Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 35

2019 CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE PERLAS-BERNABE The CA's Ruling

In a Decision[20] dated November 11, 2015, the CA denied the petition. [21] It held that AICI and A1 Mamoun failed to comply with
procedural and substantive due process in dismissing respondents from their employment. [22]
1. G.R. No. 226578, January 28, 2019
AICI and Al Mamoun moved for reconsideration, [23] arguing for the first time that they were denied due process because respondents did
AUGUSTIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER, INC., PETITIONER, V. ELFRENITO B. BARTOLOME AND RUMBY L. YAMAT, not first contest their termination before the "[Labor] Attache or any [authorized] representative of the Philippine[] Embassy nearest the
RESPONDENTS. site of employment," as stipulated in the employment contracts, before filing the complaint before the LA. [24]
In a Resolution [25] dated August 19, 2016, the CA denied the said motion. [26] It explained that, as a rule, termination disputes should be
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: brought before the LA, except when the parties agree to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration pursuant to then Article 262 [27] (now
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated November 11, 2015 and the Resolution[3]dated August 19, 2016 Article 275) of the Labor Code, provided that such agreement is stated "in unequivocal language." Citing jurisprudence, [28] the CA added
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131582 denying the petition for review filed by petitioner Augustin International Center, that the phrase "all disputes" is not sufficient to divest the LA of its jurisdiction over termination disputes. In the same manner, the phrase
Inc. (AICI) questioning the Resolution [4] dated March 15, 2013 and the Decision [5] dated June 27, 2013 of the National Labor Relations "all claims and complaints" in respondents' employment contracts does not remove the LA's jurisdiction to decide whether respondents
Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's (LA) finding that respondents Elfrenito B. Bartolome (Bartolome) and Rumby L. were legally terminated.[29]
Yamat (Yamat; collectively, respondents) were illegally dismissed from employment.
Hence, AICI filed this petition.
The Facts
The Issues Before the Court
In 2010, Bartolome and Yamat applied as carpenter and tile setter, respectively, with AICI, an employment agency providing manpower
to foreign corporations. They were eventually engaged by Golden Arrow Company, Ltd. (Golden Arrow), which had its office in
The issues before the Court are whether or not: (a) the LA correctly took cognizance of this case; and ( b) AICI is liable for respondents'
Khartoum, Republic of Sudan. Thereafter, they signed their respective employment contracts stating that they would render services for
illegal dismissal.
a period not less than twenty-four (24) months.[6] In their contracts, there was a provision on dispute settlement that reads:
The Court's Ruling
14. Settlement of disputes: All claims and complaints relative to the employment contract of the employee shall be settled in accordance
with Company policies, rules[,] and regulations. In case the Employee contests the decision of the employer, the matter shall be settled
Preliminarily, it bears stressing that AICI does not assail the CA's ruling of illegal dismissal but instead, argues that the LA incorrectly
amicably with [the] participation of the Labour Attaché or any authorised representative of the Philippines Embassy nearest the site of
took cognizance of the case at the onset. It insists that based on the dispute settlement provision in respondents' employment contracts,
employment. x x x[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
the "primary jurisdiction" to decide this case is with the "[Labor] Attache or any [authorized] representative of the Philippine[] Embassy
nearest the site of employment" (designated person).[30]
Upon their arrival in Sudan sometime in March and April 2011, Golden Arrow transferred their employment to its sister company, Al
Mamoun Trading and Investment Company (Al Mamoun). A year later, or on May 2, 2012, Al Mamoun served Notices of Termination of
After a judicious review of the case, the Court denies the petition.
Service[8] to respondents, causing them to return to the Philippines. On May 22, 2012, they filed their complaint [9] before the NLRC
seeking that AICI and A1 Mamoun be held liable for illegal dismissal, breach of contract, and payment of the unexpired portion of the
contract.[10] Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042, [31] as amended by RA 10022, [32] explicitly provides that LAs have original and
exclusive[33] jurisdiction over claims arising out of employer-employee relations or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
For their part, AICI and Al Mamoun claimed that respondents abandoned their duties by mid-2012, based on the e-mail message [11] from workers for overseas deployment, as in this case. The relevant portion of the provision reads:
Golden Arrow to that effect, viz.:
Section 10. Money Claims. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations
2. Illegal Termination – I understand Mr[.] [Yamat] and Mr[.] Bartolome refused to work resulting in the work they were designated to Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after filing of
complete remaining pending. It is our policy that should a member of staff refuse to carry out their normal duties without a satisfactory the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers
and timely explanation then we believe they have terminated their employment themselves. [12] for overseas deploymentincluding claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. x x x (Emphases supplied)

The LA's Ruling Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law [34] and cannot be acquired or waived by agreement of the
parties.[35] As herein applied, the dispute settlement provision in respondents' employment contracts cannot divest the LA of its
In a Decision[13] dated August 31, 2012, the LA held that respondents were illegally dismissed, and accordingly, ordered AICI and Al jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case. Hence, it correctly took cognizance of the complaint filed by respondents before it.
Mamoun to pay the former P69,300.00 each, representing their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contract. [14] The LA explained
that AICI and Al Mamoun failed to overcome their burden to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. They likewise Moreover, issues not raised in the previous proceedings cannot be raised for the first time at a late stage. In this case, the Court
failed to show that respondents abandoned their duties.[15] observes that AICI failed to raise the issue of respondents' supposed non-compliance with the dispute settlement provision before the
LA, as well as before the NLRC. In fact, AICI only mentioned this issue for the first time before the CA in its motion for reconsideration.
Aggrieved, AICI and Al Mamoun filed an appeal.[16] Therefore, such argument or defense is deemed waived and can no longer be considered on appeal. [36] Hence, the Court rules that the
LA properly took cognizance of this case.
The NLRC's Ruling
However, the Court deems it essential to point out that in resolving whether the LA had jurisdiction over this case, the CA erroneously
In a Decision[17] dated June 27, 2013, the NLRC affirmed the LA's ruling, noting that AICI and Al Mamoun failed to discharge their burden assumed that the designated person in the dispute settlement provision is a Voluntary Arbitrator under the auspices of the Labor Code,
to prove by substantial evidence that the termination of respondents' employment was valid. [18] to wit:
Undaunted, AICI and A1 Mamoun filed a petition for certiorari[19] before the CA.

1
It is true that the Voluntary Arbitrator or a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators can hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair 2. G.R. No. 239521, January 28, 2019
labor practices and bargaining deadlocks upon agreement of the parties. But if the parties wish to submit termination disputes to
voluntary arbitration, such an agreement must be stated "in unequivocal language." In the present case, the agreement of the parties PRIMO A. MINA, FELIX BE VERA, POMPEYO MAGALI, BERNADETTE AMOR AND PURIFICACION DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, V.
was written in this manner: THE COURT OF APPEALS AND RODOLFO C. TANDOC, RESPONDENTS.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
xxxx Assailed in this petition for certiorari[1] are the Resolutions dated May 22, 2017 [2] and March 12, 2018[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 150130 which dismissed petitioners Primo A. Mina, Felix De Vera, Pompeyo Magali, Bernadette Amor, and Purificacion
Dela Cruz's (petitioners) petition for certiorari before it for purportedly availing of a wrong remedy.
It is, however, not sufficient to merely say that the parties agree on the principle that "all disputes" should first be submitted to a
Voluntary Arbitrator. There is a need for an express stipulation that illegal termination disputes should be resolved by a Voluntary
The Facts
Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, since the same fall within a special class of disputes that are generally within the exclusive
[and] original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters by express provision of law. [37]
This case stemmed from an Affidavit-Complaint [4] for Perjury, as defined and penalized under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code
To clarify, the Voluntary Arbitrator [38] under the Labor Code is one agreed upon by the parties to resolve certain disputes [39] and is tasked
(RPC), filed by petitioners against respondent Rodolfo C. Tandoc (Tandoc) before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan
to render an award or decision within twenty (20) calendar days pursuant to Article 276 of the Labor Code. [40] This decision shall be final
(OPP). After the requisite preliminary investigation proceedings, the OPP dismissed petitioners' criminal complaint against Tandoc for
and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.[41]
lack of probable cause. [5] Aggrieved, petitioners appealed before the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) located in San
In this case, the dispute settlement provision reads:
Fernando City, La Union. However, the ORSP affirmed the OPP's findings that no probable cause exists to indict Tandoc for the crime of
Perjury. Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.[6]
14. Settlement of disputes: All claims and complaints relative to the employment contract of the employee shall be settled in accordance
with Company policies, rules[,] and regulations. In case the Employee contests the decision of the employer, the matter shall be settled The CA Ruling
amicably with [the] participation of the Labour Attaché or any authorised representative of the Philippines Embassy nearest the site of
employment. x x x[42] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In a Resolution[7] dated May 22, 2017, the CA dismissed the petition outright on the ground that petitioners availed of a wrong remedy. It
held that under Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Circular No. 70-A, petitioners should have first appealed the adverse ORSP
Clearly, the mechanism contemplated herein is an amicable settlement whereby the parties can negotiate with each other; it is not a ruling to the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) before elevating the matter to the regular courts. [8]
voluntary arbitration under the Labor Code wherein a third party renders a decision to resolve the dispute. The text of the contractual
provision shows that the designated person is tasked merely to participate in the amicable settlement and not to decide the dispute. This Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution [9] dated March 12, 2018; hence, this petition.[10]
participation is in line with the mandate of Filipinos Resource Centers, in which labor attachés are members, to engage in the
"conciliation of disputes arising from employer-employee relationship." [43] Hence, the "[Labor] Attaché or any [authorized] representative The Issue Before the Court
of the Philippine[] Embassy nearest the site of employment" was not called upon to act as a Voluntary Arbitrator as contemplated under
the Labor Code. It was therefore erroneous for the CA to assume that the contractual provision triggered the voluntary arbitration Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of petitioners' supposed availment of a wrong remedy.
mechanism under the Labor Code and, on that premise, venture into an inquiry as to whether or not there was an "express stipulation"
submitting the termination dispute to such process, which thereby puts the case beyond the ambit of the LA's jurisdiction. The Court's Ruling

Considering that the parties did not submit the present illegal termination case to the voluntary arbitration mechanism, the dispute To recapitulate, the CA ruled that petitioners should have first elevated the adverse ORSP ruling to the SOJ before availing of judicial
remained under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the LA, which therefore correctly took cognizance of the case. Hence, the Court remedies. On the other hand, petitioners maintain that the ORSP ruling is already final, and as such, it correctly elevated the matter to
modifies the CA's ruling on this matter accordingly. the courts by filing a petition for certiorari. before the CA.

The Court finds for petitioners.


On the second issue, AICI argues in its petition that it cannot be held liable for illegal dismissal because it only recruits employees for
foreign employers, and as such, it does not have an employee-employer relationship with the overseas workers. [44]
DOJ Department Circular No. 70 [11] dated July 3, 2000, entitled the "2000 NPS Rule on Appeal," which governs the appeals process in
This argument does not hold water. Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended; expressly provides that a recruitment agency, such as AICI, is the National Prosecution Service (NPS), provides that resolutions of, inter alia, the Regional State Prosecutor, in cases subject of
solidarily liable with the foreign employer for money claims arising out of the employee-employer relationship between the latter and the preliminary investigation/reinvestigation shall be appealed by filing a verified petition for review before the SOJ. [12] However, this
overseas Filipino worker. [45] Jurisprudence explains that this solidary liability is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and procedure was immediately amended by DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A [13] dated July 10, 2000, entitled "Delegation of Authority to
sufficient payment of what is due him,[46]as well as to afford overseas workers an additional layer of protection against foreign employers Regional State Prosecutors to Resolve Appeals in Certain Cases," which reads:
that tend to violate labor laws. [47] In view of the express provision of law, AICI's lack of an employee-employer relationship with
respondents cannot exculpate it from its liability to pay the latter's money claims. DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 70-A

Nevertheless, AICI is not left without a remedy. The law does not preclude AICI from going after the foreign employer for reimbursement
SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Regional State Prosecutors to Resolve Appeals in Certain Cases
of any payment it has made to respondents to answer for the money claims against the foreign employer. [48]
In order to expedite the disposition of appealed cases governed by Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000 ("2000 NPS RULE
ON APPEAL"), all petitions for review of resolutions of Provincial/City Prosecutors in eases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 11, 2015 and the Resolution dated
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, except in the National Capital Region, shall be filed with the Regional State
August 19, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 131582 are hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons above-discussed.
Prosecutor concerned who shall resolve such petitions with finality in accordance with the pertinent rules prescribed in the said
Department Circular.

2
The foregoing delegation of authority notwithstanding, the Secretary, of Justice may, pursuant to his power of supervision and control
over the entire National Prosecution Service and in the interest of justice, review the resolutions of the Regional State Prosecutors in A reading of the foregoing provisions shows that the prevailing appeals process in the NPS with regard to complaints subject of
appealed cases. preliminary investigation would depend on two factors, namely: where the complaint was filed, i.e., whether in the NCR or in the
provinces; and which court has original jurisdiction over the case,  i.e., whether or not it is cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs.
Thus, the rule shall be as follows:
x x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
(a) If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OPP may be appealable by
As may be gleaned above, DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A delegated to the ORSPs the authority to  rule with finality cases subject of way of petition for review before the ORSP, which ruling shall be with finality;
preliminary investigation/reinvestigation appealed before it, provided that: (a) the case is not filed in the National Capital Region (NCR);
and (b) the case, should it proceed to the courts, is cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) (b) If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is not cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OPP may be
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) – which includes not only violations of city or municipal ordinances, but also all offenses appealable by way of petition for review before SOJ, which ruling shall be with finality;
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties attached thereto. [14] This is, however, without prejudice on the part of the SOJ to review the ORSP ruling, (c) If the complaint is filed within the NCR and is cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OCP may be appealable by
should the former deem it appropriate to do so in the interest of justice. The foregoing amendment is further strengthened by a later way of petition for review before the Prosecutor General, whose ruling shall be with finality;
issuance, namely DOJ Department Circular No. 018-14 [15] dated June 18, 2014, entitled "Revised Delegation of Authority on Appealed
Cases," pertinent portions of which read:
(d) If the complaint is filed within the NCR and is not cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OCP may be appealable
DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 018-14 by way of petition for review before the SOJ, whose ruling shall be with finality;

SUBJECT: Revised Delegation of Authority on Appealed Cases (e) Provided, that in instances covered by (a) and (c), the SOJ may, pursuant to his power of control and supervision over the entire
National Prosecution Service, review, modify, or reverse the ruling of the ORSP or the Prosecutor General, as the case may be .
[17]
In the interest of service and pursuant to the provisions of existing laws with the objective of institutionalizing the Department's Zero  (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Backlog Program on appealed cases, the following guidelines shall be observed and implemented in the resolution of appealed cases
on Petition for Review and Motions for Reconsideration: In this case, records show that petitioners filed a criminal complaint before the OPP accusing Tandoc of Perjury. The complaint was,
however, dismissed by the OPP and such dismissal was upheld by the ORSP. Since (a) the criminal complaint was filed outside of the
NCR; (b) perjury cases are cognizable by the first-level courts since the maximum penalty therefor is imprisonment for less than six (6)
1. Consistent with Department Circular No. 70-A, all appeals from resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors, except those from the years;[18] and (c) it appears that the SOJ did not exercise its power of control and supervision over the entire NPS by reviewing the
National Capital Region, in cases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, ORSP ruling, the ORSP's affirmance of the OPP ruling was with finality. As such, petitioners have already exhausted its administrative
shall be by way of a petition for review to the concerned province or city. The Regional Prosecutor shall resolve the petition for review remedies and may now go to the CA via a petition for certiorari.
with finality, in accordance with the rules prescribed in pertinent rules and circulars of this Department. Provided, however , that the
Secretary of Justice may, pursuant to the power of control and supervision over the entire National Prosecution Service, review, modify In this light, the Court concludes that the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing outright the petition for certiorari filed before it by
or reverse, the resolutions of the Regional Prosecutor in these appealed cases. petitioners. On this note, since the Court recognizes that the dismissal of petitioners' petition for certiorari filed before the CA was due to
a mere technicality, it is only appropriate that this case be remanded to the said appellate court for its resolution on the merits.
2. Appeals from resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors, except those from the National Capital Region, in all other cases shall be
by way of a petition for review to the Office of Secretary of Justice. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated May 22, 2017 and March 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 150130 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, this case is REMANDEDto the Court of Appeals for its resolution
3. Appeals from resolutions of the City Prosecutors in the National Capital Region in cases cognizable by Metropolitan Trial Courts shall on the merits.
be by way of a petition for review to the Prosecutor General who shall decide the same with finality. Provided, however, that the
Secretary of Justice may, pursuant to the power of control and supervision over the entire National Prosecution Service, review, modify SO ORDERED.
or reverse, the resolutions of the Prosecutor General in these appealed cases.
3. G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019
4. Appeals from resolutions of the City Prosecutors in the National Capital Region in all other cases shall be by way of a petition for
review to the Office of the Secretary.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BILLY ACOSTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
xxxx Assailed in this ordinary appeal [1] is the Decision[2] dated February 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01612-MIN,
which affirmed the Judgment [3] dated February 7, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Gingoog City, Branch 43 (RTC) in Crim. Case No.
2015-6192, finding accused-appellant Billy Acosta (Acosta) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, Article II of Republic
This Circular supersedes all inconsistent issuances, takes effect on 01 July 2014 and shall remain in force until further orders. Act No. (RA) 9165,[4] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

For guidance and compliance. The Facts

This case stemmed from an Information [5] filed before the RTC accusing Acosta of the crime of Illegal Planting and Cultivation of
In Cariaga v. Sapigao,[16] the Court harmonized the foregoing DOJ Circulars, and accordingly, interpreted the prevailing appeals process Marijuana Plant, defined and penalized under Section 16, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution alleged that at around seven (7) o'clock
of the NPS as follows: in the morning of September 10, 2015 in Purok 2, Barangay San Juan, Gingoog City, Alfredo Salucana (Salucana) went to the Gingoog
3
City Police Station to report a mauling incident where Acosta purportedly hit him with a piece of wood. He also reported that Acosta was
illegally planting marijuana. Salucana's foregoing reports prompted Police Inspector Ismael Virgil O. Gundaya (P/Insp. Gundaya), Senior One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a warrant before a search may be effected is when the "plain view" doctrine is
Police Officer 4 Henry B. Legaspi (SPO4 Legaspi), Senior Police Officer 2 Jan Jomen (SPO2 Jomen), and Police Officer 3 Leo Pontillas applicable. In People v. Lagman,[23] this Court laid down the following parameters for its application":
(PO3 Pontillas) to proceed to Acosta's home in Purok 2, Barangay San Juan, Gingoog City. Thereat, Salucana positively identified
Acosta who was then walking on the trail leading towards his house. The police officers then rushed towards Acosta and arrested him Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search
before he entered his home. After the arrest, SPO4 Legaspi found thirteen (13) hills of suspected marijuana plants planted beneath the warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law
"gabi" plants just outside Acosta's home, and around a meter away from where he was arrested. Upon seeing the marijuana, SPO4 enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
immediately called Barangay Captain Rodulfo Maturan (Brgy. Captain Maturan), Barangay Kagawad Danilo Macaraig (Brgy. Kagawad particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
Macaraig), and Mrs, Joyce Donguines (Mrs. Donguines) of the Farmer's Association, to witness the uprooting of the suspected observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
marijuana plants. Thereafter, they brought Acosta and the uprooted marijuana plants to the police station for the marking and inventory initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
of the seized items. At the police station, the suspected marijuana plants were marked and inventoried in the presence of Acosta, Brgy. inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery
Captain Maturan, and Mrs. Donguines. SPO4 Legaspi then delivered the seized items to Police Chief Inspector Joseph T. Esber (PCI inadvertent.[24] (Emphases supplied)
Esber) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory where, after examination, [6] the plants tested positive for
marijuana, a dangerous drug. PCI Esber then turned over the specimens to the Evidence Custodian. [7] In this case, the first and third requisites were not seriously contested by Acosta. Instead, he argues that the second requisite is absent
since the discovery of the police officers of the marijuana plants was not inadvertent as it was prompted by Salucana. After a careful
In defense, Acosta denied the charges against him and maintained that the accusations hurled against him were all fabricated. [8] He review of the records, this Court is inclined to agree.
likewise argued that the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence as the "plain view" doctrine is not applicable. [9] Acosta
argued that the discovery was not inadvertent because it was Salucana who pointed out the marijuana plants to the police.
[10]
 Furthermore, there was a violation of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 since there was no proof of the photography of the marking and The testimonies of P/Insp. Gundaya, SPO4 Legaspi, and Salucana collectively paint the picture that the police officers proceeded with
inventory of the seized marijuana plants.[11] the arrest of Acosta for the mauling incident armed with prior knowledge that he was also illegally planting marijuana:

