Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

NINTH (9TH) DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR.- H.C. NO. 09651


PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

- versus -
BATO, R.M., JR., Chairperson,
CRUZ, R.A., and
PEJAY MADEJA y REYES, LEGASPI, G.F.D.,JJ.
Accused-Appellant.
Promulgated:
October 22, 2018
x----------------------------------------------x

DECISION
Cruz, R.A., J.:

THE CASE
This is an appeal interposed by Pejay Madeja y Reyes from the
Decision dated May 30, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) of
Las Pinas City, Branch 200 in Criminal Case No. 13-0719 finding her
guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and the Order
dated July 31, 2017 denying reconsideration thereof. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

-xxx-
“WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
this court finds the accused PEJAY MADEJA y REYES
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. She is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine
of Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
The period of the preventive imprisonment already
served by the herein accused shall be credited in the service
of his sentence pursuant to the provision of Art. 29 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Accordingly, the jail warden, Bureau of Jail
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 2 of 24
DECISION

Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ORDERED to


transmit the person of the accused PEJAY MADEJA y REYES
to the Correctional Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City, with
proper escort within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Order.
The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby
ordered to prepare the corresponding Mittimus Order to the
Correctional Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City, thru the
City Jail Warden.
The confiscated 241.1 (sic) grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (Exhibits M-2) are hereby declared forfeited in
favor of the government and shall be disposed in accordance
with the law.
SO ORDERED.”1

-xxx-

THE ANTECEDENTS
Pejay Madeja y Reyes was charged with the crime of violation of
Section 52, Article II of RA 91653 in Criminal Case No. 13-0719 , under
the following information:
-xxx-
“That on or about the 13th day of July, 2013, in the City
of Las Pinas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, without being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute one
self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing Two Hundred
Forty One point Four (241.4) grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride commonly known as “shabu”, a dangerous drug,
in violation of the abovecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4”

-xxx-
When arraigned on July 31, 2013, in Criminal Case No. 13-
0719, Pejay Madeja, assisted by counsel 5, pleaded "not guilty" to the
charge.6 Thereafter, pre-trial was held where the prosecution and
defense entered into the following stipulation of facts: (1) The court has
jurisdiction over the offense charged and the subject matter of the case
and; (2) The accused, Pejay Madeja, who appeared in court is the
same person charged in the information 7. The accused filed a petition
for bail on August 8, 2013 which was subsequently denied by the RTC
in its Order dated July 30, 20148. Thereafter, trial ensued.
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 3 of 24
DECISION

From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that


on July 11, 2013 at around 8:30 a.m. a regular confidential informant
(“RCI”) came to the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-
National Capital Region (“PDEA-RO-NCR”) and reported to Team
Leader Leverette Lopez that a person by the name of “Lolo” and his
cohorts are allegedly engaged in the distribution of dangerous drugs
known as “shabu” within Metro Manila and the neighboring cities 9. The
RCI was able to gain the trust and confidence of “Lolo” and as a
consequence, anyone endorsed by him is able to buy shabu from
“Lolo”10. The RCI contacted “Lolo” and endorsed Agent Vicente
Delgado as an interested buyer of “shabu”. In his conversation with
“Lolo”11, Agent Vicente Delgado was assured of the delivery of his
order of 250 grams of shabu for the amount of P750,000.00, Philippine
Currency. “Lolo” informed Agent Vicente Delgado that the item will be
delivered first12 and then he will provide a bank account where he will
deposit the payment for the shabu13. The parties also agreed that they
will execute the transaction at 2:00 p.m on July 12, 2013 inside SM
South Mall, Las Pinas City14. Team Leader Leverette Lopez
immediately organized a group composed of Agent Vicente Delgado
(as case officer/poseur buyer), Agent Alejandro De La Cruz (as the
lead arresting officer) and five other agents (back-up) 15.
On July 12, 2013, the team underwent a briefing 16 with the
following details: (1) Agent Vicente Delgado will act as the poseur
buyer17; (2) Agent Alejandro De La Cruz will act as the arresting officer
and18; (3) The pre-arranged signal for the completion of the transaction
is the removal of the baseball cap19. They also prepared the necessary
documents and coordinated with the Southern Police District 20 prior to
the conduct of the buy-bust operation.
At around 12:00 p.m “Lolo” informed Agent Vicente Delgado that
the order is not yet ready so the team left the office only at 3:30 p.m. 21
They arrived at SM South Mall, Las Pinas City 22 at 5:30 pm. “Lolo”
informed them that that they will get the item from “Agnes” 23, a woman
wearing striped shirt and maroon shorts and carrying a brown paper
bag24 stationed outside the Bingo Bonanza at the lower ground floor of
SM South Mall, Las Pinas City. 25 The rest of the team strategically
positioned themselves26 in the premises. The RCI and Agent Vicente
Delgado proceeded to the area near the Bingo Bonanza. They
approached a woman fitting the description given by “Lolo”. The RCI
asked her if she was “Agnes” and the latter confirmed her identify. The
RCI then asked her “Eto na ba yung order”, to which she replied “Oo”,
iabot ko daw ito sa inyo” 27. Agent Vicente Delgado then grabbed the
brown bag. He opened the brown envelop inside the paper bag and
saw a re-sealable plastic with white crystalline substance. He then
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 4 of 24
DECISION

