AJERO,

Accused-Appellant. January 18, 2012

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving
mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance irreversibly
prejudices the State’s evidence, it is significant to note that the application
of the saving mechanism to a situation is expressly conditioned upon the
State rendering an explanation of the lapse or lapses in the compliance with
the procedures. Here, however, the Prosecution tendered no explanation
13

why the buy-bust team had failed to mark the seized shabu immediately
after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming that marking the shabu at the
scene of the crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible
for the buy-bust team to do, the saving mechanism would still not be
applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any effort undertaken by
the buy-bust team to keep the shabu intact while in transit to the police
station

G.R. No. 212196 January 12, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RAMIL DORIA DAHIL and ROMMEL CASTRO y CARLOS, Accused-Appellants

Let it be underscored that appeal incriminal cases throws the whole case open for review
and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. Considering that what is at
21

stake here is no less than the liberty of the accused, this Court has meticulously and
thoroughly reviewed and examined the records of the case and finds that there is merit in
the appeal. The Court holds that that there was no unbroken chain of custody and that the
prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged.

In other words, when questioned on the conduct of the inventory, PO2 Corpuz testified
that no pictures of the seized items were taken while SPO1 Licu said that pictures of the
accused were taken. From the vague statements of the police officers, the Court doubts
that photographs of the alleged drugs were indeed taken. The records are bereft of any
document showing the photos of the seized items. The Court notes that SPO1 Licu could
have misunderstood the question because he answered that "pictures were taken on the
accused" when the question referred to photographs of the drugs and not of the accused.

The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items were preserved

In People v. Remigio, the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the
44

chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the
investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of
confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from
the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case

The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the
regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of
regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an
accused to be presumed innocent
G.R. No. 192250 July 11, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
HERMOGENES DE GUZMAN @ Mong, Accused-Appellant.

The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its
compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common experience of man. Thus, 20

whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience

becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance. Consistently, the Court has
ruled that evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge
and common experience of mankind.