In a Judgment[12] dated February 7, 2017, the RTC found Acosta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, Direct Examination
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. [13] The RTC held that the
marijuana plants were inadvertently found in plain view by the police officers during a lawful arrest. It also found that the prosecution, [Assistant City Prosecutor Alfredo Z. Gomez (ACP Gomez)]: Why did you know that marijuana plants are owned and planted by the
through testimonial and documentary evidence, had established beyond reasonable doubt that Acosta indeed illegally planted and accused Billy Acosta?
cultivated thirteen (13) hills of marijuana plants at his residence. Likewise, the RTC held that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value
of the illegal marijuana plants were duly preserved as the chain of custody was proved by the prosecution. The RTC found Acosta's [P/Insp. Gundaya]: It was disclosed to us by his foster father Alfredo Salucana that Billy Acosta is cultivating marijuana plants.
defense of denial unavailing, as it cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution's witnesses. [14]Aggrieved, Acosta [25]
 (Emphasis supplied)
appealed[15] to the CA.
Direct Examination
In a Decision[16] dated February 22, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. [17] It held that the requirements of the "plain view" doctrine
were complied with in that the police officers: ( a) had prior justification to be in the area in order to apprehend Acosta for the mauling [ACP Gomez]: If you know who was the one who planted those marijuana plants?
incident; (b) did not purposefully search for the marijuana plants but came across them inadvertently in the course of the arrest as they [SPO4 Legaspi]: I do not have personal knowledge considering that we did not see the accused in this case cultivate the plants.
were in their line of sight; and (c) were able to recognize the marijuana plants owing to their different foliar characteristics from the " gabi" However, we just have been in [sic] fed of the information by Alfredo Salucana that it was Billy Acosta who cultivated that plants .
plants. The CA likewise found that the prosecution sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime [26]
 (Emphasis supplied)
charged against Acosta, and all the links constituting the chain of custody.[18]
Direct Examination
Hence, this appeal seeking that Acosta's conviction be overturned.
[Court]: And that was the only time that you resort to report the incident to the police because he hurt you? 
The Court's Ruling [Salucana]: Yes, Sir.
Q: At that time you reported the matter to the police you also told the police that Billy Acosta was planting marijuana? 
The appeal is meritorious. A: Yes, Sir.
Q: That is why they went with you because of that report because he planted marijuana and he struck you with a piece of wood? 
A: Yes, Sir.
At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal xxxx
can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than
those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court
competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. ACP Gomez: (continuing) Would you know of any reason why Billy Acosta would strike you with a wood? 
[19] [Salucana]: Because of the marijuana that I was able to pass.
xxxx
Section 2,[20] Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a
judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and seizure become "unreasonable" within Q: Did you ever call the attention of Billy Acosta about the marijuana plants you testified to? 
the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), [21] Article III A: I told him that planting the marijuana plants is against the law.
of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for Q: What was his response? 
any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and A: He told me that he will change when he will be imprisoned.[27] (Emphases supplied)
seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. [22]
4
bigger plastic sachet and marked the same accordingly. The seized item was then inventoried [7] in the presence of Rodel Limbo (Limbo),
It is clear from Salucana's testimony that he knew of Acosta's illegal activities even prior to the mauling incident. In fact, it may be a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and Teresita N. Reyes (Reyes), a barangay councilor. [8]Finally, the seized item was
reasonably inferred that the mauling incident had something to do with Acosta's planting of marijuana. It is also clear that Salucana brought to the crime laboratory, where, upon examination, [9] the contents thereof tested positive for 0.04 gram of methamphetamine
apprised the police officers of the illegal planting and cultivation of the marijuana plants when he reported the mauling incident. Thus, hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[10]
when the police officers proceeded to Acosta's abode, they were already alerted to the fact that there could possibly be marijuana plants
in the area. This belies the argument that the discovery of the plants was inadvertent. In  People v. Valdez,[28] the Court held that the For his part, Barrion denied the charges against him, claiming instead, that at around seven (7) o' clock in the evening of August 10,
"plain view" doctrine cannot apply if the officers are actually "searching" for evidence against the accused, to wit: 2011, he was already detained at the police headquarters, and thus, the testimony of the prosecution that he was apprehended at that
time was not true. He likewise averred that at past four (4) o' clock in the afternoon of even date, he was onboard a tricycle when police
Note further that the police team was dispatched to appellant's kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora. The officers blocked his way, pointed guns at him, ordered him to alight from the vehicle, put him in handcuffs, and asked him where he
seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but gets shabu. When he denied any knowledge about the matter, he was brought to the police station. [11]
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Clearly, their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. We also note the
testimony of SPO2 Tipay that upon arriving at the area, they first had to "look around the area" before they could spot the illegal plants. In a Decision[12] dated April 29, 2016, the RTC found Barrion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly,
Patently, the seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was needed. In sum, the marijuana plants sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of 500,000.00. It ruled that the prosecution was
in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply. [29] (Emphases able to establish all the elements of the crime charged, as well as the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Finally, it gave credence
supplied) to the positive identification of the police officers who enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties, and
hence, should prevail over Barrion's defense of denial.[13] Aggrieved, Barrion appealed[14] to the CA.
Verily, it could not be gainsaid that the discovery was inadvertent when the police officers already knew that there could be marijuana
plants in the area. Armed with such knowledge, they would naturally be more circumspect in their observations. In effect, they In a Decision[15] dated January 30, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that all the elements of the crime charged were duly
proceeded to Acosta's abode, not only to arrest him for the mauling incident, but also to verify Salucana's report that Acosta was illegally established, considering that Barrion was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operation conducted by the police
planting marijuana. Thus, the second requisite for the "plain view" doctrine is absent. Considering that the "plain view" doctrine is officers. Finally, it ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. [16]
inapplicable to the present case, the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the Hence, this appeal seeking that Barrion's conviction be overturned.
poisonous tree.[30]

All told, since the marijuana plants seized from Acosta constitute inadmissible evidence in violation of Section 3 (2), Article III of the The Court's Ruling
1987 Constitution, and given that the confiscated plants are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court finds Acosta's
conviction to be improper and therefore, acquits him. The appeal is meritorious. In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [17]it is essential that the
identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of
the corpus delicti of the crime.[18] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 22, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal. [19]
01612-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Billy Acosta is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of
other reason. custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [20] As part of the chain of
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted
SO ORDERED. immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [21] Hence, the failure to immediately mark
the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs,
as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain
4. G.R. No. 240541, January 21, 2019 of custody.[22]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. REY BARRION Y SILVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: ( a) if prior to the amendment of RA
9165 by RA 10640,[23] "a representative from the media and the [DOJ], and any elected public official";[24] or (b) if after the amendment of
RA 9165 by RA 10640, "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media."[25] The law
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of
Assailed in this ordinary appeal [1] is the Decision [2] dated January 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08406,
switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [26]
which affirmed the Decision[3] dated April 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Batangas, Branch 12 (RTC) in Criminal Case
No. 0453-2011, finding accused-appellant Rey Barrion y Silva (Barrion) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a
Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, [4] otherwise known as the
procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [27] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [28]
The Facts
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may
not always be possible.[29] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not  ipso facto  render the
This case stemmed from an Information [5] filed before the RTC charging Barrion of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The
seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: ( a) there is a justifiable
prosecution alleged that at about seven (7) o' clock in the evening of August 10, 2011, members of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs –
ground for non-compliance; and ( b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [30] The foregoing is
Special Operation Task Group [6] successfully implemented a buy-bust operation against Barrion, during which one (1) plastic sachet
based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [31] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was
containing white crystalline substance was recovered from him. PO2 Dan Gonzales (PO2 Gonzales) then marked the seized item at the
later adopted into the text of RA 10640. [32] It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
place of arrest, and thereafter, brought it to the police station along with Barrion. Thereat, PO2 Gonzales placed the seized item in a
5
duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, [33] and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, SO ORDERED.
because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[34]
5. A.M. No. 18-08-69-MTC, January 21, 2019
Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted
genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MR. STEVERIL [*] J. JABONETE, JR., JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to COURT PONTEVEDRA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL.
comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [35] Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to
contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [36] These considerations arise from the fact PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about the This administrative matter involves Steveril J. Jabonete, Jr. (Jabonete), Junior Process Server, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Pontevedra,
activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary Negros Occidental.
arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [37]
The records of the Employees' Leave Division (ELD) of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) – Office of the Court Administrator
Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,[38] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that (OCA) show that Jabonete had an approved vacation and sick leave application until June 3, 2011. However, he has not reported back
"[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the to work and has not submitted his Daily Time Record (DTR) since June 2011 up to the present. Neither has he submitted additional
chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the applications for leave. Thus, based on the records, Jabonete has been absent without official leave since June 6, 2011. [1]
proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity
and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further On February 28, 2012, the ELD sent Jabonete a letter [2] directing him to submit his DTRs from June 6, 2011 up to said date; otherwise,
review."[39] his salaries would be recommended for withholding. [3]

In this case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct of the inventory and photography was not witnessed by The ELD further sent a letter [4] dated March 21, 2012 to Jabonete at his court station – MTC, Pontevedra, Negros Occidental – coursed
a media representative. This may be gleaned from the Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items [40] which only shows the presence of through said court's Acting Presiding Judge George S. Patriarca (Judge Patriarca), reiterating the directive for the former to submit his
Limbo, a DOJ representative, and Reyes, an elected public official, i.e., a barangay councilor. Such finding is confirmed by the testimony DTRs from June 2011 up to said date, with a warning that continued non-compliance will constrain the Office to recommend that his
of the team leader, SPO1[41] Emmanuel Angelo Umali (SPO1 Umali), to wit: name be dropped from the rolls.[5]

[Atty. Ismael Macasaet]: Who prepared the inventory in relation to this case?  On June 4, 2012, the ELD received a letter [6] dated May 10, 2012 from Judge Patriarca, informing it that he has personally handed the
[SPO1 Umali]: I, sir, as the team leader. March 21, 2012 letter to Jabonete.[7]
Q: Was there any representative of the DOJ available at the police station when you arrived from the operation? 
A: Yes, sir. To date, the ELD has not received any compliance from Jabonete. [8] Thus, his salaries and other benefits were withheld pursuant to
Q: When did you see the representative of the DOJ for the first time?  memorandum WSB No. 3d-2012 dated March 21, 2012.[9]
A: When we were already in the police station, he arrived, sir.
Q: You called him or somebody called him?  The OCA informed the Court of its findings based on the records of its different offices, namely: ( a) Jabonete has no application for
A: Somebody called him, sir. retirement; (b) he is still in the plantilla of court personnel, and thus, considered to be in active service; ( c) no administrative case is
Q: How long after you arrived from the police station did the representative of the DOJ arrive? pending against him; and (d) he is not an accountable officer.[10]
A: More or less thirty (30) minutes, sir.
Q: How about the elected official? When did the elected official arrive at the police station? After your arrival from the operation?  In its Report[11] dated July 24, 2018, the OCA recommended that: ( a) Jabonete's name be dropped from the rolls effective June 6, 2011
A: He was with us, sir. for having been absent without official leave; ( b) his position be declared vacant; and ( c) he be informed of his separation from the
Q: There was no media representative who arrived? service at Barangay RSB, La Carlota, Negros Occidental, his last known address appearing in his 201 file. The OCA added, however,
A: None, sir. that Jabonete is still qualified to receive the benefits he may be entitled to under existing laws and may still be reemployed in the
Q: So you were not able to contact the media?  government.[12]
A: We called, sir.[42] The Court's Ruling

As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason The Court agrees with the CA's recommendation.
therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their
presence. Here, while SPO1 Umali acknowledged the absence of a media representative during the conduct of inventory, he failed to
Section 93 (a), Rule 19 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[13] (RRACCS) states:
offer any reasonable justification for the same. As already discussed, mere statements claiming that they tried to call the media
representative, without, however, showing that they exerted earnest efforts to secure his presence, are insufficient to trigger the
Rule 19 
operation of the saving clause. In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court is therefore constrained to
conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from Barrion was compromised, which consequently
DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS
warrants his acquittal.
Section 93. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. — Officers and employees who are either habitually absent or have
unsatisfactory or poor performance or have shown to be physically or mentally unfit to perform their duties may be dropped from the rolls
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08406 is subject to the following procedures:
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Rey Barrion y Silva is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other
a. Absence Without Approved Leave
reason.
1. An officer or employee who is continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) working days shall be
separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He/she shall, however, be informed of his/her separation
6
not later than five (5) days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the address appearing on his/her 201 files or to his/her last Custodios' predecessor-in-interest and petitioners' grandmother, Ignacia, was assigned two (2) parcels of land situated in Sitio Dungon,
known address; Brgy. 07 and Sitio Bangalog, Brgy. Parina as her share. [11]
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)[14]
In 1995, respondent Demetria, daughter of Ambrosio, mortgaged the subject land to Felix R. Aide with right to repurchase. Upon her
Based on this provision, Jabonete should be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls in view of his continued absence since return from Manila in 2000, she redeemed the same but discovered that the Custodios took possession of the land and refused to
June 6, 2011. vacate therefrom despite demands; hence, the complaint.[12]

It should be stressed that a court personnel's conduct is circumscribed with the heavy responsibility of upholding public accountability In their Answer,[13] the Custodios claimed to be legitimate and compulsory heirs of Marcelino who can validly and legally possess the
and maintaining the people's faith in the judiciary.[15] By failing to report for work since June 2011 up to the present, Jabonete grossly subject land which has not been partitioned, and thus, commonly owned by his heirs. They further averred that Ambrosio is not a child of
disregarded and neglected the duties of his office. Undeniably, he failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed Marcelino and, as such, has no right to claim the subject land. [14]
on all those in the government service.[16]
To support respondents' claim that Ambrosio is a child of Marcelino and Susana Paller, they presented before the MCTC a copy of
Nevertheless, as the OCA correctly pointed out, dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary in nature, and thus, Jabonete's separation Ambrosio's baptismal certificate [15] indicating that his father was Marcelino; [16] however, his mother was reflected therein as "Talampona
from the service shall neither result in the forfeiture of his benefits nor disqualification from reemployment in the government pursuant to Duevo"[17] (Talampona). On the other hand, to establish their acquisition of the two (2)-hectare portion, they adduced a copy of the
Section 96,[17] Rule 19 of the RRACCS. unnotarized deed of sale dated May 3, 1959 in waray  dialect denominated as "Documento Hin Pag Guibotongan Hin
Cadayunan"[18] (unnotarized deed of sale) purportedly covering the sale of the said portion by Juan to respondents' mother, Sabina, who,
WHEREFORE, Steveril J. Jabonete, Jr., Junior Process Server, Municipal Trial Court, Pontevedra, Negros Occidental is however, was described therein as married to "Marcos Paller" (Marcos), [19] not to Ambrosio. To explain the discrepancies in the names
hereby DROPPED from the rolls effective June 6, 2011 and his position is declared VACANT. He is, however, still qualified to receive reflected in the above documents, Miguel explained that "Ambrosio" and "Talampona" are the real names, and that "Marcos" and
the benefits he may be entitled to under existing laws and may still be reemployed in the government. "Susana" were mere aliases.[20]
Let a copy of this Resolution be served upon him at his address appearing in his 201 file pursuant to Section 93 (a) (1), Rule 19 of the
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[18] Subsequently, the Custodios filed a Demurrer to Evidence [21] dated July 20, 2008, averring that respondents failed to establish their
claim that Ambrosio is a son of Marcelino, pointing out: (a)  the discrepancies in the names indicated in their pleadings and the
SO ORDERED. documentary evidence they presented; and (b)  the lack of documents/evidence other than Ambrosio's baptismal certificate to prove his
filiation to Marcelino. Thus, they contended that respondents cannot claim to have lawfully and validly acquired the subject land by right
6. G.R. No. 231459, January 21, 2019 of representation from Ambrosio. They further pointed [22] out that respondents' evidence failed to prove not only their ownership of the
subject land, but likewise the identity of the land they seek to recover, considering the different boundaries reflected in the unnotarized
HEIRS OF PAULA C. FABILLAR, AS REPRESENTED BY AUREO* FABILLAR, PETITIONERS, VS. MIGUEL M. PALLER, deed of sale and the tax declarations (TD) they presented.[23]
FLORENTINA P. ABAYAN, AND DEMETRIA P. SAGALES, RESPONDENTS.
However, the Demurrer to Evidence was denied in an Order [24] dated October 24, 2008, and the Custodios were allowed to present their
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: evidence.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated August 31, 2016 and the Resolution [3] dated March
10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-S.P. No. 08293, which affirmed the Decision on Appeal [4] dated The MCTC Ruling
January 17, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Balangiga, Eastern Samar, Branch 42 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 0114, declaring
respondents Miguel M. Paller (Miguel), Florentina P. Abayan, and Demetria P. Sagales (Demetria; collectively, respondents) as the In a Decision[25] dated November 12, 2012, the MCTC declared respondents as the lawful owners of the subject land, and ordered the
lawful owners of the subject land and ordering Antonio and Matilda Custodio (Spouses Custodio), and petitioners' predecessor-in- Custodios to surrender the ownership and physical possession of the subject land, and to pay actual damages, attorney's fees, and the
interest, Paula C. Fabillar (Paula), to surrender the ownership and physical possession of the land, and to pay actual damages, costs of suit.[26] It gave weight to the baptismal certificate as sufficient and competent proof of Ambrosio's filiation with Marcelino which
attorney's fees, and the costs of suit. the Custodios failed to successfully overthrow. It further ruled that: (a)  respondents' claim of oral partition was effectively admitted by
Paula, who testified that her mother received her share of Marcelino's properties; and (b)  respondents had duly established that they are
The Facts the prior possessors of the subject land who had exercised acts of dominion over the same, and had paid the corresponding realty taxes
therefor.[27]
The instant case stemmed from an Amended Complaint [5] for Recovery of Ownership, Possession, and Damages filed by respondents
against Spouses Custodio and Paula (collectively, the Custodios), before the 9 th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Giporlos-Quinapondan, Aggrieved, the Custodios appealed to the RTC.[28]
Eastern Samar (MCTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 273, involving a 3.1003-hectare parcel of agricultural coconut land situated in Sitio
Cabotjo-an, Brgy. Parina, Giporlos, Eastern Samar, with an assessed value of P950.00 (subject land). [6]
The RTC Ruling
Respondents claimed that the subject land was a portion of a bigger parcel of land originally owned by their grandfather, Marcelino In a Decision on Appeal [29] dated January 17, 2014, the RTC affirmed the MCTC ruling, considering the Custodios' failure to
Paller (Marcelino). After the latter's death, or sometime in 1929 or 1932, his children, Ambrosio Paller (Ambrosio), [7] Isidra Paller (Isidra), rebut: (a)  Ambrosio's baptismal certificate indicating that his father is Marcelino, concluding the same to be proof of his pedigree;
and Ignacia Paller (Ignacia), [8] along several others,[9] orally partitioned his properties and took possession of their respective shares. [30]
 and (b)  respondents' possession in the concept of owner.[31]

From Marcelino's estate, respondents' father, Ambrosio, was given about one (1) hectare of the subject land, in addition to a smaller Dissatisfied, Spouses Custodio and herein petitioners, heirs of Paula, [32] elevated the matter to the CA, [33]additionally raising[34] the
property situated in Sitio Dungon, Brgy. 07; while Isidra was given two (2) hectares as her rightful share. After Isidra's death, her son, defense of failure to state a cause of action for failure to declare heirship prior to the institution of the complaint in accordance with the
Juan Duevo (Juan), sold the two (2)-hectare land to Ambrosio's wife and respondents' mother, Sabina Macawile (Sabina). Through case of Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. del Rosario (Yaptinchay). [35]
succession upon their parents' death, respondents alleged that the subject land was passed on to them. [10] On the other hand, the

7
The CA Ruling However, it is jurisprudentially settled that a baptismal certificate has evidentiary value to prove filiation only if considered alongside
other evidence of filiation. [53] Because the putative parent has no hand in the preparation of a baptismal certificate, the same has scant
In a Decision[36] dated August 31, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision, finding Marcelino to be the father of Ambrosio, thereby evidentiary value if taken in isolation;[54] while it may be considered a public document, "it can only serve as evidence of the
declaring that respondents, as children of Ambrosio, have a right over the subject land. It rejected the Custodios' claim of lack of cause administration of the sacrament on the date specified, but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child's paternity." [55] As such,
of action for failure to declare heirship prior to the institution of the complaint for having been raised only for the first time on appeal, and a baptismal certificate alone is not sufficient to resolve a disputed filiation, and the courts must peruse other pieces of evidence instead
considering further the parties' active participation in presenting evidence to establish or negate respondents' filial relationship to of relying only on a canonical record.[56]
Marcelino.[37]
In this case, the MCTC, the RTC, and the CA did not appreciate any other material proof related to the baptismal certificate of Ambrosio
Petitioners and Spouses Custodio filed their motion for reconsideration [38] which was denied in a Resolution [39]dated March 10, 2017; that would establish his filiation with Marcelino, whether as a legitimate or an illegitimate son. Contrary to the ruling of the said
hence, this petition solely filed by petitioners. courts, the burden of proof is on respondents to establish their affirmative allegation that Marcelino is Ambrosio's father ,[57] and not for
petitioners to disprove the same,  because a baptismal certificate is neither conclusive proof of filiation [58]/parentage nor of the status of
The Issue Before the Court legitimacy or illegitimacy of the person baptized. [59] Consequently, while petitioners have admitted that Marcelino's heirs had partitioned
Marcelino's properties among them, [60] the Court finds respondents' evidence to be inadequate to prove the claimed filiation with the
The essential issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in holding that respondents' predecessor, Ambrosio, is a child of property owner, Marcelino, as to entitle Ambrosio and his successors-in-interest, herein respondents, to share in the properties left by
Marcelino and is entitled to inherit the subject land. Marcelino. However, it is well to point out that the portion of the property supposedly inherited by Ambrosio from Marcelino involved only
a one (1)-hectare portion of the subject land.
The Court's Ruling
III. Respondents failed to prove the identity of the land they are seeking to recover.