removed his baseball cap confirming the consummation of the


transaction to the rest of the group28. Then Agent Alejandro De La Cruz
and the rest of the team apprehended the accused 29. Lolo did not text
the bank account number where payment for the shabu was supposed
to be deposited30. Agent Vicente Delgado had custody of the shabu
and the mobile phone31 recovered from the accused from the mall to
the office of the PDEA32. The taking of photographs33, marking and
inventory of items recovered from the accused were conducted at the
PDEA office located at PDEA Bldg., NIA Northside Road, National
Government Center, Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City in order to secure
the items and to protect the accused and the team 34. Agent Vicente
Delgado marked and inventoried the items in the presence of Brgy.
Kagawad of Pinyahan Quezon City, Jose Ruiz and a representative
from the PTV4, Emil Carreon35, as follows: (1) 1 brown paper bag
marked as “VNZ-A 7-12-13”; (2) 1 brown cushioned envelope marked
as “VNZ-A1 7-12-13”; (3) 1 re-sealable transparent plastic bag marked
as “VNZ-A1a 7-12-13” containing white crystalline substance
suspected as shabu; (4) 1 unit white cherry mobile phone marked as
“VNZ-B 7-12-13”36.
Thereafter, Agent Vicente Delgado submitted the Request for
Drug Test, Request for Laboratory Examination and the items subject
thereof to the PDEA Crime Laboratory which were received by
Chemist Maximiano Valentin37. Results revealed that the specimen
taken from the re-sealable transparent plastic bag tested positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or “shabu”, a dangerous drug. 38 He
then turned over the item to the PDEA evidence custodian for
safekeeping until the presentation of the same during the trial 39. At that
time, he retrieved the item from the PDEA evidence custodian and
transferred custody over the same to the evidence custodian of the
Office of the Prosecutor40 because the scheduled hearing was
postponed.
The following documents were presented by the prosecution: (1)
Letter Referral for inquest proceedings 41; (2) Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer
dated July 13, 201342; (3) Affidavit of Arresting Officer dated July 13,
201343; (4) Request for Laboratory Examination dated July 12, 2013 44;
(5) Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD013-175 45; (6) Inventory of Seized
Items dated July 12, 2013 46; (7) Authority to Operate47; (8) Pre-
Operation Report dated July 12, 2013 48; (9) Certification dated July 12,
201349; (10) Certification on Coordination dated July 13, 2013 50; (11)
Photographs taken during the marking and inventory 51; (12) Chain of
Custody Form52; (13) brown paper bar with marking “VNZ-A 7-12-13”;
(14) brown cushioned envelope with marking “VNZ-A1 7-12-13”; (15)
re-sealable transparent plastic bag with marking “VNZ-A1a 7-12-13”;
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 5 of 24
DECISION