In the present case, petitioners insist that the filiation of Ambrosio to Marcelino can only be successfully proved by virtue of a declaration The Court finds that respondents failed to establish the identity of the land they were seeking to recover, in the first place. To support
of heirship by a competent court in a special proceeding, absent which, respondents cannot claim any right over the subject land. their claim over the remaining two (2)-hectare portion of the subject land, respondents presented:  (a)  the unnotarized deed of sale[61] by
[40]
 Moreover, they insist that mere allegations in the complaint and the presentation of Ambrosio's baptismal certificate cannot be which Marcelino's grandson,[62] Juan, purportedly sold the said portion to respondents' mother, Sabina, who, however, was described
considered as competent proof of the claimed filiation.[41] therein as married to "Marcos Paller"; (b)  Miguel's testimony that Ambrosio is the real name, and that "Marcos" was a mere alias;
[63]
 and (c)  Demetria's testimony as to the boundaries of the land they are seeking. [64] However, respondents' evidence are insufficient to
I. A special proceeding for declaration of heirship is not necessary in the present case, considering that the parties voluntarily warrant a conclusion that the two (2)-hectare parcel of land subject of the unnotarized deed of sale is indeed a portion of the subject
submitted the issue of heirship before the trial court. land.

Firstly, the subject land is admittedly covered [65] by TD No. 6618[66] which remained in the name of Marcelino, but the unnotarized deed
Although the principal action in this case was for the recovery of ownership and possession of the subject land, it is necessary to pass of sale[67] bears different boundaries [68] as TD No. 6618. Notably, the Municipal Assessor of Giporlos, Eastern Samar (Municipal
upon the relationship of Ambrosio to Marcelino for the purpose of determining what legal rights he may have in the subject land which he Assessor) testified that the subject land was once part of a 37,904-square meter (sq. m.) tract of land declared in the name of Marcelino,
can pass to his heirs, petitioners herein. Notably, the issue of whether or not Ambrosio is one of the children of Marcelino was squarely and covered by TD No. 12864, [69] which was subsequently divided into two (2) parcels of land with two (2) different TDs, [70] i.e.,  TD Nos.
raised by both parties in their respective pre-trial briefs. [42]Hence, insofar as the parties in this case are concerned, the trial court is 2191[71] and 2192[72] with an area of 6,901 sq. m. and 31,003 sq. m., respectively, with the following boundaries:
empowered to make a declaration of heirship, if only to resolve the issue of ownership.

Boundaries TD No. 2191 TD No. 2192


To be sure, while the Court, in Yaptinchay,  ruled that a declaration of heirship can only be made in a special proceeding inasmuch as
what is sought is the establishment of a status or right, [43] by way of exception, the Court, in Heirs of Ypon v. Ricaforte, [44] declared
that "the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of North Ambrosio Paller Public Land
practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their
evidence regarding the issue of heirship," [45] and "the [trial court] had consequently rendered judgment upon the issues it defined during East Pablo Pajarilla Agaton Baldo
the pre-trial,"[46] as in this case.[47] Indeed, recourse to administration proceedings to determine who the heirs are is sanctioned only if
there are good and compelling reasons for such recourse, [48] which is absent herein, as both parties voluntarily submitted the issue of
Ambrosio's heirship with Marcelino [49] before the trial court and presented their respective evidence thereon. Thus, the case falls under South Juan Paller Rafaella Paller
the exception, and there is no need to institute a separate special proceeding for the declaration of Ambrosio's heirship.
West Ambrosio Paller Quirina Paller
II. Ambrosio's baptismal certificate cannot be considered as competent proof of the claimed filiation with Marcelino.
and that the said TDs underwent several revisions as follows:
In the absence of the record of birth and admission of legitimate filiation, Article 172 [50] of the Family Code (Code) provides that filiation
shall be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. Such other proof of one's filiation may be a
TD No. 2191 Description TD No. 2192 Description
baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his
pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
(Rules).[51] Article 175[52] of the same Code also allows illegitimate children to establish their filiation in the same way and on the same TD No. 4139[73] Same area/ boundaries TD No. 6618[74] Same area/boundaries
evidence as that of legitimate children.

8
TD No. 8220[75] -do- TD No. 373[76] 31,000 sq. m./same boundaries containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance was recovered from him. When Paming was searched after his arrest, the police
officers were able to seize a matchbox holding twenty-eight (28) more heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a combined
weight of 0.85 gram of white crystalline substance from his possession. The police officers then took Paming to a nearby billiard hall for
TD No. 08008-00140[77] -do- TD No. 16361[78] area was reduced to 27,125 [79] sq. m. with the sale marking of the confiscated drugs, but due to the increasing number of people, they transferred to the police station to continue the
of 3,875 sq. m. to Federico Abayan/ same marking. At the police station, the seized items were turned over to the Desk Officer and the Investigator, who instructed the poseur-
boundaries buyer to put markings on the items. Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory where, after examination, the
TD No. 00281[80] -do- contents thereof yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[6]

In defense, Paming denied the charges against him, claiming instead, that he was having a drinking spree with friends when he was
The Municipal Assessor further stated that as of the time that he testified on July 26, 2010, TD No. 00281 has not been revised and was approached by one Gil alias "Tatong" who told him that he wanted to "score." When he replied that he did not know what that meant,
the latest tax declaration on file with their office.[81] five men suddenly ganged up on him and dragged him to a nearby billiard hall where they took from his possession P5,000.00, one-half
(1/2) bahay of gold and two (2) P20.00 bills. Tatong then shouted:  "Sir, nandito po sa posporo,"  and handed a matchbox to Police
Secondly, other than respondents' self-serving claim,[82] no competent proof, testimonial or documentary, was presented by them to Officer 2 Jason R. Poot (PO2 Poot), who pocketed it. Paming was then brought to the police station where he was detained for two
establish that Ambrosio and "Marcos" are one and the same person, nor was there any proof showing that "Marcos" was assumed as a days, and was later made to sign a piece of paper purportedly containing an inventory of the seized items. [7]
pseudonym for literary purposes [83] or had been authorized by a competent court. [84] Even assuming that Ambrosio and "Marcos" are one
and the same person, the boundaries identified by Demetria [85] do not coincide with the boundaries in TD No. 6618 and its subsequent In a Joint Decision[8] dated August 26, 2014, the RTC found Paming guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and
revisions. accordingly, sentenced him as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 14502, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day, and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 14503, to suffer the penalty of life
Thirdly, the receipts of the realty tax payments adduced were of relatively recent vintage [86] and were not shown to correspond to the imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. [9] The RTC found that the prosecution, through the testimonial and
subject land. Considering the admitted [87] fact that the subject land is covered by TD No. 6618, it devolved upon respondents (as documentary evidence it presented, had established beyond reasonable doubt that Paming indeed sold one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plaintiffs a quo)  to prove that the tax receipts they submitted correspond to the aforementioned TDs emanating from TD No. 2192, which plastic sachet containing dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer, resulting in his arrest, and that during the search incidental thereto, he
was cancelled by TD No. 6618, and its succeeding revisions. However, a perusal of the said tax receipts [88] reveals that none of them was discovered to be in possession of a matchbox holding twenty-eight (28) more heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of dangerous
correspond to the said TDs, whether emanating from TD No. 2192 or TD No. 2191. Moreover, despite the opportunity given to them to drugs. It likewise held that, notwithstanding the procedural lapses of the buy-bust team in complying with Section 21, Article II of RA
present rebuttal evidence,[89] they opted to forego such presentation, and instead, submitted the case for decision.[90] 9165, the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs were duly preserved under the chain of custody rule. On the other hand, the
RTC found untenable Paming's defense of a self-serving unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up due to his failure to allege, much
By virtue of the evidence presented by respondents, the lower courts could not have justly concluded that the two (2)-hectare parcel of less prove, any ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team.[10] Aggrieved, Paming appealed[11] to the CA.
land subject of the unnotarized deed of sale is indeed a portion of the subject land. Accordingly, the Court finds that a reversal of the
assailed Decision is warranted. In a Decision[12] dated January 16, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. [13] It held that the prosecution had established beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged against Paming, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 31, 2016 and the Resolution dated March 10, 2017 of the Court of have been preserved due to the arresting officers' substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. [14]
Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-S.P. No. 08293 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is
entered DISMISSING the Amended Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession, and Damages filed by respondents Miguel M.
Paller, Florentina P. Abayan, and Demetria P. Sagales before the 9 thMunicipal Circuit Trial Court of Giporlos-Quinapondan, Eastern Hence, this appeal seeking that Paming's conviction be overturned.
Samar, docketed as Civil Case No. 273.
The Court's Ruling
SO ORDERED.
The appeal is meritorious.

7. G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019


In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [15] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LITO PAMING Y JAVIER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti of the
crime.[16] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
DECISION beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. [17]
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal [1] is the Decision[2] dated January 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07676, To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of
which affirmed the Joint Decision[3] dated August 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte, Branch 39 (RTC) in custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [18] As part of the chain of
Criminal Case Nos. 14502 and 14503 finding accused-appellant Lito Paming y Javier (Paming) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted
violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, [4] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation
2002." contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [19] Hence, the failure to immediately mark
the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs,
The Facts as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain
of custody.[20]
This case stemmed from two (2) Informations [5] filed before the RTC accusing Paming of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II ofRA 9165. The prosecution The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
alleged that at around 12:30 in the morning ofSeptember 14, 2010, members of the Paracale Municipal Police Station, with a civilian items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: ( a) if prior to the amendment of RA
informant, successfully implemented a buy-bust operation against Paming, during which one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet 9165 by RA 10640,[21] a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; [22] or (b)
9
if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Q: Were you present when the inventory was made, Mr. Witness?
Service OR the media.[23] The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of A: Yes, sir.
custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence."[24] Q: Where was the accused when the inventory was made?
A: In the investigation room, sir.
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a Q: And where was the exact place when the inventory was made?
procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [25] This is because "[t]he law has been 'crafted by Congress as safety A: At the Police Station because during that time the place of operation was dark. So we brought it to the Police Station.
precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment."' [26] x x x x 
Q: You said there was an inventory report made?
A: Yes, sir.
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may Q: Who signed the inventory report?
not always be possible.[27] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the A: The Investigation, sir.
seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable Q: Are you referring to the Investigator?
ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [28] The foregoing is A: Yes, sir.
based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [29] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) ofRA 9165, which was Q: He was the only person who signed that inventory report?
later adopted into the text ofRA 10640. [30] It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must A: Yes, sir.
duly explain the reasons behind the procedurallapses, [31] and that the justifiable ground for non compliance must be proven as a fact, Q: Where were you when the inventory was conducted by the Investigator?
because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[32] A: I was inside the Police Station, sir.
Q: You were not at the investigation room, Witness?
Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted A: Yes, sir.[38]
genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that there was an actual inventory and photography done, and that it was
these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to conducted in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. While PO2 Poot claimed that there was a purported inventory
comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [33] Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to report, none was offered in evidence. This raises serious doubts as to its existence. Even assuming that there was such a report, PO2
contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [34] These considerations arise from the fact Poot likewise confirmed that only the Investigator signed the same. In fact, the accused was in the investigation room while the alleged
that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time- beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities inventory was conducted. Furthermore, none of the required witnesses were present, and no justifiable reason was offered nor was
of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements there a showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their presence. In view of these
beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [35] unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the items purportedly seized from Paming were compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.
Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda, [36] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
"[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07676
chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Lito Paming y Javier is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The
proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other
and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further reason.
review."[37]
SO ORDERED.
In this case, there appears to be an absence of the required inventory taking in the presence of the accused, or his representative, and
8. A.C. No. 9917, January 14, 2019
the required witnesses, i.e., the elected public official and representatives from the media and the DOJ. A thorough examination of the
records of this case reveals that no physical inventory report was submitted as evidence before the lower court. Although photographs NORBERTO S. COLLANTES, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ANSELMO B. MABUTI, RESPONDENT.
were offered, there was no proof that these were done in the presence of the accused, or the required witnesses. This was also
confirmed by the testimony of the arresting officer, PO2 Poot on cross examination, to wit: RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Cross-Examination This administrative case stemmed from a complaint affidavit, [1] executed on May 10, 2013, filed by complainant Norberto S. Collantes
[Atty. Fernando F. Dialogo]: And when you arrived at the Police Station, what happened to the shabu? (complainant) before the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, against respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti (respondent) for
[PO2 Poot]: It was marked in the investigation room, sir. violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules) [2] and of his duties as a lawyer.[3]

xxxx The Facts

Q: When the markings were made, was there any local officials at your station during that time? Complainant alleged that on October 10, 2009, respondent notarized a document entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" [4] in the City of
A: None, sir. Manila. Upon verification, however, he discovered that respondent was not commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila for the
Q: How about any representative from the media, Mr. Witness? years 2008- 2009. In support thereof, complainant attached a Certification [5] dated February 27, 2012 issued by the Notarial Section of
A: None, sir. the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila attesting to the same.
Q: How about the PDEA representative, Mr. Witness In his Comment[6] dated January 15, 2014, respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the signature in the "Memorandum of
A: None, sir. Agreement" is not his. Respondent questioned complainant's motives for filing the present case against him, claiming that the latter has
xxxx pending cases for Estafa filed against him.[7] Finally, he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of double jeopardy. [8] In
Q: Mr. Witness, was there an inventory made on this item that was allegedly recovered from the accused? this regard, he pointed out that the present case is based on the same cause of action subject of an earlier complaint, filed by a certain
A: Yes, sir. Mina S. Bertillo before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 11-3036, for which he was disqualified
10
from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. [9] In support thereof, he attached a copy of the Commissioner's the lawyer's oath forbids. This violation falls squarely under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon
Report[10] dated August 3, 2012 and the IBP Board of Governor's Resolution[11] dated March 21,2013 in CBD Case No. 11-3036. 7 as well,"[28] to wit:

The complaint was thereafter referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. [12] CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

The IBP's Report and Recommendation


Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In a Report and Recommendation[13] dated December 7, 2016, the IBP Investigating Commissioner (IBP-IC) found respondent
administratively liable for failure to comply with the Notarial Rules, and accordingly, recommended that he be suspended from the CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated
practice of law for a period of two (2) years. bar.

The IBP-IC found the evidence convincing that respondent was indeed not commissioned as a notary public at the time the subject
"Memorandum of Agreement" was notarized. [14] Corollary thereto, the IBP-IC brushed aside respondent's claim of double jeopardy, Notably, while the Court agrees with the IBP's findings as regards respondent's administrative liability, the Court, however, cannot adopt
pointing out that the present administrative action concerns an act that is entirely different from the act for which he was found guilty of the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to increase the penalty against respondent to "[ p]erpetual  [d]isqualification from
violation of the Notarial Rules in CBD Case No. 11-3036, i.e., for notarizing a letter dated December 28, 2010 when he was likewise not being commissioned as [a] [n]otary [p]ublic"[29] in view of an alleged earlier infraction for which he was found guilty of violating the
commissioned as a notary public. Notarial Rules by the IBP in CBD Case No. 11-3036. After an examination of respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar, it
has been ascertained that the resolution of the IBP in the said case has yet to be forwarded to the Court for its approval. As case law
In a Resolution[15] dated August 31, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the above findings and recommendation with explains, the "[f]actual findings and recommendations of the [IBP] Commission on Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors x x x are
modification, increasing the recommended penalty to: ( a) perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a Notary Public since recommendatory, subject to review by the Court."[30] In Torres v. Dalangin:[31]
this is respondent's second offense; (b) revocation of his notarial commission, if subsisting; and (c) suspension for two (2) years from the
practice of law. It is the Supreme Court, not the IBP, which has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers. The factual findings of the IBP
can only be recommendatory. Its recommended penalties are also, by their nature, recommendatory. [32]
The Issue Before the Court
Thus, pending approval by the Court, the findings and resolution in CBD Case No. 11-3036 are only recommendatory, and hence (1) fail
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules. to establish the fact that respondent has already been held liable for a prior offense, and (2) cannot consequently serve to aggravate the
penalty in this case.

The Court's Ruling In fine, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, [33] respondent is meted with the following: (a) suspension from the practice of law for one
(1) year; (b) immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if any; and (c) disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public
The Court affirms the findings and adopts with modification the recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors. for a period of one (1) year only.

The Court has emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Notarization by a notary public WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti (respondent) GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on
converts a private document into a public document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. [16] A notarial Notarial Practice and of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, effective immediately,
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit, [17] and as such, notaries public are obligated to observe with utmost care the basic the Court: SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKEShis incumbent commission as a notary public, if any;
requirements in the performance of their duties.[18] and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense
or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
For these reasons, notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act
as notaries public.[19] As a corollary to the protection of that interest, those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from The suspension in the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary
imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. [20] The requirements for the issuance of a commission as public shall take effect immediately upon receipt of this Resolution by respondent. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation
a notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. [21] Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the to the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasijudicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as
Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, an act which the Court has characterized as counsel.
reprehensible, constituting as it does, not only malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of public documents, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action. [22] Jurisprudence provides that without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as an
notarial acts.[23] A lawyer who performs a notarial act without such commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to
specifically, the Notarial Rules.[24] all courts in the country.