(16) Photographs of the brown paper bag, brown envelope and re-
sealable plastic bag with white crystalline substance 53; (17) 1 Cherry
Mobile cellular phone with marking “VNZ-B 7-12-13”; (18) Receipt of
Seized Properties54; (19) Certification dated July 12, 2013 55; (20) TSN
dated June 18, 2015.
After the prosecution rested its case, the defense presented
Pejay Madeja as its sole witness. Pejay Madeja, as the accused,
denied the accusations hurled against her. She claimed that she was
an “errand girl/utusan” of the customers of Bingo Bonanza, SM
Southmall Las Pinas City. She handles errands for customers like
assisting them in changing winning tickets from slot machines, buying
coffee, snacks and picking-up of groceries. In return, these customers
give her tips/token amounting to P500.00, Philippine Currency per day.
She narrated that she went to Bingo Bonanza at 11:00 a.m. on July
12, 2013. She noticed the presence of a man who was not a regular
customer of Bingo Bonanza56. He went by the name of “Boy”57. At first,
he requested her to do some errands like guard his remaining credits
at the slot machine and buy mineral water. After that, he instructed her
to give his wife's stapled brown paper bag to his driver who was
waiting at the front door of the Bingo Bonanza. She complied with his
request but she went back because she did not see any driver at the
door.58 “Boy” asked her to go back to the door because the person was
already there.59 She then returned to the front door of the Bingo
Bonanza and a man approached her and asked, “Yan ba yun pinaabot
sayo ng amo ko?” to which she replied “Oo, iabot ko raw ito sayo.” 60
She then handed the brown paper bag and headed back to Bingo
Bonanza. She was blocked by two men who instructed her not to act
suspicious and to cooperate with them 61. They introduced themselves
as PDEA agents.62 She told them that she had no idea what was inside
the brown paper bag and pointed to “Boy” as the person who handed
her the item.63. She was then brought to the PDEA office where they
took photographs of and marked the shabu.
After the trial, the RTC rendered the assailed decision. The RTC
ruled that: (1) Accused was charged with illegal delivery of shabu and
not illegal sale of shabu; (2) The narration of events of Agent Vicente
Delgado showed the presence of the elements of illegal delivery of
shabu; (3) Accused was working as an errand girl at Bingo Bonanza
and had no authority under the law to delivery the shabu; (4) Proof of
ownership of the shabu is not necessary; (5) RA 9165 is a special law
and thus a violation of which is malum prohibitum; (6) Intent is
immaterial and mere commission of the prohibited act is punishable;
(7) The accused's lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid
defense; (8) Mere possession and/or delivery of the shabu without
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 6 of 24
DECISION

legal authority is punishable under the law; (9) The accused's


possession of the package containing shabu gave rise to the
disputable presumption that she is the owner of the package and its
contents; (10) The PDEA personnel who arrested the accused on July
12, 2013 in the course of their drug operations has the authority to
arrest the accused; (11) The chain of custody of the confiscated drug
was in accordance with the mandate of Section 21, Article II of the
Implementing Rules and regulations of RA 9165; (12) The confiscated
item was not immediately marked at the place of seizure because the
arrest was effected in a mall where a lot of people are roaming around;
(13) It is more practicable to conduct the inventory at the PDEA office;
(14) The items were marked, photographed during the inventory; (15)
The conduct of the inventory was witnessed by the Brgy. Kagawad and
media personnel; (16) The markings placed by Agent Vicente
Delgado ,albeit not representing his initials, suffice as identifying signs;
(17) The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been presented
in the absence of showing of bad faith or proof that the evidence was
tampered; (18) The testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve
full faith and credit.
Rebuffed64 in her Motion for Reconsideration 65, accused timely
filed her Notice of Appeal66, and in her Brief assigns the following
errors:

THE ASSIGNED ERRORS


I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT PDEA HAD THE AUTHORITY TO
CONDUCT BUY-BUST OPERATION;

II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
NOT HOLDING THAT THE PORTRAYAL OF THE
ALLEGED SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS IS HIGHLY
INCREDIBLE AND LUDICROUS TO BE GIVEN
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT;

III.
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 7 of 24
DECISION

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN


NOT HOLDING THAT THE BUY-BUST OPERATION WAS
NOT DULY PROVEN, THUS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED AND SEARCHED; THE
ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
FOR BEING FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE;

IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE PACKAGE
IS NOT A DEFENSE WHEN KNOWLEDGE IS AN
ELEMENT OF THE CRIME;

V.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
UPHOLDING PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW OVER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS;

VI.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
NOT FINDING NUMEROUS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
SECTION 21 OF RA 9165; THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
WAS UNDENIABLY BROKEN AND THE CORPUS
DELICTI WAS COMPROMISED.

The accused, now the appellant before us, claims that the RTC
erred in holding that PDEA had the authority to conduct the buy-bust
operation. She writes down the RTC for holding that PDEA is not
mandated to conduct proper coordination and documentation prior to
its operation because it will create a dangerous precedent. This would
render all operations susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of
which is its use as a tool for extortion. Here, the authority to operate
and coordination form do not relate to the operation conducted on July
12, 2013. It is apparent that the required documentations were not yet
prepared, filed and approved prior to the alleged buy-bust operation.
Agent Alejandro De La Cruz openly admitted that they prepared the
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 8 of 24
DECISION

“operational documents” after the buy-bust operation. The Regional


Director of RO-NCP received and approved the Authority to Operate
one day after the operation or on July 13, 2013. Control number
PDEA-RO-NCR No. 0713-00156 indicates that it was prepared only on
July 13 or that it relates to an entirely different operation altogether.
Moreover, the control number in the Pre-Operation Report was left
blank. Thus, there is nothing which would link it to the Authority to
Operate. In addition, no one signed the Certification dated July 12,
2013 from Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City. Agent Vicente Delgado also
testified that he was not sure if there was coordination with the local
police. Therefore, PDEA did not have authority to conduct the alleged
buy-bust operation on July 12, 2013 and consequently, there was an
invalid operation that led to an illegal arrest.
The accused-appellant avers that the RTC erred in giving
credence to the allegations of the witnesses for the prosecution. Their
narration of events does not conform to the natural course of things
because there was no simultaneous exchange of money and
dangerous drugs. Accused-appellant asseverates that the buy-bust
was not duly proven and she was illegally arrested and searched. The
dangerous drug therefore is inadmissible in evidence because it is the
fruit of a poisonous tree. In this case, there was no proof that the
transaction of sale actually took place. Accused-appellant posits that
the RTC ignored her lack of knowledge of the illegal act. She did not
freely and consciously deliver the dangerous drugs. The records bear
that the dangerous drugs were not noticeable in plain view. Thus, she
is unaware of the contents of the stapled brown bag when she carried
the same. Accused-appellant was merely standing outside the Bingo
Bonanza. Hence, the PDEA agents had no reason to arrest her. She
maintains that she was a mere “errand girl” of the customers of Bingo
Bonanza. As a matter of fact, she was surprised and had no inkling
why she was blocked and apprehended by the PDEA agents.
Moreover, when she was informed of the incident, she immediately
reported the location of “Boy”, the person who handed her the brown
paper bag. It is worthy to note that accused-appellant was not the
target seller nor the person originally designated to deliver the
dangerous drugs. Accused-appellant's knowledge of the entire
transaction and of the contents of the package was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. There is no evidence that she was informed of the
contents of the package and she had intent to possess the dangerous
drugs. Accused-appellant claims that the RTC erred when it ignored
the constitutional presumption of her innocence and placed the burden
on her to rebut the disputable presumption that she was the owner of
the package and its illegal contents. In addition, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 9 of 24
DECISION

over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by


proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant faults the RTC for
not finding that there were irregularities and non-compliance with the
provisions of Section 21, RA 9165, to wit: (1) There was no immediate
physical inventory and taking of photographs after seizure of the items;
(2) Prior to and during the inventory, the drug was not weighed; (3)
The marking does not represent the initials of the inventory officer; (4)
There was no representative from the DOJ to witness the inventory;
(5) The witnesses and the accused-appellant were not given a copy of
the inventory. The chain of custody was also broken when the
prosecution failed to present the evidence custodian of PDEA and the
Office of the Prosecutor. These are substantial gaps in the chain of
custody of the seized drugs which raise doubts on the authenticity of
the evidence presented before the court.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (“OSG”)
counters that the guilt of the accused-appellant for violation of Section
5, Article II, RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The
elements of the crime are: (1) the accused passed on the possession
of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise; and by any
means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
knowingly made the delivery. The OSG emphasizes that consideration
is not an element of this crime. The evidence presented by the
prosecution established that accused-appellant knowingly delivered to
Agent Vicente Delgado the brown bag with re-sealable plastic
containing shabu without lawful authority. It was accused-appellant
who carried the bag of shabu which Agent Vicente Delgado ordered
from “Lolo”. When Agent Vicente Delgado approached accused-
appellant, the RCI asked her, “Eto na ba yung order”. Accused-
appellant answered, “Oo, iabot ko daw sainyo”. The answer of
accused-appellant indicates that she knew about the order. She was
also aware that she was delivering it. In addition, the prosecution
proved that the chain of custody was not broken as the police followed
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. In this case, the marking was done in
the PDEA Office because the team leader was concerned about the
safety of the accused-appellant, his team and the public. During the
inventory, the PDEA called a barangay official and media personnel
as witnesses. Agent Vicente Delgado marked the seized items in the
presence of the witnesses and accused-appellant. Agent Vicente
Delgado had possession and custody of the seized drug from the time
of the inventory until he delivered the items to the forensic chemist.
After subjecting a specimen of the item for laboratory examination, the
seized item was forwarded to the evidence custodian and kept in a
vault. The forensic chemist recovered the items from the evidence
custodian when he was about to testify in court. When the scheduled
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 10 of 24
DECISION

hearing was postponed, he delivered the seized item to the evidence


custodian of the Office of the Prosecutor. The OSG contends that the
PDEA team coordinated with the Southern Police District to avoid
possible confrontation. Even assuming that irregularities attended the
preparation of the documents, they cannot outweigh the testimonies of
the police officers who actually prepared and conducted the buy-bust
operation. Assuming further that the arrest and search were illegal, the
accused-appellant should have promptly filed a motion to quash or
moved for the suppression of evidence during the trial. It is now too
late to question the illegality of the arrest.