In this case, the IBP found that respondent notarized the subject document, "Memorandum of Agreement," without being commissioned SO ORDERED.
as a notary public at the time of notarization. This fact has been duly certified to by none other than the Notarial Section of the Office of
the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. [25] Thus, by knowingly performing notarial acts at the time
when he was not authorized to do so, respondent clearly violated the Notarial Rules and in consequence, should be held
administratively liable.
9. G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019
It should be emphasized that respondent's transgressions of the Notarial Rules also have a bearing on his standing as a lawyer. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. DON EMILIO CARIÑO YAGUSTIN A.K.A. "DON EMILIO CARIÑO
[26]
 In Virtusio v. Virtusio,[27] the Court observed that "[a] lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper commission violates his AGUSTIN,"[*] ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
lawyer's oath to obey the law. He makes it appear that he is commissioned when he is not. He thus indulges in deliberate falsehood that

11
the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs,
DECISION as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: of custody.[25]
Assailed in this ordinary appeal [1] is the Decision[2] dated March 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01818
which affirmed the Decision[3] dated February 25, 2014 and Order[4] dated March 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
Branch 36 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 21107 and 21108, finding accused-appellant Don Emilio Cariño y Agustin a.k.a. "Don Emilio items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: ( a) if prior to the amendment of RA
Cariño Agustin" (Cariño) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 9165 by RA 10640, "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; [26] or (b) if
[5]
 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media."[27] The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody
The Facts and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [28]

This case stemmed from two (2) Informations [6] filed before the RTC accusing Cariño of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a
of Dangerous Drugs. The prosecution alleged that on April 24, 2012, policemen of the Special Operations Group of the Negros Oriental procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [29] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety
Police Provincial Office successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against a certain "Dondon," later identified as Cariño, during which precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [30]
one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered from him. When Cariño was searched incidental to his
arrest, the policemen recovered another plastic sachet containing the same aforesaid substance from him. While waiting for the arrival Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may
of the witnesses – namely, Barangay Kagawad Chona Merced (Kagawad Merced), Department of Justice (DOJ) Representative not always be possible.[31] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the
Ramonito Astillero (DOJ Representative Astillero and Media Representative Juancho Gallarde (Media Representative Gallarde) seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: ( a) there is a justifiable
policemen then conducted the marking and inventory at the place of arrest in Cariño's presence. [7] Upon the witnesses' arrival thereat, ground for non-compliance; and ( b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [32] The foregoing is
the policemen presented the Inventory/Receipt of Property Seized [8] to them and they signed the same. Thereafter, Cariño and the based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [33] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was
seized items were taken to the police headquarters where the necessary paperworks for examination were prepared. The seized items later adopted into the text of RA 10640. [34] It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
were then brought to the crime laboratory where, after examination, [9] the contents thereof yielded positive for 0.09 and 0.04 gram, duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, [35] and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact,
respectively, of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[10] because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[36]

In defense, Cariño denied the charges against him, claiming instead, that he was a former asset of the policemen who arrested him, and Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted
that they framed him up after he begged to be excused from a surveillance task assigned to him.[11] genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of
these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to
In a Decision[12] dated February 25, 2014, the RTC found Cariño guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and accordingly, comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [37] Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to
sentenced him as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 21107, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [38] These considerations arise from the fact
in the amount of P500,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 21108, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about the
indeterminate period of twelve (12) years, and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, ten (10) months, and one (1) day, as activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary
maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [13] The RTC found that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [39]
doubt that Cariño was arrested after he was caught  in flagrante delicto to be selling shabu, and that after his arrest, another sachet
containing shabu was recovered from him.[14] Cariño moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in an Order [15] dated March 20, Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,[40] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
2014. Aggrieved, he appealed[16] to the CA. "[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the
chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the
In a Decision[17] dated March 17, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity
doubt all the elements of the crimes charged against Cariño, and that the conduct of inventory prior to the arrival of the witnesses, and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further
among others, did not tarnish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[18] review."[41]

Hence, this appeal seeking that Cariño's conviction be overturned. In this case, it would initially appear that the apprehending policemen complied with the witness requirement, considering that the
Inventory/Receipt of Property Seized[42] contains the signatures of the required witnesses, i.e., Kagawad Merced, DOJ Representative
Astillero, and Media Representative Gallarde. However, a more circumspect examination of the records would show that these
The Court's Ruling witnesses arrived after the apprehending policemen had already completed the inventory, and that they were merely asked to sign the
aforesaid inventory form. The respective testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are revelatory, to wit:
The appeal is meritorious.

In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [19] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous
drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti  of the Testimony of Kagawad Merced
crime.[20] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused [Pros. Zerna]: And when you arrived at that place where the arrest was made, what was it that you were able to observe? 
beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. [21] [Kagawad Merced]: When I arrived there, the suspected items were already there.
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of Q: Where did you particularly see these items that you said were suspected to have been confiscated? 
custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [22] As part of the chain of A: When I arrived there, it was already placed on the table[.]
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted Q: And what did you do when you arrive (sic) there?
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. [23] In this regard, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation A: Somebody told me that these are the items that were recovered and I inspected the items and compared it with what was listed and I
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [24] Hence, the failure to immediately mark signed it.[43]
12
Testimony of DOJ Representative Astillero This case stemmed from two (2) Informations [5] filed before the RTC charging Arciaga with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal
[Atty. Cariño]: You mean to say that when you arrived at that time the inventory sheet was already prepared?  Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution
[DOJ representative Astillero]: Yes, sir. alleged that at around four (4) o'clock in the afternoon of June 26, 2012, a team of officers from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
Q: Was it already signed by somebody else? Regional Office 7 (PDEA-RO 7) conducted a buy-bust operation against Arciaga at his house, during which one (1) heat-sealed plastic
A: When I signed it there were other signatures. sachet containing suspected shabu weighing 0.03 gram was recovered from him. Consequently, a search incidental to his arrest yielded
xxxx three (3) more heat-sealed plastic sachets containing suspected shabu weighing 0.04 gram each. As the team noticed that a crowd was
already forming outside Arciaga's house, they, together with Arciaga, proceeded to the PDEA-RO 7 Office where the seized items were
marked, photographed, and inventoried [6] in the presence of Barangay Captain Jerome B. Lim and media personnel Virgilio T. Salde, Jr.
Q: You already testified that you have not witnessed the time on the fact of the confiscation of these items?  of DYMF Bombo Radyo. Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory for examination and tested positive [7] for
A: No more, when I arrived there, there was already an inventory on the confiscated items.[44] Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[8]
Testimony of Media Representative Gallarde For his part, Arciaga denied the charges against him and claimed that on the said date, he was taking a nap at the second floor of his
[Atty. Cariño]: How would you considered (sic) then that there was indeed or it was true the (sic) conduct of an inventory?  house when suddenly, several armed men barged inside. Upon seeing him, the armed men ordered him to lie face down on the floor,
[Media Representative Gallarde]: My purpose is to observe and witness the inventory I don't have personal knowledge how ( sic) the handcuffed him, and searched his body, as well as his house. When the armed men did not find anything, he was then taken to the
alleged buy bust and alleged confiscation of the items. PDEA-RO 7 Office.[9]
Q: And you also do not have any personal knowledge of the conduct of the inventory? 
A: Yes, sir. In an Omnibus Decision[10] dated August 10, 2015, the RTC found Arciaga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and
Q: You only have actual knowledge as to the fact that when you arrived at the place [of the arrest] you signed the inventory sheet?  accordingly, sentenced him as follows: (a) In Criminal Case No. CBU- 96423, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
A: Yes, sir. of P500,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. CBU-96424, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve
Q: And when you arrived you also noticed that the inventory sheet was already signed by the two (2) Kagawads which you already (12) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and one (1) month, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. [11] The RTC found that the
mentioned[?] prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the aforesaid crimes as it was able to prove that: ( a) Arciaga indeed sold a plastic
A: Yes, sir. sachet containing shabu to the poseur-buyer during a legitimate buy-bust operation; and ( b) subsequent to his arrest, more plastic
Q: And it was already signed by a certain Astillero?  sachets containing shabu were recovered from him. The RTC further observed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
A: Yes, sir.[45] items had been preserved, considering that the buy-bust team sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule.[12]
As may be gleaned from the testimonies of the required witnesses themselves, the inventory was not conducted in their presence as the In a Decision[13] dated January 29, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, holding that all the elements of the crimes of Illegal Sale and
apprehending policemen already prepared the Inventory/Receipt of Property Seized when they arrived at the scene of arrest and only Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug were present and that the chain of custody rule was duly complied with. [14]
made them sign the same. As discussed, the witness requirement mandates the presence of the witnesses  during the conduct of the Hence, this appeal seeking that Arciaga's conviction be overturned.
inventory, so as to ensure that the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence will be adequately prevented. Hence, non-
compliance therewith puts the onus on the prosecution to provide a justifiable reason therefor, especially considering that the rule exists
to ensure that protection is given to those whose life and liberty are put at risk. [46] Unfortunately, no such explanation was proferred by The Court's Ruling
the prosecution to justify this glaring procedural lapse. In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court is
therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Cariño were The appeal is meritorious.
compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01818 is In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [15] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Don Emilio Cariño yAgustin a.k.a. "Don Emilio Cariño Agustin" be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti of the crime.
is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is
[16]
 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.[17]

SO ORDERED. To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of
custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [18] As part of the chain of
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted
10. G.R. No. 239471, January 14, 2019 immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. It is well to clarify, however, that under Section 21 (a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640, [19] the foregoing procedures
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JOSEPH CINCO ARCIAGA A.K.A. "JOSEPHUS CINCO ARCIAGA," may instead be conducted at the place where the arrest or seizure occurred, at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in instances of warrantless seizures – such as in buy-bust operations. In fact, case
law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: apprehending team."[20] Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them
This is an ordinary appeal[1] from the Decision[2] dated January 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02215, inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of
which affirmed the Omnibus Decision[3] dated August 10, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 57 (RTC) in Criminal the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. [21]
Case Nos. CBU- 96423 and CBU-96424, finding accused-appellant Joseph Cinco Arciaga a.k.a. "Josephus Cinco Arciaga" (Arciaga)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, [4] otherwise known as the The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: ( a) if prior to the amendment of RA
9165 by RA 10640,[22] "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; [23] or (b)
The Facts if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service
13
(NPS) OR the media."[24]The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is
and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [25] being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a
procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [26] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety 11. G.R. No. 237809, January 14, 2019
precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [27]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ROSALINA AURE Y ALMAZAN AND GINA MARAVILLA Y AGNES,
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may
[*]
 ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
not always be possible.[28] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the
seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: ( a) there is a justifiable DECISION
ground for non-compliance; and ( b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [29] The foregoing is PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [30] Article II of the IRR of RA 9165, which was adopted into the text of RA 10640. [31] It Assailed in this ordinary appeal [1] is the Decision[2] dated August 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08065,
should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the which affirmed the Judgment[3] dated November 16, 2015 and the Order[4] dated January 5, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
procedural lapses,[32] and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume City, Branch 79 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. Q-14-00697, finding accused-appellants Rosalina Aure y Almazan (Rosalina) and Gina
what these grounds are or that they even exist.[33] Maravilla y Agnes (Gina; collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined
and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, [5] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Anent the required witnesses rule, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted Act of 2002."
genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of
these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to The Facts
comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [34] Thus, mee statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to
contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [35] These considerations arise from the fact This case stemmed from an Information [6] filed before the RTC charging accused-appellants of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about the The prosecution alleged that at around one (1) o'clock in the afternoon of January 15, 2014, a team composed of members from the
activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary District Anti-Illegal Drugs – Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of the Quezon City Police District conducted a buy-bust
arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [36] operation against accused-appellants during which one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered from
them. After marking the plastic sachet at the place of arrest, the apprehending officers, together with accused-appellants, then
Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,[37] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that proceeded to the DAID-SOTG headquarters in Camp Karingal, Quezon City, where the seized item was inventoried and photographed
"[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the in the presence of a media representative. Thereafter, the seized item was brought to the crime laboratory where, upon examination,
chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the
[7]
 the contents thereof yielded positive for 4.75 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[8]
proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity
and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further In defense, accused-appellants denied the charges against them, claiming instead, that they were just going about their personal
review."[38] matters when two (2) men suddenly grabbed them, and thereafter, dragged them to their vehicle and took them to Camp Karingal.
Thereat, the men demanded P150,000.00 for their release, but since they could not produce the said amount, the instant criminal
In this case, while the Court agrees with the courts a quo that the buy-bust team was justified in conducting the marking, inventory, and charge was filed against them. Notably, accused-appellants maintained that they only saw each other for the first time in Camp Karingal
photography at the PDEA-RO 7 Office due to security reasons,  i.e., a crowd was already forming at the place of Arciaga's arrest, it is and that it was only during trial when they first laid their eyes on the plastic sachet purportedly seized from them. [9]
nevertheless apparent that, as seen in the Certificate of Inventory [39]dated June 26, 2012, the inventory of the seized' items
was not conducted in the presence of a DOJ representative, contrary to the afore-described procedure. [40] This was confirmed by no less In a Judgment[10] dated November 16, 2015, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged,
than the poseur-buyer, Intelligence Officer I Edd Ryan Dayuha (IO1 Dayuha), in his testimony during cross-examination, to wit: and accordingly, sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. [11] The RTC
[Atty. Ungab]: Who were the witnesses when you conducted the inventory and the markings, Mr. Witness? found that the prosecution, through the testimony of the back-up arresting officer, Police Officer 3 Fernando Salonga (PO3 Salonga),
had established the fact that accused-appellants indeed sold shabu to the poseur-buyer, Police Officer 3 Miguel Cordero (PO3 Cordero).
In this regard, the RTC opined that the failure to present the testimony of PO3 Cordero is not indispensable to accused-appellants'
[IO1 Dayuha]: There was one from the media DYMF Bombo Radyo Virgilio Salde. The barangay captain was there also but I forgot his conviction as PO3 Salonga attested to his knowledge of the afore-described transaction. [12] Aggrieved, accused-appellants separately
name sir.[41] moved for reconsideration,[13] which were, however, denied in an Order[14] dated January 5, 2016, thus, they appealed[15] to the CA.

In a Decision[16] dated August 24, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that despite the absence of the testimony of PO3
Neither do the records reflect that such witness was present during the photography of the seized items, which process is usually
Cordero, the prosecution was nevertheless able to prove accused-appellants' commission of the crime charged through the testimony of
conducted contemporaneously with the inventory thereof. As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for the
another member of the buy-bust team, PO3 Salonga, who was inside a car just 10-15 meters away from where the sale transaction
absence of any of the required witnesses by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and
occurred. Further, the CA ruled that the police officers substantially complied with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 even though PO3
sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their presence. While IO1 Dayuha implicitly acknowledged the
Cordero was not able to testify as to the links of the chain of custody of the confiscated drug and in spite of the absence of the
absence of a DOJ representative during the conduct of inventory and photography, records are bereft of any reason and/or justification
Department of Justice (DOJ) representative and the elected public official during the inventory. [17]
therefor. Thus, in view of these unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, the Court is constrained to conclude that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Arciaga had been compromised, which consequently warrants his
Hence, this appeal seeking that the conviction of accused-appellants be overturned.
acquittal.

The Court's Ruling


WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02215 is
The appeal is meritorious.
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Joseph Cinco Arciaga a.k.a. "Josephus Cinco Arciaga"

14
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [18] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous A: That is the signature of Rey Argana from Police Files Tonite, sir.
drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti of the xxxx
crime.[19] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.[20]
Q: It appears, Mr. Witness, that there is no signature from the representative of the Department of Justice and elected barangay official
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of where the accused was arrested, why?
custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [21] As part of the chain of A: Our team leader tried to get a representative from the barangay official and other representative, but according to our team leader,
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted they failed to appear in our invitation to be our witness.
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same.[22] The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in x x x x[41] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain
required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, [23] "a representative from the media and the As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; [24] or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "an elected therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their
public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media."[25] The law requires the presence of these presence. Here, PO3 Salonga tried to justify their deviation from procedure by offering the perfunctory excuse that their team leader
witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or tried to invite the required witnesses but to no avail, without really expounding on the same. Neither did the prosecution press on PO3
contamination of evidence."[26] Salonga to determine how such earnest efforts were exerted, or even attempt to call the buy-bust team leader to the witness stand to
determine whether or not earnest efforts were really done in order to ensure the required witnesses' presence during the inventory.
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a
procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [27] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety Moreover, the Court notes that PO3 Cordero was not presented as a witness during trial. In People v. Bartolini[42](Bartolini), the Court
precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [28] explained that while the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is, per se, not necessarily fatal to the cause of the prosecution, there must
be at least someone else who is competent to testify as to the fact that the sale transaction indeed occurred between the poseur-buyer
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may and the accused. Otherwise, the testimonies of the other witnesses regarding the matter become hearsay, and thus, inadmissible in
not always be possible.[29] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the evidence, to wit:
seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: ( a) there is a justifiable
ground for non-compliance; and ( b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [30] The foregoing is Aside from the points raised by Bartolini on the chain of custody and corpus delicti, we find that the first element of the crime involving
based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [31] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was the sale of illegal drugs – that the transaction or sale took place – was also not sufficiently proven by the prosecution. The non-
later adopted into the text of RA 10640. [32] It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must presentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution as nobody could competently testify on the fact of sale between Bartolini
duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, [33] and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, and the poseur-buyer. In this case, SPO4 Larot admitted that he did not hear the conversation between the poseur-buyer and Bartolini,
because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[34] and that he only saw the pre-arranged signal before apprehending Bartolini:

Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted xxxx
genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of
these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to
comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [35] Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to As SPO4 Larot could not hear the conversation between Bartolini and the poseur-buyer, his testimony was mere hearsay and thus the
contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [36] These considerations arise from the fact prosecution failed to prove the fact of the transaction. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution x x x xxxx
that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about the
activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary
While there have been instances where the Court affirmed the conviction of an accused notwithstanding the non-presentation of the
arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [37]
poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, this is only when the testimony of such poseur-buyer is merely corroborative, and another
eyewitness can competently testify on the sale of the illegal drug. In this case however, the lone witness for the prosecution was not
Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,[38] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
competent to testify on the sale of the illegal drug as he merely relied on the pre-arranged signal to apprehend Bartolini. [43] (Emphasis
"[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the
and underscoring supplied)
chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the
proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity
In this case, the sole witness for the prosecution, PO3 Salonga, was a back-up arresting officer positioned inside a car 10-15 meters
and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further
away from where the supposed sale transaction between PO3 Cordero and accused-appellants took place. [44] Clearly, similar to the lone
review."[39]
witness in Bartolini, PO3 Salonga could not competently testify on the fact of the sale as he was in no position to overhear the
conversation between the transacting parties and only relied on PO3 Cordero's pre-arranged signal to effect the arrest of accused-
In this case, a perusal of the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property [40] dated January 15, 2014 readily reveals that while the
appellants.
inventory of the plastic sachet purportedly seized from accused-appellants was conducted in the presence of a media representative, it
was nevertheless done without the presence of any elected public official and DOJ representative, contrary to the afore-described
In view of the following circumstances, namely: ( a) the unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule which compromised the
procedure. When asked about this deviation from procedure, PO3 Salonga offered the following justification:
integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from accused-appellants; and ( b) the prosecution's failure to prove an
essential element of the crime charged, i.e., that a sale transaction involving drugs indeed occurred between PO3 Cordero and accused-
[Public Prosecutor Alexis G. Bartolome]: Mr. Witness, there are signatures appearing in this inventory receipt, there is a signature above
appellants, the acquittal of accused-appellants is warranted.
the name PO3 Cordero, whose signature is this?
[PO3 Salonga]: That is the signature of PO3 Miguel Cordero, sir.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08065 is
Q: How did you know that this is the signature of PO3 Cordero? 
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Rosalina Aure yAlmazan and Gina Maravilla y Agnes
A: Because I was present when he signed it, sir.
Q: There is also a signature of Rey Argana of Police Files Tonite, whose signature is this?
15
are ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause their immediate release, unless In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [18] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous
they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti  of the
crime.[19] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti  renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
SO ORDERED. beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, warrants an acquittal. [20]