OUR RULING
In all criminal cases, the presumption of innocence of an
accused is a fundamental constitutional right that should be upheld at
all times, viz:
-xxx-
“2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.”67

-xxx-
In consonance with this constitutional provision, the prosecution
bears the burden to overcome such presumption. If the prosecution
fails to discharge this burden, the accused deserves a judgment of
acquittal68. On the other hand, if the existence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt is established by the prosecution, the accused gets
a guilty verdict69. In convicting the accused all the elements of the
crime charged must be proven beyond reasonable doubt 70, viz:
-xxx-
“Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - x x x Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind." 71
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 11 of 24
DECISION

-xxx-
In order to merit conviction, the prosecution must rely on the
strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of evidence
presented by the defense72. The burden is not on the accused to prove
his innocence.
With these as our guideposts, we resolve to acquit the accused-
appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt because: (1) the
prosecution failed to prove all the elements of illegal delivery of shabu
and; (2) there was a broken chain of custody over the dangerous
drugs recovered from the accused-appellant.
Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides:
-xxx-
“SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – The
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all
species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.”
-xxx-
“Delivery” has been explicitly defined under Article I, Section 3 of
the same statute, viz:
-xxx-
Section 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, the following terms
shall mean:

xxxx
(k) Deliver. – Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug
to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or
without consideration.
-xxx-

As for the illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, it must be proven


that (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to
another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery
is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 12 of 24
DECISION

delivery73.
The corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the
presentation of the dangerous drug itself. As reiterated in People of the
Philippines vs. Anastacio Hementiza74,
-xxx-

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 drugs 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 accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for
possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.

-xxx-
Thus, the chain of custody over the dangerous drug must be
shown to establish the corpus delicti. This rigorous requirement, under
R.A. No. 9165 known as the chain of custody, performs the function of
ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.

The prosecution failed to


establish knowledge or intent to
deliver
While it may be true that the prosecution established that
accused-appellant passed on possession of shabu to Agent Vicente
Delgado and the delivery was without authority of law as she is just an
“errand girl” of Bingo Bonanza”, the prosecution miserably failed to
prove that the accused-appellant knowingly made the delivery of
shabu or had intent to deliver the shabu to Agent Vicente Delgado.
First, the records reveal that accused-appellant carried a brown paper
bag. Inside the brown paper bag is a sealed cushioned brown
envelope containing the re-sealable plastic bag with white crystalline
substance. We quote the testimony of Agent Vicente Delgado thus:
-xxx-
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 13 of 24
DECISION

“Q: I'm showing to you a brown bag, small bag, is this the
original packaging?
A: Yes Sir.-xxx-
Q: But I imagine also that when this was handed to you, this
was sealed, right?
A: There were no masking tape on the paper bag.-xxx-
Q: And inside the brown paper bag inside was what?
A: Brown envelope.
Q: Sealed?
A: Yes Sir, it was sealed.”

-xxx-
It is evident that the shabu is not visible in plain view. Thus,
accused-appellant could not have seen it. There was also no evidence
to establish that accused-appellant knew what she was carrying. There
was no mention of “shabu” from the purported conversation between
the RCI and the accused-appellant75. Even assuming that the RCI
asked, Eto na ba yung order?” and accused-appellant answered, “Oo”,
iabot ko daw ito sa inyo”, it is hasty to conclude that “order” meant
“shabu”.
Second, the prosecution failed to establish that accused-
appellant was informed of the real transaction between “Lolo” and
Agent Vicente Delgado and knowingly participated therein. To recall, it
was not accused-appellant who communicated with Agent Vicente
Delgado but a certain “Lolo”. Hence, the prosecution should have
established the link between accused-appellant and “Lolo” and her
consent to take part in the transaction of sale of shabu. We observed
that at the time of the delivery of the brown paper bag, accused-
appellant was not carrying the mobile phone used to communicate
with the RCI and/or Agent Vicente Delgado. Even more telling is the
fact that the mobile phone of accused-appellant does not contain any
incriminating communication with “Lolo” or Agent Vicente Delgado. The
PDEA arresting officer confiscated the mobile phone of accused-
appellant and examined the messages/data contained therein but
found no evidence whatsoever that would prove knowledge of the on-
going transaction or show her involvement with “Lolo”, thus:
-xxx-
Q: Q: You confiscated her cellphone?
A: Yes Sir.
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 14 of 24
DECISION

Q: Why was it necessary to confiscate her cellphone?


A: To know her contacts, the content of the inbox, to know
how involved she was with this alias Lolo.
Q: And what did you find out?
A: Actually we considered it anything would link her to alias
Lolo because it as stored in the inbox.-xxx-
A: I am not saying that she did not commit any crime. What I
am saying is that I did not find anything incriminating in the
cellphone.
Q: Are you saying that the cellphone itself you found out does
not link to any crime incident?
A: Yes Sir.-xxx-
Q: Okay Mr. Witness, did you investigate the incoming calls
and outgoing calls in the cellphone?-xxx-
A: Yes Sir, of course we left the cellphone open. We did not
turn off the cellphone when we confiscated it Sir.”
Q: But you stated earlier that you found nothing?
A: We found nothing in the inbox Sir.” 76

-xxx-
As a matter of fact they left the cellphone open in order for it to
be able to receive further communications/updates from “Lolo” but
they found nothing. There was no text, call or messages to show that
“Lolo” and accused-appellant were coordinated or linked.
Third, the PDEA agents did not bother to do something in order
to apprehend or arrest “Lolo” even though he is the subject of their
operation after accused-appellant told them the exact location of the
man who handed her the brown envelope who could possibly be
“Lolo”. The testimony of Agent Vicente Delgado and Agent Alejandro
De La Cruz demonstrate apparent indifference to the possible capture
of their target “Lolo”:
-xxx-
Agent Vicente Delgado
“Q: But isn't it a fact that you are supposed to go after alias
Lolo?
A: Yes Sir.
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 15 of 24
DECISION

Q: Did it dawn on you that maybe you just follow this alias
Agnes so she can take you to alias Lolo?
A: I was instructed by our team leader that if I get the agreed
items, I was to do the pre-arranged signal. So I just followed.
-xxx-
Q: Did it not dawn on you that perhaps you should arrest alias
Lolo?
A: It did. I personally don't know if we could still get this alias
Lolo. All this time he was just texting us.
Q: And did you not ask alias Agnes where this came from or
where is alias Lolo?
A: No Sir.
Q: You didn't bother to pursue that?
A: No Sir. What I did was to see the contents of the bag Sir. 77
-xxx-
“Q: After apprehending alias Agnes, did you investigate her at
that moment? Did you ask her questions?
A: No, I don't think I did Sir.78

-xxx-
Agent Alejandro De La Cruz
“Q: With this alias Lolo, did you not try to pinpoint the identity
of this alias Lolo who is the male culprit here?
A: It is the duty of our poseur buyer Sir to know the identity of
alias Lolo.
Q: So it was not part of your role?

A: Yes Sir.”79

As PDEA agents who are mandated by law to enforce the drug


laws of the country, it behooved upon them to bird dog the identity of
“Lolo” and, based on the information of accused-appellant of his exact
location at that particular time, apprehend him. Precisely, the supposed
buy-bust operation was about him and not about the accused-
appellant. It beggars belief why they failed to do so.

The chain of custody is broken


We are also incredulous of the identity of the corpus delicti in this
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 16 of 24
DECISION

case because the chain of custody was not established. The chain of
custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.
“Chain of custody” has been defined under Section 1(b) of the
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 as:
-xxx-
“(b) Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements
and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the
seized item, the date and time when such transfer or custody
were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as
evidence, and the final disposition”

-xxx-
Section 2180 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic
Act No. 1064081 and Article II, Section 21(a) 82 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provide the procedure
to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs. A careful
examination of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure
laid down by Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR was not followed.
Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent.
The prosecution failed to demonstrate faithful compliance by the
PDEA agents of the rule on chain of custody. Worse, no excuse or
explanation was offered at the hearing of the case for the blatant
omission of what the law required of them. An unavoidable
consequence of the non-establishment of the chain of custody was the
serious doubt on whether the shabu presented as evidence was really
the shabu supposedly seized from the accused-appellant or whether
shabu was indeed seized from her.
First, the PDEA agents did not immediately, after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items at the
place of seizure. Agent Alejandro De La Cruz explained that the
inventory was conducted at the PDEA office in order to secure the
items and to protect the accused and the team 83. However, he failed to
to explain why he opined that the items were unsecure and the
accused and his team were unprotected at the mall given that the
PDEA team is composed of eight (8) members. In addition, Section
2184 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No.
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 17 of 24
DECISION