12. G.R. No. 232940, January 14, 2019 To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of
custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [21] As part of the chain of
DENNIS LOAYON Y LUIS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia,  that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. [22] In this regard, case law recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate
confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [23] Hence, the failure to
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated March 6, 2017 and the Resolution [3] dated July 13, 2017 of the the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37683, which affirmed the Decision [4] dated June 16, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of the rules on chain of custody.[24]
Quezon City, Branch 227 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. Q-10-163024, finding petitioner Dennis Loayon  y Luis (Loayon) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, [5] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
Drugs Act of 2002." items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a)  if prior to the amendment of RA
9165 by RA 10640, "a representative from the media and  the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official";
The Facts [25]
 or (b)  if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or  the media."[26] The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of
This case stemmed from an Information [6] filed before the RTC accusing Loayon of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [27]
The prosecution alleged that at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon of February 24, 2010, a buy-bust team composed of police officers
from the Quezon City Police District Station 9 (QCPD Station 9) went to Barangay Pansol to conduct a buy-bust operation against a As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a
certain "Awang." However, before the sale transaction between Awang and the poseur-buyer took place, Awang's companion, later procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [28] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety
identified as Loayon, shouted "Pulis yan!"  after recognizing the poseur-buyer as a policeman, which prompted Awang and Loayon to run precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [29]
away in different directions. While Awang was able to elude the buy-bust team, one of the policemen, Police Officer 2 Raymund De Vera
(PO2 De Vera), was able to corner Loayon, resulting in the latter's arrest. He likewise recovered the plastic sachet containing white Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may
crystalline substance thrown away by Loayon during the chase. Thereafter, the buy-bust team, together with Loayon, went to QCPD not always be possible.[30] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto  render the
Station 9 where, inter alia,  the seized item was marked, photographed, and inventoried in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Rommel seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a)  there is a justifiable
Asuncion (Brgy. Kagawad Asuncion). The seized plastic sachet was then brought to the crime laboratory where, after examination, [7] the ground for non-compliance; and (b)  the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [31] The foregoing is
contents thereof yielded positive for 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu,  a dangerous drug.[8] based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [32] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was
later adopted into the text of RA 10640. [33] It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
In defense, Loayon denied the charges against him, claiming instead, that he just got out of his house to look for his wife when he saw duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, [34] and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact,
policemen chasing some people. Suddenly, one of the policemen apprehended him and remarked, "Pong ka na, Awang!"  He was then because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[35]
taken to QCPD Station 9, where he was detained until the instant criminal charge was filed against him.[9
Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted
In a Decision[10] dated June 16, 2015, the RTC found Loayon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to
fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [11] The RTC found that the prosecution had comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [36] Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to
established all the elements of the crime charged, noting that the policemen had no ill motive to inculpate Loayon and build a trumped- contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [37] These considerations arise from the fact
up charge against him. It also found that the policemen substantially complied with the chain of custody rule, thereby preserving the that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about the
integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized from Loayon. [12] Aggrieved, Loayon appealed to the CA. activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary
arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [38]
In a Decision[13] dated March 6, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that the policemen's positive identification of Loayon as the
possessor of the seized plastic sachet, which he threw away while he was being chased, shall prevail over the latter's bare denials, Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,[39] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
which was uncorroborated by other evidence. Moreover, it observed that the prosecution was able to prove the crucial links in the chain "[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the
of custody of the seized item.[14] chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the
proceedings a quo;  otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity
Undaunted, Loayon moved for reconsideration, [15] but the same was denied in a Resolution[16] dated July 13, 2017; hence, this petition. [17] and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further
review.[40]
The Court's Ruling
In this case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct of inventory and photography was not witnessed by
The petition is meritorious. representatives from the DOJ and the media. This may be easily gleaned from the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items [41] dated
February 24, 2010, which only confirms the presence of an elected public official, i.e.,  Brgy. Kagawad Asuncion. Such finding is
confirmed by the testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO2 De Vera on direct and cross-examination, to wit:
16
Direct Examination A: There was no available media at that time.
Q: Even if it was 5:00 o'clock as you claimed? 
A: None, sir.[43]
[Fiscal Bacolor]: In connection with this case, [M]r. [Wjitness, did you conduct [a] Physical Inventory of that item recovered from the
accused? As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason
therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their
[PO2 De Vera]: Yes, sir. presence. Here, while PO2 De Vera acknowledged the absence of representatives from the DOJ and the media during the conduct of
inventory and photography, he merely offered the perfunctory explanation that "no one was available" without showing whether the buy-
bust team exerted earnest efforts to secure their attendance therein. In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule,
Q: Who personally conducted] the inventory? the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from Loayon was
compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.
A: Our [i]nvestigator, Barangay Kagawad, and in my presence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 6, 2017 and the Resolution dated July 13, 2017 of the Court of
Q: Who prepared the Inventory Receipt? Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37683 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Dennis Loayon y  Luis
is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is
being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
A: PO3 Crisologo Laggui.
SO ORDERED.
Q: You said you were present during the conduct and the preparation of the [i]nventory, I'm showing to you a document entitled
Inventory of Seized Property marked as Exhibit "F", will you please examine that document, and tell us if the same has any relation with
that [i]nventory prepared by PO3 Crisologo Laggui?
13. G.R. No. 241017, January 07, 2019
A: Yes sir, this is the same inventory.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BRENDA CAMIÑAS Y AMING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Q: You said Brgy. Kagawad was present during the inventory?
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal [1] is the Decision[2] dated January 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09056,
A: Yes, sir. which affirmed the Judgment [3] dated February 20, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79 (RTC) in Criminal Case
No. R-QZN-14-11237- CR finding accused-appellant Brenda Camiñas y Aming (Camiñas) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Q: Do you have proof? Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,[4]otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

A: Yes, sir. The Facts

Q: Where is that? This case stemmed from an Information [5] filed before the RTC charging Camiñas with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs,
defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution alleged that on the evening of November 4, 2014,
operatives of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group of the Quezon City Police District (DAID-SOTG), in
A: He signed the inventory, sir.
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, conducted a buy-bust operation against Camiñas, during which ten (10)
plastic sachets containing a total of 43.34 grams [6] of white crystalline substance were recovered from her. Afterwards, they immediately
Q: Will you please examine again the [i]nventory, and point to us the said witness, Brgy. Kagawad[?] marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized items at the place of arrest in the presence of Camiñas, Barangay Kagawad Dennis
Chico (Kagawad Chico), and Media Representative Alfred Oresto (Oresto). The seized items were then brought to the crime laboratory,
A: Yes sir, this is the signature of Brgy. Kagawad, Rommel Asuncion. [42] where, after examination, [7] the contents thereof yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a
dangerous drug.[8]
Cross-Examination
In defense, Camiñas denied the charges against her, claiming that on the date of the incident, she bought a cellular phone at SM North,
[Atty. Mallabo]: Likewise, in preserving the integrity of the evidence that you confiscated, you are required by law[,] particularly Sec. 21, and while waiting for a taxi going to Greenhills, San Juan, two (2) men who identified themselves as policemen forcibly boarded her in a
R.A. 9165, to prepare an inventory. [I]n this case, did you prepare an inventory? vehicle. They then brought her to Jollibee, where she was shown the items allegedly confiscated from her. Afterwards, the policemen
[PO2 De Vera]: Yes, sir. demanded the amount of P180,000.00 for her immediate release; otherwise, a case would be filed against her. They likewise
Q: It was the investigator, who prepared the [i]nventory? confiscated her bag which contained her personal belongings and some cash. Thereafter, she was brought to the DAID-SOTG, where
A: In my presence. she was detained for two (2) days without food.[9]
Q: But there was no representative from the Department of Justice?
A: Yes, sir. In a Judgment[10] dated February 20, 2017, the RTC found Camiñas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and
Q: Why? accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. [11] It ruled that the prosecution
A: There is no available representative. was able to establish all the elements of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
Q: You are trying to tell us that here in Quezon City, drivers within 24 hrs of call and there are vehicles on duty, you don't tell us that the seized items were preserved. [12] Aggrieved, Camiñas appealed[13] to the CA.
Fiscal is not available, likewise, there was a representative from media?
17
In a Decision[14] dated January 30, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. [15] It ruled that the integrity of the seized items remained EDWIN FUENTES Y GARCIA @ "KANYOD," PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
unscathed since PO2 Jeriel Jarez Trinidad (PO2 Trinidad) was in custody of the seized items from the time it was recovered from
Camiñas up to the time it was delivered to Police Chief Inspector Anamelisa Sebido Bacani (PCI Bacani), Forensic Chemist, for DECISION
laboratory examination, who, in turn, delivered the seized items to Evidence Custodian Junia Ducad (Evidence Custodian Ducad) for PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
safekeeping.[16] Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated April 15, 2016 and the Resolution [3] dated December 9, 2016 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR No. 36556, which affirmed the Judgment [4] dated March 13, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of
Hence, this appeal seeking that Camiñas's conviction be overturned. Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 06-789 and 06-790 finding petitioner Edwin Fuentes y Garcia @ "Kanyod"
(petitioner) and Nicky Calotes y Valenzuela @ "Jojo" (Calotes) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, [5]otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Court's Ruling

The appeal is without merit. The Facts

The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: ( a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, This case stemmed from two (2) Informations [6] filed before the RTC separately charging petitioner and Calotes with Illegal Possession
the object, and the consideration; and ( b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. [17]Here, the courts a quo correctly found that of Dangerous Drugs.[7]
Camiñas committed the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as the records clearly show that she was caught  in flagrante
delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, PO2 Trinidad, during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the DAIDSOTG. Since The prosecution alleged that at around 2:30 in the afternoon of August 25, 2006, Police Officer 1 Mark Sherwin Forastero (PO1
there is no indication that the said courts overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the Forastero), Senior Police Officer 1 Benjamin Madriaga (SPO1 Madriaga), and several other members [8] of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-
case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. In this regard, it should be noted that the trial court was in the best Special Operations Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), after coordination with the Philippine Drug
position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties. [18] Enforcement Agency,[9] went to Barangay Bayanan, Muntinlupa to conduct a surveillance on certain persons suspected of illegal drug
peddling, including herein petitioner. [10] Upon arrival at the area, PO1 Forastero and SPO1 Madriaga entered an alley near the Philippine
Further, the Court notes that the buy-bust team had sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA National Railways (PNR) site, where they saw Calotes in the act of handing petitioner what appeared to be a plastic sachet containing
9165. white crystalline substance. Immediately, PO1 Forastero grabbed Calotes and confiscated a plastic sachet from him while SPO1
Madriaga apprehended petitioner from whom he recovered two (2) more plastic sachets. They then proceeded to the SAID-SOTF
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be headquarters in Muntinlupa City,[11] where PO1 Forastero and SPO1 Madriaga marked the seized plastic sachets, and conducted an
established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. inventory thereof in the presence of Nestor T. Gianan (Gianan), the City Architect of Muntinlupa City. [12] After preparing a request for
[19]
 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused laboratory examination[13] of the seized items, PO1 Forastero together with SPO1 Madriaga [14] brought the said request and the seized
beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. [20] items to the crime laboratory, [15] where a qualitative examination conducted by Police Inspector May Andrea A. Bonifacio (P/Insp.
Bonifacio) on the specimens yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," a dangerous drug.[16]
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of
custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [21] As part of the chain of In defense, petitioner and Calotes denied the charges against them and claimed that the seized drugs were planted evidence. Although
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted they admitted being at the PNR site at the time and date alleged by the arresting officers, they, however, denied engaging in any illegal
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same.[22] The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in activity and instead, averred that petitioner was merely paying off his debt to Calotes when the police apprehended them. They
the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain maintained that the police recovered nothing from them when they were bodily searched. Nonetheless, they were brought to the police
required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, [23] a representative from the media AND the station, made to undergo a drug test, and charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. [17]
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; [24] or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public
official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media.[25] The law requires the presence of these witnesses
primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of The RTC Ruling
evidence."[26]
In a Judgment[18] dated March 13, 2014, the RTC found petitioner and Calotes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11,
In this case, it is glaring from the records that after Camiñas was arrested, the buy-bust team immediately took custody of the seized Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day as.
items. They likewise conducted the marking, inventory,[27] and photography[28] of the seized items at the place of arrest in the presence of minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [19] Citing Section 5 (a),[20] Rule 113 of the
an elected public official, i.e., Kagawad Chico and a media representative, i.e., Oresto, in conformity with the amended witness Rules of Court, the RTC found that the warrantless arrest of petitioner and Calotes was valid, and as such, the plastic sachets seized
requirement under RA 10640. PO2 Trinidad then secured the seized items and personally delivered the same to PCI Bacani of the from them were admissible in evidence. [21] Further, the RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime
Quezon City Police District Crime laboratory for laboratory examination, who in turn, brought the specimen to Evidence Custodian charged, and the arresting officers - pursuant to Section 21 (a) of RA 9165. and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) - took the
Ducad for safekeeping.[29] In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there is sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule and, necessary steps to preserve the integrity of the seized items.[22] Aggrieved, petitioner and Calotes appealed to the CA.
thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been preserved. Perforce, Camiñas's conviction must stand.
The CA Ruling
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09056
is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Brenda Camiñas y Aming is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal In a Decision[23] dated April 15, 2016, the CA denied petitioner and Calotes' appeal and affirmed their conviction, [24]sustaining the RTC's
Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. finding that all the elements of the crime charged had been established by the prosecution. It likewise upheld the validity of their
10640, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. warrantless arrest, and further found that the integrity of the seized items had been preserved as the chain of custody thereof had been
observed despite their marking at the police station. Likewise, the· specimens were brought to the crime laboratory and examined on the
SO ORDERED. same date.[25]

14. G.R. No. 228718, January 07, 2019


18
Dissatisfied, petitioner and Calotes moved for reconsideration, [26] which was, however, denied in a Resolution [27]dated December 9, requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
2016; hence, this petition filed only by petitioner. [28] the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items," which inversely stated,
effectively means that the seizure and custody over the items are rendered void and invalid by the non-compliance with these
The Issue Before the Court requirements, unless the non-compliance is under justifiable grounds, and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved. Overall, it may therefore be said that the foundational bearings of the chain of custody rule, owing to the peculiar
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for the crime of Illegal treatment of the corpus delicti in drugs cases, hearken to the accused's presumption of innocence, [43] and thus, flesh out safeguards
Possession of Dangerous Drugs. therefor. It is this signification that firmly confirms the nature of the chain of custody rule as a matter of substantive law, and not a mere
technical rule of court procedure.
The Court's Ruling In this case, petitioner is charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. However, records disclose glaring and unjustifiable
deviations from the chain of custody procedure, as follows:
The petition is meritorious.
First, prosecution witnesses PO1 Forastero [44] and SPO1 Madriaga[45] both testified that they were in possession of the plastic sachets
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [29] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug confiscated from petitioner and Calotes, with SPO1 Madriaga keeping in his possession the two (2) plastic sachets seized from
be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti of the crime. petitioner. They likewise testified[46] that they marked the seized items in the police station and after a request for laboratory examination
[30]
 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the. evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused had been prepared, both of them went to the PNP Crime Laboratory to deliver the said request and the seized items.
beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.[31]
Unfortunately, PO1 Forastero and SPO1 Madriaga failed to identify who received the request for laboratory examination and the seized
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of items at the crime laboratory. Records show that before the specimens were handled by and subjected to qualitative examination by
custody from the moment the drugs. are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [32] As part of the chain of P/Insp. Bonifacio, the forensic chemist, the items were received by a certain "Relos," as clearly reflected on the lower left hand
custody procedure, the law requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical portion[47] of the request for laboratory examination. Neither has it been established who handled the same before and after P/Insp.
inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his Bonifacio rendered her findings until the same had been presented in court as evidence for purposes of identification.
representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses namely: ( a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "a
representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; [33] or (b) if after the amendment of Second, although the arresting officers prepared a Certificate of Inventory at the police station immediately after the arrest, the records
RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media."[34]The law are bereft of evidence showing that 1the seized items were photographed, much more in the presence of petitioner, or his representative
requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of or counsel, as well as the witnesses required by law.
switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [35]
And finally, there was also a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct of inventory was not witnessed by an elected public
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. This may be gleaned from the Certificate of Inventory which shows that the
not always be possible. [36] As such, deviations from the procedure may be allowed, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves same was witnessed only by City Architect Gianan, who is not considered as an elected public official. This fact is further confirmed by
that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly SPO1 Madriaga, who testified that:
preserved.[37] The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a),[38] Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. [39] [Atty. Balbaguio]: Did you conduct an inventory, Mr. Witness?
[SPO1 Madriaga]: Yes, ma'am
At this juncture, the Court takes this opportunity to clarify that compliance with the chain of custody rule is not a mere technical rule of Q: Who were present?
procedure that courts may, in their discretion, opt to relax. In the first place, the chain of custody procedure is embodied in statutory A: The accused, the witness and other operatives.
provisions which were "crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses [in drugs cases], especially Q: There was no elected official present?
considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [40] It is not a Supreme Court - issued rule of procedure created under its A: None, ma'am.
constitutional authority to "[p]romulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and xxxx
procedure in all courts." Rather, it is an administrative protocol that law enforcement officers and operatives are enjoined to implement [Fiscal Baybay]: What about the inventory[,] why did you not have it signed by a barangay official or elected official?
as part of their police functions. Indeed, while the chain of custody rule is "procedural" in the sense that it sets a step-by-step process [SPO1 Madriaga]: No available official at that time only the city architect of the City Government of Muntinlupa.
that must be followed, it is by no means remedial in nature  since it is not, properly speaking, a requirement or process that pertains to x x x x[48]
court litigation.
As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason
At most, insofar as an actual court proceeding is concerned, it is the compliance with the chain of custody procedure, or the presence of therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their
justifiable reasons for non-compliance, which must be proved; in this relation, it is the procedure of proving the same which is prescribed presence.[49] As the Court sees it, the prosecution did not faithfully comply with these standards and unfortunately, failed to justify non-
in the ordinary rules of evidence, which is, on the other hand, what our courts have discretion over. Thus, when a court finds that non- compliance. As such, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have been
compliance with the chain of custody rule is allowable, it does not exercise its discretion to relax a Court-issued rule; rather, it compromised, which perforce warrants petitioner's acquittal.
determines that the prosecution was able to prove that: ( a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and ( b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.[41] In so doing, the court only applies the saving - clause found in the law.[42] As a final note, it must be pointed out that although petitioner's co-accused, Calotes, no longer joined in filing the instant petition, the
Court nevertheless deems it proper to likewise acquit him of the crime charged. This is because the criminal case against Calotes arose
It deserves pointing out that the mandatory nature of the chain of custody rule traces its roots to, as earlier stated, the peculiarity of from the same set of facts as the case against petitioner and that such acquittal is definitely favorable and beneficial to him. [50] Section
drugs cases in that the seized drugs constitute the "body of the crime." The chain of custody rule is the administrative mechanism 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that:
established by legislature to ensure an acceptable level of certainty with respect to the drugs' integrity and evidentiary value. Hence,
failure to comply or failure to justify noncompliance means that this level of certainty has not been satisfied, and as a result, conjures Section II. Effect Of appeal by any of several accused. –
reasonable doubt on an indispensable element of the crime. This is the reason why the law states "non-compliance with the
19
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal,  except insofar as the judgment of the He/she shall, however, have the right to appeal his/her separation within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice of separation which
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. (Emphasis supplied) must be sent to his/her last known address.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 15, 2016 and the Resolution d ted December 9, 2016 of the Court of This provision is in consonance with Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Memorandum Circular No.
Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 36556 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Edwin Fuentes y Garcia @ 13, s. 2007,[10] which states:
"Kanyod" and Nicky Calotes y Valenzuela @ "Jojo" are ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
ordered to cause their immediate release, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approved leave . - An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for
at least thirty (30) working days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or
SO ORDERED. dropped from the rolls without prior notice. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

15. A.M. No. 18-07-153-RTC, January 07, 2019 Based on these provisions, Pijana should be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls in view of her continued absence
since March 1, 2018.
RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGAYTAY CITY,
CAVITE, BRANCH 18 Indeed, prolonged unauthorized absence causes inefficiency in the public service. [11] A court employee's continued absence without
leave disrupts the normal functions of the court. [12] It contravenes the duty of a public servant to serve with the utmost degree of
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The Court stresses that a court personnel's conduct is laden with the heavy burden of
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: responsibility to uphold public accountability and maintain people's faith in the judiciary.[13
This administrative matter involves Ms. Laydabell G. Pijana (Pijana), Sheriff IV in the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Cavite,
Branch 18 (RTC). By failing to report for work without filing any leave application since March 1, 2018, Pijana grossly disregarded and neglected the duties
of her office. Undeniably, she failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in the government
service.[14]
The Facts In view of the foregoing, the Court is constrained to drop Pijana from the rolls. At this point, the Court deems it worthy to stress that the
instant case is non-disciplinary in nature. Thus, Pijana's separation from the service shall result neither in the forfeiture of any benefits
The records of the Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) show that which have accrued in her favor, nor in her disqualification in the government service. [15] This is, however, without prejudice to the
Pijana has neither submitted her Daily Time Record (DTR) since March 1, 2018 up to the present nor filed any application for leave. outcome of the pending administrative cases against her. [16]
Thus, she has been on absence without official leave (AWOL) since March 1, 2018. [1]
WHEREFORE, Laydabell G. Pijana, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Cavite, Branch 18, is hereby DROPPED from the
To date, Pijana has still not reported for work. Her salaries and benefits were withheld pursuant to a Memorandum [2]dated May 2, 2016. rolls effective March 1, 2018 and her position is declared VACANT. She is, however, still qualified to receive the benefits she may be
entitled to under existing laws and may still be reemployed in the government, without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative
The OCA informed the Court of its findings based on the records of its different offices: ( a) Pijana is still in the plantilla of court cases pending against her.
personnel, and thus considered to be still in active service; ( b) she is no longer in the payroll; ( c) she has no application for retirement; Let a copy of this resolution be served upon her at the address appearing in her 201 file pursuant to Section 107 (a) (1), Rule 20 of the
and (d) she is not an accountable officer. [3] Notably, nine (9) administrative cases are pending against her based on the records of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Docket and Clearance Division, Legal Office, OCA.[4]
SO ORDERED.
In its report and recommendation[5] dated July 19, 2018, the OCA recommended that: (a) Pijana be dropped from the rolls effective
March 1, 2018[6] for having been absent without official leave for more than thirty (30) working days; ( b) her position be declared vacant;
and (c) she be informed about her separation from the service or dropping from the rolls at her last known address on record at 109
Lucsuhin, Silang, Cavite appearing in her 201 File. The OCA added, however, that Pijana is still qualified to receive the benefits she may 16. G.R. No. 233883, January 07, 2019
be entitled to under existing laws and may still be reemployed in the government, without prejudice to the outcome of the nine (9)
pending administrative cases against her.[7] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARK VINCENT CORRAL Y BATALLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The Court's Ruling PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:


Assailed in this ordinary appeal [1] is the Decision[2] dated April 21, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08296,
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the OCA. Section 107, Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the which affirmed the Judgment[3] dated March 31, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 37 (RTC) in Criminal Case
Civil Service (2017 RACCS)[8] authorizes and provides the procedure for the dropping from the rolls of employees who are absent Nos. 21304-2013-C, 21305-2013-C, and 21306-2013-C finding accused-appellant Mark Vincent Corral y Batalla (accused-appellant)
without approved leave for an extended period of time.[9] Pertinent portions of this provision read: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, [4] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Section 107. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls . Officers and employees who are absent without approved leave, x x
x may be dropped from the rolls within thirty (30) days from the time a ground therefor arises subject to the following procedures: The Facts

a. Absence Without Approved Leave This case stemmed from three (3) Informations [5] filed before the RTC charging accused-appellant of the crimes of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drugs and of Drug Paraphernalia. The prosecution alleged that at around 6:30 p.m. of
1. An official or employee who is continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped August 24, 2013, members of the Calamba City Police Station successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant,
from the rolls without prior notice which shall take effect immediately. during which a small plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance [6] was recovered from him. When accused-
appellant was frisked after his arrest, SPO1 Lorenzo Colinares (SP01 Colinares) was able to seize another plastic sachet containing

20
0.18 gram of white crystalline substance [7] from his possession. SPOl Colinares likewise recovered a crumpled aluminum foil strip and a if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
glass tooter on the table inside accused-appellant's house. [8] The police officers then took accused-appellant and the seized items to the Service or the media.[27] The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody
barangay hall, where the marking, inventory, and photography were conducted in the presence of Barangay Captain Antonino P. and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [28]
Trinidad (Trinidad). [9] Thereafter, accused appellant and the seized items were brought to the police station, and eventually, said items
were brought to the crime laboratory, which, after examination, tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a
or shabu, a dangerous drug. [10] procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [29] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety
precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [30]
For his part, accused-appellant claimed that at around six (6) o'clock in the evening of August 24, 2013, he was at home taking care of
his children when, suddenly, police officers barged into his house and asked if he was Mark Vincent Batalla. When he answered in the Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may
affirmative, the police officers punched him on his side, searched the premises, took his wallet and cellular phone, brought him outside, not always be possible.[31] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the
and thereafter, ordered him to board a vehicle. Inside the vehicle, he was directed to tell the whereabouts of another person. When he seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: ( a) there is a justifiable
failed to disclose such details, he was detained at the police station.[11] ground for non compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [32] The foregoing is
based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [33] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) ofRA 9165, which was
In a Decision[12] dated March 31, 2016, the RTC found accused appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous later adopted into the text ofRA 10640. [34] It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. [13] However, he was duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, [35] and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact,
acquitted of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and of Drug Paraphernalia for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[36]
reasonable doub. [14] As for his conviction, the RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish that accused-appellant was engaged
in the sale of illegal drugs through a buy-bust operation, and that the integrity of the items seized, marked, identified, examined, and Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted
presented in evidence was preserved. [15] Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed [16] to the CA. genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of
these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to
In a Decision[17] dated April21, 2017, theCA affirmed the RTC ruling. It agreed with the trial court's finding that there was substantial comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [37] Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to
compliance with the chain of custody requirement since the inventory and photography of the seized items were witnessed by accused- contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [38] These considerations arise from the fact
appellant and a barangay official. It likewise gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers which have in their favor the that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the infonnation about the activities
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties, and hence, should prevail over accused-appellant's defenses of of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements
frame-up and denial.[18] Dissatisfied, accused-appellant filed the instant appeal. beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [39]

Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,[40] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
"[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the
chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the
The Issue Before the Court proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity
and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not theCA correctly upheld accused-appellant's conviction for the crime charged. review.[41]

The Court's Ruling After the examination of the records, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to comply with the above-described procedure since the
inventory and photography of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of the representatives from the media and DOJ. This
The appeal is meritorious. lapse is made evident by the Receipt of Physical Inventory, [42] which only confirms the presence of Trinidad (an elected public official),
and further confirmed by the testimonies of the poseur-buyer, SPOl Colinares, and a back-up officer, P02 Renato Cuevas (P02 Cuevas),
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [19] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous to wit:
drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the
crime.[20] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused SPO1 LORENZO COLINARES
beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an aquittal. [21] [Atty. Beverly Anne Quintos]: At the Barangay Hall, you said you conducted Inventory, correct?

To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of [SPOt Colinares]: Yes, ma'am.
custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [22] As part of the chain of
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation Q: You conducted Inventory after you marked the specimen, correct?
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [23] Hence, the failure to immediately mark
the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, A: Yes, ma'am.
as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain
of custody.[24]\ Q: And according to the Inventory you made, you failed to indicate the markings ofthe said specimen?

The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the A: Yes, ma'am. No markings.
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA
9165 by RA 10640, [25] a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; [26] or (b)
Q: Despite testifying that you already marked the said specimen you did not indicate the markings on your inventory?
21
A: Yes, ma'am. On March 21, 2012, the RTC Decision was promulgated. Atty. Jojo Soriano Vijiga (Atty. Vijiga), representing Usares, thereafter
manifested in open court that they "intend to file a Notice of Appeal within fifteen (15) days from [March 21, 2012]" and moved that
Q: You have all the time in the world in your police station to actually get the signature of the accused as well as the DOJ representative Usares be "released under the same bond x x x."[9] The RTC granted the said motion in an Order [10] issued on even date.
and the media representative but still you failed to do that, correct?
Subsequently, Usares filed a Notice of Appeal [11] on April 12, 2012, which the RTC granted in an Order [12] dated May 10, 2012.
A: Yes, ma'am. On November 28, 2012, a certain Deodoro A. Edillo (Edillo) filed a Motion for the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest, [13]praying that the
warrant be issued against Usares to enforce the RTC Decision.
Q: You failed to comply with the provisions of Sec. 21, correct?
The CA Ruling
A: Yes, ma'am. There is no signature ofthe media representative and the DOJ representative but the Barangay Official there was [43]
In a Resolution[14] dated February 14, 2013, theCA dismissed Usares's appeal and referred the Motion for the Issuance of Warrant of
PO2 RENATO CUEVAS Arrest to the RTC for its appropriate action. [15] According to theCA, despite the judgment of conviction against her and the cancellation of
her bail bond, Usares nonetheless continued to enjoy her liberty during the pendency of the appeal proceedings without a valid bail bond
having been posted and approved by the court. [16]As such, she is considered to have jumped bail, and thus, her appeal should be
[Atty. Beverly Anne Quintos]: Would you agree with me that you made this inventory without the presence of a DOJ representative, the dismissed in accordance with Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and the prevailing jurisprudence. [17]
media representative, and the accused in this case?
[PO2 Cuevas]: Yes, rna'am. On March 11,2013, the February 14,2013 CA Resolution became final and executory, and was thereby recorded in the Book of Entries
Q: And this in turn violates the provision of Sec. 21, Art. 11 of RA 9165, correct? of Judgments.[18]
A: Yes, ma'am.[44]
Aggrieved, Usares, through Atty. Bernardo Q. Cuaresma (Atty. Cuaresma), [19] moved for reconsideration[20] on July 15, 2013, pointing
As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason out, among others, that during the promulgation of the RTC Decision, her counsel, Atty. Vijiga, moved that she be allowed to be
therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exe1ied by the police officers to secure their presence. released under the same bond, which the RTC granted.[21]
Here, while the prosecution witnesses acknowledged the absence of the representatives from the media and DOJ in the aforesaid
conduct, they failed to provide any justification for said absence. Worse, there is no showing that they even tried to contact said
witnesses. In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the In a Resolution[22] dated September 6, 2013, the CA denied Usares's motion.[23] Aside from reiterating its earlier ruling anent the
integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from accused-appellant were compromised, which consequently warrants cancellation of Usares's bail bond, it further observed that an entry of judgment had already been issued, and hence, her motion for
his acquittal. reconsideration was already considered filed out oftime.[24] Dissatisfied, Usares filed the instant petition.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 21, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08296 is The Issue Before the Court
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Mark Vincent Corral y Batalla is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA was correct in dismissing Usares's appeal.
for any other reason.
The Court's Ruling
SO ORDERED.
The petition is meritorious.
17. G.R. No. 209047, January 07, 2019
Under Section 8, Rule 124 ofthe Rules of Court, theCA is authorized to dismiss an appeal, whether upon motion of the appellee or  motu
ANGELA USARES Y SIBAY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
proprio, once it is determined that the appellant, among others, jumps bail, viz.:
Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute.  - The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or
motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Resolutions dated February 14, 2013 [2] and September 6, 2013[3] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35317, which dismissed the appeal [4] filed by petitioner Angela Usares y Sibay (Usares) and referred The Court of Appeals may also,  upon motion of the appellee or  motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or
the Motion for the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest 5 against her to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21 (RTC) for appropriate confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
action.
The reason behind this provision is not difficult to discern. Same as one who escapes from prison or confinement, or flees to a foreign
The Facts country, an accused-appellant who jumps bail during the pendency of his appeal is considered to have evaded the established judicial
processes to ensure his proper criminal prosecution, and in so doing, forfeits his right to pursue an appeal. In People v. Mapalao,[25] the
In a Decision[6] dated February 23, 2012 in Criminal Case No. 08-259156, the RTC found Usares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Court explained that:
crime of Homicide, and accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of eight (8) years
and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of The reason for this rule is x x x once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country,  he loses
P50,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, as well as his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek
the costs of suit.[7] Additionally, the RTC cancelled the bond [8] posted for the provisional liberty of Usares. relief from the court.

22
participation of a third party, i.e., the surety or bondsman (either corporate surety or property surety), whose qualification must first be
Thus when as in this case he escaped from confinement x x x, he should not be afforded the right to appeal therefrom x x x. While at ascertained by the court.
large as above stated he cannot seek relief from the Court as he is deemed to have waived the same and he has no standing in court.
[26]
 (Emphases and underscoring supplied) Thus, considering that Usares has an existing cash bail bond- which the CA should have known had it reviewed more carefully the
records of this case - she cannot be considered to have jumped bail, which thus renders erroneous the dismissal of her appeal on the
In this relation, it should be pointed out that the right to appeal is merely a statutory remedy and that the party who seeks to avail of the said ground.
same must strictly follow the requirements therefor. [27] As the Court discerns, Section 8, Rule 124 evokes an implicit requirement for an
appellant to duly observe prevailing criminal processes pending appeal, else, he runs the risk of, among others, having the same Notably, while it appears that Usares belatedly filed her motion for reconsideration before the CA, which resulted in the issuance of an
dismissed. In People v. Taruc, [28] the Court enunciated that: entry of judgment against her, the Court finds it proper to relax such technicalities in the interest of substantial justice given that there
was, in the first place, no cogent basis for the dismissal of her appeal. In addition, the Court recognizes that Usares had duly explained
There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even by the accused himself, but the right of appeal is not one of them. in her petition that her previous lawyer, Atty. Vijiga, who received the copy of the February 14, 2013 CA Resolution on February 21,
This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or not, as he pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by 2013,[36] unfortunately abandoned her cause without any explanation to her whatsoever. It was only when she asked her present lawyer,
implication. When the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision, he will be deemed to have waived his Atty. Cuaresma, to check on the status of her appeal that she found out that the same had long been dismissed by the CA. [37] "While as
right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. (Citing People v. Ang Gioc Ko, 73 Phil. 366, 369 [1941]) a general rule, the negligence of counsel may not be condoned and should bind the client, the exception is when such negligence is so
gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his [or her] day in court," [38] as in Usares's case. Time and again, the Court
By putting himself beyond the reach and application of the legal processes of the land, accused-appellant revealed his contempt of the has ruled that"[d]ismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in
law and placed himself in a position to speculate, at his pleasure on his chances for a reversal. In the process, he kept himself out of the a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims." [39]
reach of justice, but hoped to render the judgment nugatory at his option. Such conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the
part of the appellate court.[29] In fine, the Court, based on the considerations above-discussed, resolves to grant the petition. Accordingly, the case is remanded to
theCA for resolution ofUsares's appeal on the merits, with reasonable dispatch.
According to the CA, Usares was "considered at-large following the judgment of conviction and cancellation of her bail bond, and [yet]
enjoys liberty pending appeal without a valid a bail bond having been posted and approved by the court even untl now." [30] As such, it WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated February 14, 2013 and September 6, 2013 ofthe Court of Appeals
deemed Usares to have jumped bail, and hence, dismissbd her appeal pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124. (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35317 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to theCA which
is DIRECTED to resolve the appeal filed by petitioner Angela Usares y Sibay on the merits, with reasonable dispatch.
However, records reve11 that Usares, through Atty. Vijiga, had manifested in open court during the promulgation of the RTC Decision
on March 21, 2012, that she intended to appeal within fifteen (15) days therefrom, and further moved that she be released under the
same cash bail bond. As clearly reflected in the March 21, 2012 RTC Order, the RTC granted the said motion. [31] Under Section 5, Rule
18. G.R. No. 236023, February 20, 2019
114 ofthe Rules of Court, when the RTC, after the conviction of the accused, grants the latter's application for bail based on its
MACACUNA BADIO Y DICAMPUNG, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
discretion, the accused-appellant may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same
bail subject to the consent of the bondsman, viz.:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by petitioner Macacuna Badio y Dicampung (Badio), assailing the
Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. - Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
Decision[2] dated April 20, 2017 and Resolution [3] dated November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38542,
perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court
which affirmed with modification the Decision [4] dated March 21, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2 (RTC) in Crim.
despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision
Case No. 13-299331, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized
of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only
under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, [5] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
The Facts
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal
under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.
This case stemmed from an Information [6] filed before the RTC charging Badio of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
The prosecution alleged that on August 24, 2013, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit of the Moriones, Tondo
xxxx
Police Station 2 received a tip that an illegal drug transaction would take place beside a specified vehicle along Antonio Rivera Street
At this juncture, it deserves mentioning that what Usares posted was a cash bail bond which to date remained in the government coffers.
corner CM. Recto Avenue, Manila. Upon receipt of such information, the station commander formed a team to,  inter alia, conduct a
The Certification[32] dated October 22, 2013 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-
surveillance around the area and effect arrests, if necessary. At around 8:30 in the evening of even date and after the team had
Buendia confirms this fact and further certifies that as of its date, the "cash bond has not yet been withdrawn."  The Certification[33] dated
established its position about four (4) to five (5) meters from the specified vehicle, the team noticed that a person – later on identified as
October 24, 2013 issued by the Clerk of Court of the CA further validates Usares's posting of a cash bond as it certifies that
Badio – approached the vehicle and started conversing with the passengers therein. Shortly after, Police Officer 3 Roman Jimenez (PO3
a "CERTIFIED photocopy of the 'WAIVER/UNDERTAKING' with attached Official Receipt Nos. 7595717 K, 7330732 A, 7596909 K and
Jimenez) saw Badio showing two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to the passengers and when the
Legal Fees Form dated February 11, 2008" are "found on page/s 291 to 295 in the Folder of Original Records in Crim. Case No. 08-
team then approached him, Badio threw away the plastic sachets. However, PO3 Jimenez was able to recover the said sachets and
259156 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of the City of Manila docketed with this [c]ourt as CA G.R. CR No. 35317 x x
arrest Badio, while the other members of the team apprehended the latter's companions. Subsequently, PO3 Jimenez marked the
x."[34] Moreover, the Certification[35] dated July 9, 2013, also of theCA's Clerk of Court, confirms that the March 21, 2012 RTC Order
seized sachets and conducted a body search on Badio from whom he recovered another piece of plastic sachet. Immediately, all three
(which granted Usares's motion to be released under the same bail bond)  "is found on page 526 in the folder of the Original of Criminal
(3) plastic sachets were photographed and inventoried [7] in the presence of Badio and a media representative. The team then went to
Case No. 08-259156 ofRTC-MANILA, BR. 21, docketed in this court as CA G.R. CR-35317." Verily, the cash bond and Usares's written
the police station where Badio was held for further questioning, while the seized items were turned over to the investigating officer,
undertaking executed pursuant to the Rules-which the RTC approved-stood as sufficient security for her release during the appeal
Senior Police Officer 1 Elymar B. Garcia (SPO1 Garcia), who likewise prepared the necessary paper works therefor. Thereafter, the
proceedings. As long as the amount deposited remains in the government coffers, the same sufficiently secures her continued
seized items were brought to the crime laboratory, where, upon examination, [8] the contents thereof tested positive for the presence of a
provisional liberty during the entire appeal proceedings upon the RTC's approval of her bail application, following Section 5, Rule 114 of
total of 5.01 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[9]
the Rules of Court. This is in contrast with the other types of securities given for the temporary release of an accused which require the

23
In his defense, Badio denied the charges against him, claiming instead that between one (1) to two (2) o' clock in the afternoon of
August 24, 2013, he was inside a vehicle parked at a restaurant in Baclaran, when four (4) unidentified men suddenly arrived and Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may
grabbed him. The men then introduced themselves as police officers, handcuffed him, and brought him to the Moriones, Tondo Police not always be possible.[31] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not  ipso facto render the
Station. Later on, he learned that he was being charged of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. [10] seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: ( a) there is a justifiable
ground for non-compliance; and ( b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [32] The foregoing is
In a Decision[11] dated March 21, 2016, the RTC found Badio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [33] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to later adopted into the text of RA 10640. [34] It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [12] It found the prosecution to duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, [35] and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact,
have established with moral certainty that Badio was in possession of shabu without any lawful license or authority, and that there was because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[36]
an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs seized from his possession. Finally, it gave credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary. [13]Aggrieved, Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted
Badio filed an appeal before the CA. genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of
these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to
In a Decision[14] dated April 20, 2017, the CA affirmed Badio's conviction with modification, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [37] Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to
imprisonment for a period of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00. [15] It found the sole contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [38] These considerations arise from the fact
testimony of PO3 Jimenez to be sufficient in convicting Badio of the crime charged. It likewise pointed out that despite the absence of a that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about the
Department of Justice (DOJ) representative and an elected public official in the inventory and photography of the seized items, the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary
prosecution nonetheless was able to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of such items were properly preserved, as shown arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [39]
by the following links in the chain of custody, namely: (a) PO3 Jimenez recovered from Badio three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,[40] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
containing white crystalline substance, which were subsequently marked, photographed, and inventoried in the presence of a media "[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the
representative; (b) PO3 Jimenez had been in possession of the seized items from the place of arrest up to the police station where they chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the
were turned over to SPO1 Garcia; (c) SPO1 Garcia then handed the seized items to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity
and (d) the same items were thereafter surrendered to the court for identification. [16] Undaunted, Badio filed a motion for and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further
reconsideration[17] which was denied in a Resolution[18] dated November 29, 2017. review."[41]

Hence, this appeal seeking that Badio's conviction be overturned. In this case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct of inventory and photography was not witnessed by an
elected public official and a DOJ representative. This may be easily gleaned from the Receipt/Inventory of Seized Evidence [42] which only
proves the presence of a media representative. Moreover, records are bereft of any showing that the police officers actually made
The Court's Ruling attempts to secure the presence of the other required witnesses, and merely offered justifiable reasons as to why they failed to contact
them. To reiterate, the law requires that the conduct of inventory and photography of the seized items must be witnessed by
The appeal is meritorious. representatives from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, and that the prosecution is bound to account for their
absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [19] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous the apprehending officers to secure their presence. As the Court sees it, the prosecution did not faithfully comply with these standards
drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti of the and unfortunately, failed to justify non-compliance. Thus, in view of these unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, the Court
crime.[20] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused is therefore constrained to believe that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Badio were compromised,
beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.[21] which consequently warrants his acquittal.