1064085 and Article II, Section 21(a) 86 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 clearly provide that the inventory
of the items should have been conducted at the nearest police station
at Las Pinas City. As a matter of fact, Team Leader Leverette Lopez
was aware87 of that procedural rule but disregarded the same and
proceeded to the PDEA-RO-NCR which is 3 hours away from the
place of seizure. We find the explanation unacceptable because there
was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.
Resultantly, a considerable amount of time lapsed from the time the
confiscation of the items at SM Southmall, Las Pinas City until its
inventory at the PDEA office at Quezon City which made the evidence
susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange. No evidence or testimony was presented
as to the manner of safekeeping of the seized items in the possession
of Agent Vicente Delgado.
Second, the Inventory of Seized Items dated July 12, 2013 88
does not show that the marking was done in the presence of accused-
appellant or her chosen representative/counsel. In fact, her signature
does not appear in the Inventory of Seized Items.
Third, there was no representative from the Department of
Justice. Agent Vicente Delgado simply testified that his team leader
secured the presence of a DOJ representative but no one appeared 89.
They failed to show genuine and sufficient effort to seek the presence
of a DOJ representative. In People of the Philippines vs. Sammy
Umipang90, the court had the occasion to rule that,
-xxx-
“A sheer statement that representatives were
unavailable without so much as an explanation on
whether serious attempts were employed to look for
other representatives, given the circumstances is to
be regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is
the prosecution who has the positive duty to
establish that earnest efforts were employed in
contacting the representatives enumerated under
Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, or that there was a
justifiable ground for failing to do so.”
-xxx-
As to what constitutes justifiable ground, People of the
Philippines vs. Aljon Guadana91 reiterated thus:
-xxx-
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 18 of 24
DECISION

“The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence


of the required witnesses was not obtained for any of the
following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was
impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2)
their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of
the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;
(3) the elected official themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts
to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and
an elected public official within the period required under
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no
fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being
charged with arbitrary detention; or ( 5) time constraints and
urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of
confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from
obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before
the offenders could escape.”

-xxx-
None of these justifiable grounds were availing in this case or
raised and explained by the PDEA officers.
Fourth, there was no showing that the accused-appellant and the
witnesses were given copies of the inventory.
It is imperative for the prosecution to establish a justifiable cause
for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by law under
Section 21 of RA 9165. As held in People of the Philippines vs. Romy
Lim92,
-xxx-
“The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for
noncompliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21
ofR.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to
demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the
trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and
justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements
oflaw. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be
adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in
accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that
the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply
mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground
in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps
they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict
adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of
illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible
to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.”
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 19 of 24
DECISION

-xxx-
The chain of custody was also broken because there was a gap
in the fourth link of the chain of custody. As a general rule, four links in
the chain of custody of the confiscated item must be established: 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 court93. Here, there was no testimony as to how
the custody over the shabu was transferred from the Office of the
Prosecutor to the RTC. Chemist Maximiano Valentin testified that he
turned over the shabu to a certain Racquelino Balanag of the Office of
the Prosecutor94. However, the prosecution did not present Racquelino
Balanag to testify how the seized article had been kept in a manner
that preserved its integrity until its final presentation in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti. No testimony was adduced to show how
the evidence was handled or stored before its presentation at the trial.
Neither was there any evidence how it was secured from tampering.
These lapses of the prosecution were fatal to its proof of guilt
because they demonstrated that the chain of custody did not stay
unbroken, thereby raising doubt on the integrity and identity of the
dangerous drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti of the crime
charged. While this directive of rigid compliance has been tempered in
certain cases, "such liberality, as stated in the Implementing Rules and
Regulations can be applied only when the evidentiary value and
integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved." Such an exception
does not obtain in this case. Serious uncertainty is generated on the
identity of the shabu in view of the broken linkages in the chain of
custody. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty accorded to the PDEA agents by the courts below cannot
arise.
Undoubtedly, the prosecution failed to meet the required
quantum of evidence sufficient to support a conviction, in which case,
the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails. As has been
consistently held, "When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the
balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of
right."95

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby


C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 20 of 24
DECISION

GRANTED. The Decision dated May 30, 2017 and Order dated July
31, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch 200 in
Criminal Case No. 13-0719 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant PEJAY MADEJA y REYES is hereby ACQUITTED
on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Director, Bureau of Corrections, Correctional Institution for
Women, Mandaluyong City or the place where the accused-appellant
is being detained, is hereby ordered to immediately release the person
of accused-appellant PEJAY MADEJA y REYES from custody unless
she is detained for some other lawful cause/s.
The Director, Bureau of Corrections, Correctional Institution for
Women, Mandaluyong City or the place where the accused-appellant
is being detained is hereby further ordered to REPORT to this court
his/her compliance herewith within five (5) days from doing so.
SO ORDERED.

RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RAMON M. BATO, JR. GERMANO FRANCISCO D. LEGASPI


Associate Justice Associate Justice
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 21 of 24
DECISION

CERTIFICATION

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


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

RAMON M. BATO, JR.


Chairperson, Ninth Division
1
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, pp. 358-377.
2
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport
any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred
(100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and
messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous
drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided
be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this
Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who
organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator
of the provisions under this Section.
3
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165), June 7, 2002.
4
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 2.
5
Counsel de oficio Atty. Matammu-Sion. Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 29.
6
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 29.
7
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 32.
8
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, pp. 591-603.
9
TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 6.
10
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p. 7.
11
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p. 10.
12
TSN dated December 10, 2013, p. 9.
13
TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 8.
14
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p. 10.
15
TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 8.
16
TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 6.
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 22 of 24
DECISION

17
TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 10.
18
TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 8.
19
TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 8.
20
TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 11.
21
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p.14.
22
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p.16.
23
TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 10.
24
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p.17.
25
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p.17.
26
TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 11.
27
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p.18.
28
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p.18-19.
29
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p.19; TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 14.
30
TSN dated December 10, 2013, p. 9.
31
TSN dated December10, 2013, p. 3.
32
TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 17; TSN dated November 26, 2013, p. 22.
33
TSN dated November 26, 2013, pp. 32-34.
34
TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 15.
35
TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 19.
36
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p. 27.
37
TSN dated November 19, 2013, pp. 7-8; TSN dated November 19, 2013, p. 32.
38
TSN dated November 19, 2013, p. 17.
39
TSN dated November 19, 2013, pp. 35-36.
40
TSN dated November 19, 2013, pp. 37-38.
41
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, pp. 514-515.
42
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, pp.516-518.
43
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, pp.519-521.
44
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 522.
45
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 523.
46
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 524.
47
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 498.
48
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 525.
49
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 526.
50
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 527.
51
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, pp.528-530.
52
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 531.
53
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, pp.532-536.
54
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, vol. 2. p. 115.
55
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, vol. 2, p. 116.
56
TSN dated February 2, 2017, p. 30.
57
TSN dated February 2, 2017, p. 29.
58
TSN dated February 2, 2017, p.13.
59
TSN dated February 2, 2017, p.13.
60
TSN dated February 2, 2017, p.15.
61
TSN dated February 2, 2017, p.16.
62
TSN dated February 2, 2017, p.16.
63
TSN dated February 2, 2017, p. 17.
64
Order dated July 31, 2017, Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, vol. 2, p.440.
65
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, vol. 2, pp. 387-412.
66
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, vol. 2, pp. 447-449.
67
Section 14, (2), Article III, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
68
People of the Philippines vs. Marilou Hilario, G.R. No. 210610,January 11, 2018.
69
People of the Philippines vs. Marilou Hilario, G.R. No. 210610,January 11, 2018.
70
People of the Philippines vs, Pablo Arposeple, G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017.
71
Rule 133, Rules of Court.
72
People of the Philippines vs. Marilou Hilario, G.R. No. 210610,January 11, 2018.
73
People of the Philippines vs. Wilson Alacdis,et al., GR No. 220022, June 19, 2017 .
74
G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017.citing People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 808 (2011).
75
“Eto na ba yung order”, to which she replied “Oo”, iabot ko daw ito sa inyo” .
76
TSN dated December 10, 2013, pp. 47-51.
77
TSN dated December 10, 2013, pp. 32-34.
78
TSN dated December 10, 2013, pp. 42-43.
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 23 of 24
DECISION

79
TSN dated June 18, 2015, pp. 10-11.
80
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
“(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items.
“x x x
“(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the
time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however,
That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and
certification;
81
AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE “COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, July 22, 2013.
82
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - 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: (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;
83
TSN dated March 20, 2014, p. 15.
84
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
“(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
C.A-G.R. CR-HC No. 09651 Page 24 of 24
DECISION

confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items.
“x x x
“(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the
time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however,
That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and
certification;
85
AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE “COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, July 22, 2013.
86
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - 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: (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;
87
TSN dated May 27, 2014, p. 32.
88
Record for Criminal Case No. 13-0719, p. 524.
89
TSN dated November 26, 2013, p.23.
90
GR No. 190321, April 25, 2012.
91
GR No. 234160, July 23, 2018.citing People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Sipin, GR No.
224290, GR No. June 11, 2018.
92
GR No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
93
People of the Philippines vs. Myrna Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017.
94
TSN dated November 19, 2013, p. 38.
95
People of the Philippines vs. Mario Villanueva, G.R. No. 189844, November 15, 2010.

Вам также может понравиться