To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 20, 2017 and the Resolution dated November 29, 2017 of the Court
custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [22] As part of the chain of of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38542 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Macacuna
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted Badio y Dicampung is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [23] Hence, the failure to immediately mark
the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, SO ORDERED.
as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain
of custody.[24]

The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the 19. G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA
9165 by RA 10640,[25] "a representative from the media and the [DOJ], and any elected public official";[26] or (b) if after the amendment of JESUS TRINIDAD Y BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, V. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
RA 9165 by RA 10640, "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media."[27] The law
requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [28] Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by petitioner Jesus Trinidad y Bersamin (Trinidad) assailing the
Decision[2] dated January 25, 2018 and the Resolution [3] dated May 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39598,
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a which affirmed the Decision[4] dated November 7, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 67 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos.
procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [29] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety 155678 and 155679 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition under
precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. [30] Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) (1), Article V of Republic Act No. (RA) 10591. [5]
24
convincingly established all the elements of the crime charged as Trinidad: (a) was caught in possession and control of two (2) firearms,
The Facts consisting of one (1) .38 caliber[23] revolver loaded with six (6) live ammunitions and one (1) .22 caliber rifle loaded with seven (7) live
ammunitions, as well as two (2) magazines during the conduct of the buy-bust operation; and (b) failed to show any permit or license to
On December 12, 2014, an Information [6] was filed before the RTC charging Trinidad with violation of RA 10591, the pertinent portion of possess the same, simply claiming that the said firearms were pawned to him. [24] It likewise noted that Trinidad's counsel agreed to the
which reads: stipulation that Trinidad has no license to possess or carry the subject firearms at the time of his arrest. [25] Finally, it agreed with the
RTC's opinion that Trinidad's acquittal in the drugs charges was due to the prosecution's failure to prove the chain of custody of the
On or about November 14, 2014, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, being then a private seized dangerous drugs, and not due to his supposed questionable arrest.[26]
person, without any lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in [his] possession and under [his]
custody and control one (1) unit [c]aliber .38 revolver marked Smith & Wesson with serial number 833268 with markings "RJN", a small Dissatisfied, Trinidad moved for reconsideration, [27] but was denied in a Resolution[28] dated May 31, 2018; hence, this petition.
arm, loaded with six (6) pieces live ammunitions of caliber .38 with markings "1RN, 2RN, 3RN, 4RN, 5RN and 6RN", without first
securing the necessary license or permit from the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police, in violation of the The Issue Before the Court
above-entitled law.
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Trinidad's conviction for the crime charged.
[7]
Contrary to law.

The prosecution alleged that at around 8:30 in the evening of November 14, 2014, members from the Philippine National Police (PNP)-
Pasig Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation, with Police Officer (PO) 1 Randy S. Sanoy (PO1 Sanoy) as the poseur buyer and
PO1 Rodrigo J. Nidoy, Jr. (PO1 Nidoy) as the back-up arresting officer, to apprehend a certain "Jessie" who, purportedly, was involved The Court's Ruling
in illegal drug activities at Aurelia St., Barangay Bagong Hog, Pasig City. [8] After the alleged sale had been consummated, PO1 Nidoy The petition is meritorious.
arrested Trinidad, frisked him, and recovered from the latter a 0.38 caliber revolver loaded with six (6) live ammunitions tucked at his
back, as well as a 0.22 caliber rifle loaded with seven (7) live ammunitions and two (2) magazines (subject firearms and ammunition) "At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing
which were found beside the gate of his house. [9] When asked if he has any documentation for the same, Trinidad claimed that they tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds
were merely pawned to him. After marking the seized items, they proceeded to the nearby barangay hall and conducted inventory and other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such
photography thereof, and then went to the police station where the request for ballistic examination was made. [10] Finally, the seized court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
items were brought to the crime laboratory, where, after examination, it was revealed that "the firearms are serviceable and the law."[29]
ammunitions are live and serviceable." [11] During trial, Trinidad's counsel agreed to the stipulation that Trinidad has no license to possess
or carry firearms of any caliber at the time of his arrest.[12] "Section 2,[30] Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a
judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and seizure becomes 'unreasonable’ within
For his part, Trinidad denied the accusations against him, claiming, among others, that aside from the present case, he was also the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), [31] Article III
charged with the crime of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, which arose from the same incident, but was, however, of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for
acquitted[13] therein for, inter alia, failure of the prosecution to prove that Trinidad was validly arrested thru a legitimate buy-bust any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and
operation. He then formally offered in evidence the said acquittal ruling, which was objected by the public prosecutor for being seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree." [32]
immaterial and irrelevant to the present case.[14] The RTC admitted said evidence only as part of Trinidad's testimony.[15]
"One of the recognized exceptions to the need for a warrant before a search may be affected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest.  In
The RTC Ruling this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made – the process cannot be reversed."[33]

In a Decision[16] dated November 7, 2016, the RTC found Trinidad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of violation of RA A lawful arrest may be affected with or without a warrant. With respect to the latter, a warrantless arrest may be done when, inter alia,
10591, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of ten (10) years, eight (8) the accused is caught in flagrante delicto,[34] such as in buy-bust operations in drugs cases. [35]However, if the existence of a valid buy-
months, and one (1) day, as minimum, to eleven (11) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as maximum, for each count.[17] bust operation cannot be proven, and thus, the validity of the  in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest cannot be established, the arrest
becomes illegal and the consequent search incidental thereto becomes unreasonable. [36] Resultantly, all the evidence seized by reason
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, of the unlawful arrest is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. [37]
considering that: (a) PO1 Nidoy positively identified the firearms presented before the court as the same firearms seized and recovered In this case, Trinidad essentially anchors his defense on the following contentions: ( a) his arrest stemmed from a purported buy-bust
from Trinidad's possession; and (b) Trinidad admitted that he is not a holder of any license or permit from the PNP Firearms and operation where the illegal drugs and the subject firearms and ammunition were allegedly recovered from him; ( b) this resulted in the
Explosives Unit. It gave credence to the positive, clear, and categorical testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses rather than Trinidad's filing of three (3) Informations against him, two (2) of which are for violations of RA 9165 [38] (which were tried jointly), while the other
defenses of denial and alibi.[18] It likewise held that Trinidad's acquittal in the drugs charges is immaterial to this case, opining that the pertains to the instant case; and (c) his acquittal [39] in the drugs cases should necessarily result in his acquittal in this case as well. In
ground for his acquittal is neither unlawful arrest nor unlawful search and seizure, but the procedural flaw in the chain of custody of the finding these contentions untenable, the courts a quo opined that the resolution in the drugs cases is immaterial in this case as they
dangerous drugs.[19] involve different crimes[40] and that "the ground for the acquittal x x x is neither unlawful arrest nor unlawful search or seizure, but the
procedural flaw in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs." [41]
Aggrieved, Trinidad appealed[20] to the CA.
However, a more circumspect review of the decision absolving Trinidad of criminal liability in the drugs cases reveals that he was
The CA Ruling acquitted therein not only due to unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, [42] but also on the ground that the prosecution
failed to prove the existence of a valid buy-bust operation, thereby rendering Trinidad's  in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest illegal and
In a Decision[21] dated January 25, 2018, the CA affirmed Trinidad's conviction with modification, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of the subsequent search on him unreasonable.[43]Thus, contrary to the courts a quo's opinions, Trinidad's acquittal in the drugs cases,
imprisonment for an indeterminate period of eight (8) years and one (1) day of  prision mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) more particularly on the latter ground, is material to this case because the subject firearms and ammunition were simultaneously
months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for each count. [22] The CA ruled that the evidence for the prosecution recovered from him when he was searched subsequent to his arrest on account of the buy-bust operation.
25
AHT refers to the average time spent by a CSR with the customer on the phone; it is computed using the formula: ( Average Talk
The Court is aware that the findings on the illegality of Trinidad's warrantless arrest were made in the drugs cases, which are separate Time + Hold Time) / Number of Calls  = AHT, and is recorded on a daily and weekly basis.[12]
and distinct from the present illegal possession of firearms and ammunition case. Nevertheless, the Court is not precluded from taking
judicial notice of such findings as evidence, and apply them altogether for the judicious resolution of the same issue which was duly On January 22, 2013, Jacolbe's supervisor, Mr. Philip Charles Go, issued an Incident Report [13] for failure of Jacolbe to hit the 7-minute
raised herein. To be sure, the general rule is that the courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of AHT goal agreed upon for the 3 rd week of January while he was under TP's Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). [14] Records show that
other cases. However, this rule admits of exceptions, such as when the other case has a close connection with the matter in controversy Jacolbe was placed under the PIP after he failed to meet the 7-minute AHT target in two (2) previous instances,  i.e., January 5 and 12,
in the case at hand.[44] In Bongato v. Spouses Malvar,[45] the Court held: 2013.[15]

[A]s a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are Subsequently, TP's Human Resources Department (HRD) sent Jacolbe a letter [16] dated February 13, 2013 (Notice to Explain) informing
pending in the same court or before the same judge. There are exceptions to this rule. Ordinarily, an appellate court cannot refer to the him of its receipt of the Incident Report, and further stating that his " work performance for the last 6 months is unsatisfactory due to [his]
record in another case to ascertain a fact not shown in the record of the case before it, yet, it has been held that it may consult decisions consistent failure to meet the [AHT] Goal in spite of being enrolled in [its PIP] "[17] which, if proven true, would constitute as an offense
in other proceedings, in order to look for the law that is determinative of or applicable to the case under review. In some instances, against its code of conduct warranting the termination of his employment. The Notice also directed him to explain, in writing, why he
courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases should not be subjected to appropriate corrective action.
"may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice."[46](Emphasis and underscoring
supplied) In compliance with the directive, Jacolbe submitted letters [18] dated February 19 and 25, 2013, explaining that since he was hired in
Here, an examination of the ruling[47] in the drugs cases (which Trinidad offered as evidence and the RTC admitted as part of his 2007, he had never intentionally disconnected a call to meet the prescribed AHT mark. Unsatisfied with his explanations, TP issued
testimony[48]) confirms that the drugs cases and this case are so interwoven and interdependent of each other since, as mentioned, the Jacolbe a Letter[19] dated March 18, 2013 (Notice of Termination) dismissing him from work for failure to meet account specific
drugs, as well as the subject firearms and ammunition, were illegally seized in a singular instance,  i.e., the buy-bust operation. Hence, performance metrics or certification requirements under Section V.B.4 of its Code of Conduct and Zero Tolerance Policy.
the Court may take judicial notice of the circumstances attendant to the buy-bust operation as found by the court which resolved the
drugs cases. To recall, in the drugs cases, the finding of unreasonableness of search and seizure of the drugs was mainly based on the Aggrieved, Jacolbe filed a complaint [20] for illegal dismissal and monetary claims[21] against TP, pointing out that while the Incident Report
failure of PO1 Sanoy's testimony to establish the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation against Trinidad as said testimony was found to be noted his failure to hit the 7-minute AHT mark in two (2) instances, TP dismissed him allegedly for unsatisfactory work performance for
highly doubtful and incredible. [49] This circumstance similarly obtains here as in fact, the testimonies of both PO1 Nidoy [50] and PO1 the last six (6) months based on the HRD's Notice to Explain. He argued that if indeed he committed the said infractions, the same did
Sanoy[51] in this case essentially just mirror on all material points the latter's implausible narration in the drugs cases. In view of the not constitute serious misconduct warranting his dismissal, citing his award as Top Agent for December 2012, [22] which negated the
foregoing, the Court concludes that the subject firearms and ammunition are also inadmissible in evidence for being recovered from the alleged unsatisfactory work performance for the last six (6) months. [23]
same unreasonable search and seizure as in the drugs cases. Since the confiscated firearms and ammunition are the very corpus
delicti of the crime charged in this case, Trinidad's acquittal is in order. In its defense, TP argued that Jacolbe's actual AHT scores [24] from January 2012 up to his dismissal in March 2013 were consistently
beyond the 7-minute AHT mark, despite his enrollment in its PIP and SMART Action Plan programs. [25] TP explained that the PIP and
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 25, 2018 and the Resolution dated May 31, 2018 of the Court of SMART Action Plan programs are the company's tools designed to help "poor performing" CSRs improve their work performance.
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39598 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Jesus Trinidad  y Bersamin is ACQUITTED of [26]
 Under these programs, the enrolled CSRs are given "step goals" or targets that are considerably lower (or higher, as the case may
the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held be) than the prescribed metrics which are then gradually increased (or decreased) until they meet the same. Thus, under these
in custody for any other reason. circumstances, TP argued that Jacolbe's consistent failure to meet the 7-minute AHT mark over a prolonged period of time undoubtedly
showed inefficient and poor call handling justifying his dismissal under its code of conduct. [27]
SO ORDERED.
The LA Ruling

In a Decision[28] dated November 25,2013, the LA found Jacolbe to have been illegally dismissed and ordered TP to pay the latter
20. G.R. No. 233999, February 18, 2019 P319,089.09, representing his backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's
fees.[29]
TELEPHILIPPINES, INC.,[*] PETITIONER, V. FERRANDO H. JACOLBE, RESPONDENT.
The LA held that Jacolbe's failure to meet the 7-minute AHT mark in two (2) instances could hardly be considered as habitual and gross
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: neglect of duties that would warrant his dismissal, especially since Jacolbe was awarded as Top Agent in December 2012. [30] Moreover,
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated September 8, 2016 and the Resolution [3]dated August 7, 2017 the LA found that TP failed to fully apprise Jacolbe of the specific violation of company rules he had committed, explaining that while the
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08600 which set aside the Decision [4] dated March 31, 2014 and the Resolution [5] dated Incident Report cited only two (2) instances that he failed to meet the AHT target, the Notice to Explain, on the other hand, pointed to a
May 20, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. VAC-02-000080-2014 and accordingly, reinstated six (6)-month unsatisfactory work performance. Finally, it observed that Jacolbe had been working for TP as a CSR for over five (5)
the Decision[6] dated November 25, 2013 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) finding respondent Ferrando H. Jacolbe (Jacolbe) to have been years without any record of infractions. [31] Accordingly, it held that Jacolbe's failure to meet the AHT target in the two (2) cited instances
illegally dismissed by petitioner Telephilippines, Inc. (TP). cannot be construed to have been done habitually and grossly so as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of dismissal.[32]

The Facts Dissatisfied, TP appealed[33] to the NLRC.

TP[7] is a corporation engaged in the business of providing contact center services to its various offshore corporate clients through its The NLRC Ruling
customer service representatives (CSRs).[8] On June 18,2007, TP hired Jacolbe as a CSR tasked to resolve customer's questions and
issues promptly and efficiently, among others, in accordance with set performance standards and protocol. [9] In a Decision[34] dated March 31, 2014, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA ruling and held Jacolbe's dismissal valid. Contrary to
the LA's findings, the NLRC found that Jacolbe had, in fact, consistently failed to meet the 7-minute AHT mark, starting from January
Sometime in May 2009, TP assigned Jacolbe to its Priceline account. For TP to properly assess his work performance, Jacolbe was 2012 up to his dismissal in March 2013, in violation of company-prescribed work standards. The NLRC noted that under TP's
required to meet the key performance metric targets [10] of, among others, an Average Handle Time (AHT) of 7.0 minutes or below. [11] The classification of offenses, such violation is considered gross negligence punishable by termination of employment on the fourth offense.
[35]
 Notwithstanding this company rule, the NLRC pointed out that TP had in fact afforded Jacolbe with some measures of leniency by
26
continuing his employment and even enrolling him in its coaching and performance improvement programs, under the PIP and SMART persistent failure to meet the key performance metrics clearly illustrated gross inefficiency which is analogous to gross and habitual
Action Plan during the 3rd quarter of 2012 and again in January of 2013, to help him improve his AHT scores. [36] Despite TP's assistance neglect of duties justifying his dismissal. [53]Moreover, it stresses that Jacolbe's isolated Top Agent award which is completely unrelated
and leniency, however, Jacolbe still failed to meet the prescribed AHT mark. Thus, the NLRC held that Jacolbe's consistent failure to to his AHT scores – as it merely recognized him as having achieved a satisfactory score based on a survey feedback from one customer
meet the reasonable work standards set by TP for a prolonged period of time exhibited incompetence, inefficiency, and inability to in one day and during one call only – could not negate nor override his repeated poor work performance for the 62 consecutive weeks
proficiently resolve customer's problems that justified his dismissal. [37] that led to his dismissal.[54] For his part, Jacolbe simply maintains that there was no valid ground for his dismissal.[55]

Aggrieved, Jacolbe sought reconsideration[38] which the NLRC denied in a Resolution [39] dated May 20,2014. Thus, he filed a petition A valid dismissal necessitates compliance with both substantive and procedural due process requirements. Substantive due process
for certiorari[40] before the CA. mandates that an employee may be dismissed based only on just or authorized causes under Articles 297, 298, and 299 (formerly
Articles 282, 283, and 284) of the Labor Code, as amended. [56] On the other hand, procedural due process requires the employer to
comply with the requirements of notice and hearing before effecting the dismissal. In all cases involving termination of employment, the
burden of proving the existence of the above valid causes rests upon the employer. [57] The quantum of proof required in these cases is
The CA Ruling substantial evidence as discussed above.
In a Decision[41] dated September 8, 2016, the CA set aside the NLRC ruling, and accordingly, ordered TP to reinstate Jacolbe or pay
him separation pay in lieu thereof, as well as full backwages, inclusive of allowances, 13th month pay, salary differentials, holiday and In this relation, jurisprudence[58] instructs that gross inefficiency is analogous to gross and habitual neglect of duty [59] under Article 297 (e)
rest day premium pays, as well as service incentive leaves. It also remanded the case to the LA for the computation of the monetary in relation to Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, [60] for both involve specific acts of omission on the part of the employee
awards.[42] resulting in damage to the employer or to his business, and constituting, therefore, just cause to dismiss an employee, thus:

According to the CA, meeting the prescribed AHT metric is only one of the determining factors in evaluating a CSR's performance and, "[G]ross inefficiency" falls within the purview of "other causes analogous to the foregoing," [and] constitutes, therefore, just cause to
in fact, Jacolbe was awarded as Top Agent in December 2012 which thus contradicts the charge of poor performance. In any case, terminate an employee under Article 282 [now under Article 297] of the Labor Code[, as amended]. One is analogous to another if it is
assuming that his failure to meet the 7-minute AHT mark from January 2012 to March 2013 showed inefficiency, the CA held that the susceptible of comparison with the latter either in general or in some specific detail; or has a close relationship with the latter.  "Gross
same does not appear to be gross and habitual so as to warrant dismissal from employment. [43] inefficiency" is closely related to "gross neglect," for both involve specific acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in
Determined, TP sought reconsideration[44] which the CA denied in a Resolution[45] dated August 7, 2017; hence, this petition. damage to the employer or to his business.[61] (Emphasis supplied)

The Issue Before the Court In Buiser v. Leogardo, Jr.,[62] the Court explained that such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals  or work quotas,
either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. [63] Further, in San
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly set aside the NLRC ruling, and accordingly, held that Miguel Corporation v. NLRC,[64] the Court held that an employer is entitled to prescribe reasonable work standards, rules, and
Jacolbe was illegally dismissed. regulations necessary for the conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement them, and to assure
that the same would be complied with. [65]This management prerogative of requiring standards may be availed of so long as they are
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest. [66]
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious. In this case, records reveal that Jacolbe's AHT scores for 62 consecutive weeks, or from January 2012 up to his dismissal in March
2013, were well above the 7 minutes or lower AHT mark. [67] As he had been having difficulty meeting the same, TP allowed him to
At the outset, the Court stresses that the review in this Rule 45 petition of the CA's ruling in a labor case via a Rule 65 petition carries a continue in its employ and even enrolled him in its SMART Action and Performance Improvement Plans [68] twice – in July to August 2012
distinct approach. In a Rule 45 review, the Court examines the correctness of the CA's decision in contrast with the review of and again in January 2013 – to help him improve his AHT scores. [69] This notwithstanding, Jacolbe's AHT scores remained well above
jurisdictional errors under Rule 65. [46] Further, Rule 45 limits the review to questions of law. [47] In ruling for legal correctness, the Court the 7-minute AHT mark.[70]Undoubtedly, Jacolbe's repeated and consistent failure to meet the prescribed AHT mark over a prolonged
views the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari was presented to the CA. [48] Hence, the Court has to examine period of time falls squarely under the concept of gross inefficiency and is analogous to gross and habitual neglect of duty under Article
the CA Decision from the prism of whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the 297 of the Labor Code which justified his dismissal.
NLRC Decision.[49]
Moreover, the Court observes that the 7-minute AHT metric is not unique to Jacolbe as it is in fact a key performance metric, which
Grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, has been defined as the capricious and whimsical exercise of measures the effectivity and efficiency of a CSR in handling customer's concerns in each call. It applies to all employees assigned to the
judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to Priceline account who, save for a few including Jacolbe, have all been able to meet the same. [71] Along with the other key performance
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. [50] metrics, it was employed by TP to properly and reasonably assess the overall work performance of its employees. Notably, the AHT
metric per se is also used by TP for all employees in its other accounts, [72] and is in fact considered an established work performance
In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by evaluation metric within the business process outsourcing industry where TP belongs. Jacolbe's insistence that his Top Agent award for
substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a December 2012 contradicts the charge of inefficiency and poor performance does not deserve consideration. As records show, the Top
conclusion.[51] Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has basis in the evidence and the applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of Agent award is not a sufficient measure of an employee's overall work performance since it proceeded solely from a single customer's
discretion exists and the CA should so declare and accordingly, dismiss the petition. [52] feedback in one call on one given day. All told, the 7-minute AHT metric does not appear to be arbitrary and unreasonable. On the
contrary, the Court finds it necessary and relevant to the achievement of TP's objectives and a reasonable work standard imposed by
With these standards in mind, the Court finds that the NLRC Decision in this case was supported by substantial evidence and is TP in the exercise of its management prerogative.
consistent with law and jurisprudence as to the issues raised in the petition. Hence, the CA erroneously ascribed grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the NLRC in declaring that Jacolbe was validly dismissed. Accordingly, the NLRC's ruling must be reinstated. Anent the matter of procedural due process, Section 2 (1), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, [73] as
well as jurisprudence, [74] requires the employer to give the employee two (2) written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard.
The notices must consist of the following: first, a notice specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee
In its petition, TP maintains that the CA erred in declaring Jacolbe's dismissal invalid, ratiocinating that the latter had consistently failed reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; and second, a notice of termination indicating that upon due consideration of all
to meet the reasonable company-imposed performance targets, specifically the 7-minute AHT mark, for sixty-two (62) consecutive the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his dismissal.
weeks despite the opportunities and assistance extended to him to improve his performance. It argues that Jacolbe's continued and
27
Applying the above parameters to this case, the Court finds that TP sufficiently observed the standards of procedural due process in white crystalline substance were recovered from him. It likewise did not give credence to Acabo's defense of denial since he failed to
effecting Jacolbe's dismissal. First, TP issued Jacolbe a Notice to Explain specifying the ground for his possible dismissal,  i.e., that his show any ill motive on the part of the police officers to impute such crime to him.[13] Aggrieved, Acabo appealed[14] to the CA.
"work performance for the last 6 months is unsatisfactory due to [his] consistent failure to meet the [AHT] Goal in spite of being enrolled In a Decision[15] dated November 29, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that the prosecution was able to establish all the
in [its PIP]" which, if proven true, would constitute as an offense against its code of conduct warranting the termination of his elements of the crime charged, and that the integrity of the seized items was preserved. [16]
employment. The Notice also directed Jacolbe to explain, in writing, why he should not be subjected to appropriate corrective
action. Second, Jacolbe was able to submit letters[75] explaining his side, albeit he did not fully address the charge of consistently failing Hence, this appeal seeking that Acabo's conviction be overturned.
to meet the AHT metric. Third, a disciplinary conference was held on February 26, 2013 which provided Jacolbe another opportunity to
explain his side.[76] And fourth, TP served a written Notice of Termination after verifying the violation committed under Section V.B.4 of its
Code of Conduct and Zero Tolerance Policy, i.e., failure to meet account specific performance metrics or certification requirements. The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In fine, the Court finds ample evidence to support the findings of the NLRC that Jacolbe's dismissal was valid. Accordingly, the CA
committed reversible error in substituting its own judgment with that of the NLRC. While security of tenure is indeed constitutionally In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [17] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous
guaranteed, this should not be indiscriminately invoked to deprive an employer of its management prerogatives and right to shield itself drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti of the
from incompetence, inefficiency, and disobedience displayed by its employees, [77] as the Court finds in this case. crime.[18] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti  renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.[19]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 8, 2016 and the Resolution dated August 7, 2017 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08600 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated March 31, 2014 and the To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of
Resolution dated May 20, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. VAC-02-000080-2014 custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [20] As part of the chain of
are REINSTATED. custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation
SO ORDERED. contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [21] Hence, the failure to immediately mark
the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs,
as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain
21. G.R. No. 241081, February 11, 2019 of custody.[22]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BERNIDO ACABO Y AYENTO,[*]ACCUSED-APPELLANT. The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
9165 by RA 10640,[23] "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; [24] or (b) if
Assailed in this ordinary appeal [1] is the Decision[2] dated November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-HC No.
after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service  or the
02396, which affirmed the Decision[3] dated October 19, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Loay, Bohol, Branch 50 (RTC) in Crim. Case
media."[25] The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove
No. 1417, finding accused-appellant Bernido Acabo y Ayento (Acabo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of
any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [26]
Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, [4] otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a
procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [27] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety
The Facts
precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [28]
This case stemmed from an Information [5] filed before the RTC charging Acabo of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may
prosecution alleged that on September 12, 2009, members of the Provincial Mobile Group, Tagbilaran City successfully implemented a
not always be possible.[29] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the
buy-bust operation against Acabo, during which two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were recovered from him.
seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: ( a) there is a justifiable
Thereafter, Acabo and the seized items were brought to the Garcia-Hernandez Police Station, where the inventory was conducted in the
ground for non-compliance; and ( b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. [30] The foregoing is
presence of two (2) elected public officials, Barangay Kagawads Servidia Cuadra (Cuadra) and Alberto Ladaga (Ladaga), and a PDEA
based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), [31] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was
representative, IO1 John Carlo Daquiado (IO1 Daquiado). Afterwards, they went to the Bohol Provincial Police Office, where Media
later adopted into the text of RA 10640. [32] It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
Representative Dave Charles Responte (Media Representative Responte) signed [6] the Inventory of Property Seized/Confiscated [7] and
duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, [33] and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact,
the Certificate of Inventory. [8] The seized items were then brought to the crime laboratory, where, after examination, [9] the contents
because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[34]
thereof yielded positive for 0.08 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[10]
Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted
In defense, Acabo denied the charges against him, and instead, claimed that on September 12, 2009, he was on his way to his old
genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of
house to get some snacks when he noticed three (3) armed men by the road riding a motorcycle. Upon asking their purpose, they
these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to
responded that they would be arresting him for selling shabu. He then ran off because he was afraid of being arrested without
comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. [35] Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to
committing a crime, but eventually stopped when he heard a gunshot fired. He was then handcuffed and brought to the police station,
contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. [36] These considerations arise from the fact
where he saw items that were listed in the inventory sheet. He likewise saw two (2) barangay kagawads who signed the document. He
that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about the
averred that he was framed because he had a minor conflict with a certain PO3 Elvan Cadiz in a previous motorcycle accident. [11]
activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary
arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. [37]
In a Decision[12] dated October 19, 2016, the RTC found Acabo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly,
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. It ruled that the prosecution
Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,[38] issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
was able to establish that Acabo was arrested during a buy-bust operation wherein two (2) sachets containing a total of 0.08 gram of
"[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the
28
chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the presence. Here, while PO2 Tamara acknowledged the absence of the DOJ and media representatives during the aforementioned
proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity conduct, he failed to provide any justifiable reason for said absence. Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious
and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further attempts to contact the required witnesses, cannot be considered as a justifiable reason for non-compliance. In view of this unjustified
review."[39] deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
items purportedly seized from Acabo were compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.
In this case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct of the inventory and photography was not witnessed by
the DOJ and media representatives. The absence of the DOJ representative is evident from the Certificate of Inventory, [40] which only
shows the signatures of Media Representative Responte, Barangay Kagawads Cuadra and Ladaga, and IO1 Daquiado as witnesses. WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-HC No.
Such finding is confirmed by the testimony of the poseur buyer, PO2 Rolex Tamara[41] (PO2 Tamara), on direct examination, to wit: 02396 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Bernido Acabo yAyento is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody
[Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Aida Langcamon (APP Langcamon)]: How about the signatures below the phrase, "Witness in the for any other reason.
conduct of inventory", whose signatures are these?  SO ORDERED.
[PO2 Tamara]: These are the signatures of Dave Charles Responte from DYTR, the barangay kagawads of their barangay Manaba,
Servidia Cuadra, and Alberto Ladaga, and IO1 John Carlo Daquiado.
Q: How do you know that these are the signatures of the persons, which were named? 
A: I was present during the Inventory. 22. G.R. No. 238117, February 04, 2019
Q: Did you request them to sign on this Inventory? 
A: Yes Maam.[42] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN ALCONDE Y MADLA AND JULIUS QUERQUELA * Y REBACA,
xxxx ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Q: Attached to the record and marked as Exhibit E is a Certificate of Inventory, what relation that document has to the one you
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
mentioned having prepared? 
This is an ordinary appeal [1] filed by accused-appellants Edwin Alconde y Madla (Alconde) and Julius Querquelay Rebaca (Querquela;
A: This is the document that I mentioned.
collectively, accused-appellants) assailing the Decision[2] dated November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
Q: And will you please identify the signatures appearing on the lower most portion of that document? 
01578-MIN, which affirmed the Decision [3] dated November 10, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro
A: This is the signature of PCI Nicomedes Olaivar, Jr. as team leader; the signature of Dave Charles Responte; signature of Servidia
City, Branch 23 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos. CR-DRG-2015-414 and CR-DRG-2015-415, finding: (a) Alconde guilty beyond reasonable
Cuadra; Kagawad Alberto Ladaga, and IO1 John Carlo Daquiado, their signatures. [43]
doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, [4] otherwise
xxxx
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;" and (b) accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of the same Act.
Q: What about this space provided for Department of Justice, will you explain before this Honorable Court why this is blank or why there
is no signature on that space provided for?  The Facts
A: When we went to the Provincial Fiscal's Office, there was no available representative who will sign. [44]

Moreover, although Media Representative Responte signed the Inventory of Property Seized/Confiscated and the Certificate of This case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations [5] filed before the RTC, respectively charging Alconde of Illegal Possession of
Inventory, he did not actually witness the conduct of the inventory and photography of the seized items at the Garcia-Hernandez Police Dangerous Drugs and accused-appellants of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The prosecution alleged that on August 9, 2015, the
Station. As the records show, PO2 Tamara testified on cross-examination that the police officers only contacted the media members of the Puerto Police Station 6 arrested a certain Angkie [6] for violation of RA 9165 and held him for further questioning. In the
representative upon reaching Tagbilaran, particularly at the Bohol Provincial Police Office, [45] where Media Representative Responte course thereof, Angkie revealed that Alconde was his source of shabu,  prompting Police Officer 3 Armando Occeña Agravante (PO3
apparently signed the said certification, viz.: Agravante) to arrange a meet-up with the latter in Purok 7, Balubal, Cagayan de Oro City. Accordingly, a buy-bust operation was
conducted, and the team proceeded to the said area. [7] When accused-appellants arrived, PO3 Agravante immediately handed over the
Q: So this means that that (sic) Certificate of Inventory and Receipt of Property Seized would be prepared and signed by persons who P1,000.00 worth of marked money to Querquela; in exchange, Alconde gave the two (2) sachets containing a total of 0.1903 gram
were not present during the inventory, because you attempted to go to the Fiscal's office to have the Fiscal sign in the space provided of shabu  to PO3 Agravante. [8] Shortly thereafter, PO3 Agravante executed the pre-arranged signal, prompting Senior Police Officer 1
for the Department of Justice?  Rey Abecia to rush towards the scene and restrain Alconde. Meanwhile, PO3 Agravante frisked Querquela and recovered from him the
A: Based on our operation, if we have to serve a search warrant, all those persons mentioned in the inventory are together with us, but marked money. He likewise performed a body search on Alconde, from whom he recovered one (1) sachet containing 1.2347 grams of
since this is a buy bust operation, usually, the one who will sign is the barangay official only.  Like in this case, there is no media marijuana fruit tops. [9] Subsequently, the seized items were photographed only in the presence of accused-appellants. [10] Not long after,
representative in Garcia-Hernandez so only the PDEA and the barangay officials. accused-appellants were brought to the police station where the requisite marking and inventory were conducted by PO3 Agravante in
Q: What I am emphasizing Mr. Witness is that, in order to have that space signed or somebody will sign on that space, you will have to the presence of accused-appellants and Barangay Captain Vivian Malingin (Brgy. Capt. Malingin). [11]The seized items were then
go to other place to look for representative like this one, the representative of the Department of Justice?  delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City wherein upon examination, tested positive for the presence of
A: We have to have it signed but since there is no media representative who will always be going with us, so like this case, upon methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu  and marijuana, both dangerous drugs. [12]
reaching Tagbilaran, we have to call up a media representative.
COURT: What are the wordings of that document to be signed by the media? Does it say that they are signing because they saw the
In his defense, Querquela denied the allegations against him, claiming that at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of August 9, 2015,
items found by the search team or they just sign that these are the items.
three (3) unidentified persons suddenly flagged him down and accosted him while he was on his way to the habal-habal  terminal.
[Atty. Jesus Bautista, Jr.]: According to the document, Certificate of Inventory and the Receipt of Property Seized, they are witnesses.  
Subsequently, the said men, who later on identified themselves as police officers, instructed him to bring them to his hut where Alconde
[APP Langcamon]: Witnesses in the conduct of inventory, insofar as inventory of property seized and confiscated. [46]
was being interrogated. Afterwards, accused-appellants were brought to the Puerto Police Station. [13]
As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason
therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their
29
For his part, Alconde averred that at the time of the incident, he was simply sleeping in the hut of Querquela when an unknown person photographs was immediately done upon the arrest but only in the presence of accused-appellants. It was only later when the police
kicked the door open, pointed a gun at him, tied his hands with a rope, and brought him outside the hut. Thereafter, accused-appellants officers proceeded to the police precinct that a singular witness, Brgy. Capt. Malingin (an elected public official), was called to attend the
were brought to the police station, where Alconde was directed to hold one (1) small sachet of marijuana while a police officer took marking and inventory of the confiscated items. Evidently, this procedure veers away from what is prescribed by law.
pictures of the same.[14]
At this juncture, it is important to note that compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been
In a Decision[15] dated November 10, 2016, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes regarded "not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [33] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by
charged: (a) in Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2015-414 for the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, Alconde was sentenced to Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, imprisonment."[34] This notwithstanding, the Court has recognized that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not
and ordered to pay a fine of P300,000.00; and (b) in Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2015-415 for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous always be possible due to varying field conditions. [35] As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same
Drugs, accused-appellants were sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay the amount of P500,000.00 would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily
each as fine.[16] The RTC found the elements of the crimes of Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs to be present, as proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
the same were duly proved in light of the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. [17] On the other hand, it rejected accused- properly preserved.[36] The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a),[37]Article II of the Implementing Rules and
appellants' defense of denial, for it failed to prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. [18] Aggrieved, accused- Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. [38]
appellants appealed[19] to the CA.
Anent the witness requirement, it is settled that non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending
officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. [39] In this
In a Decision[20] dated November 29, 2017, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC's ruling that accused-appellants are guilty of the crimes case, however, no plausible explanation was given by the police officers as to why all the required witnesses were not around during the
charged.[21] It ruled that the prosecution competently established all the elements of the crimes of Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of conduct of inventory and photography of the confiscated items. Neither was it shown that genuine and sufficient efforts were made to
Dangerous Drugs. It likewise held that the chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs was substantially complied with, as it was secure the presence of all the witnesses, as in fact, it was only "after the consummation of the buy-bust operation" when PO3 Agravante
shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved. [22] Meanwhile, it found that the inconsistencies in called Brgy. Capt. Malingin to witness the marking and inventory of the confiscated items. [40]
the testimonies of the police officers did not actually detract from the truth and were thus too trivial to affect what was already proven by
the prosecution, i.e., the fact that accused-appellants acted in concert in selling shabu to PO3 Agravante.[23] Thus, in view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from accused-appellants had been compromised, which consequently warrants their
Hence, this appeal. acquittal.

The Issue Before the Court WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
01578-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET  ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Edwin Alconde y Madla and Julius
Querquela y  Rebaca are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause their
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld accused-appellants' conviction for the crimes charged. immediate release, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

SO ORDERED.
The Court's Ruling
23. G.R. No. 232687, February 04, 2019
The appeal is meritorious. SLORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. BENERANDO M. NOYA, RESPONDENT.
[24]
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165,  it is essential that the identity of the dangerous PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the  corpus delicti of the Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated January 25, 2017 and the Resolution [3]dated July 7, 2017 of the
crime.[25] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti  renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138705, which reversed and set aside the Decision [4] dated September 30, 2014 and the
beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquitta1.[26] Resolution[5] dated November 14, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC Case No. 09-002333-14. The
NLRC declared that while respondent Benerando M. Noya (respondent) committed an act of disloyalty that caused his expulsion from
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of the union and legal dismissal from work pursuant to the closed shop provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), petitioner
custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [27] As part of the chain of Slord Development Corporation (petitioner) failed to properly observe the procedure in dismissing respondent, and thereby, ordered
custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted petitioner to pay respondent P10,000.00 as nominal damages.
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same, although jurisprudence recognized that "marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [28]

Pertinent to this case, the law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the The Facts
person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to
the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, [29] a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice, and any elected public Respondent was employed on September 9, 2008 as a welder by petitioner, a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
official;[30] or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National manufacturing and processing of sardines and other canned goods. [6] Respondent's employment was covered by a CBA [7] effective April
Prosecution Service OR the media.[31] The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the 14, 2009 to April 15, 2014 between petitioner and Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa-Katipunan (NLM-Katipunan), the company's
chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [32] sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the regular rank-and-file employees. [8] Among its provisions was a union security clause,
which reads:
In this case, the inventory and photography of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of the required witnesses, namely:
an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. As the records show, the taking of ARTICLE II
30
UNION SECURITY
xxxx In a Decision[23] dated September 30, 2014, the NLRC affirmed the LA Decision with modification, ordering petitioner to pay respondent
P10,000.00 as nominal damages.[24] In so ruling, the NLRC held that while respondent had committed an act of disloyalty that caused his
expulsion from NLM-Katipunan and subsequent dismissal from work pursuant to the closed shop agreement provision of the CBA,
Section 3. Dismissal. – Any new employee covered by the bargaining unit, who attains regular status in the COMPANY but fails to join petitioner failed to provide respondent ample opportunity to defend himself through written notices and subsequent hearing. [25]
the UNION mentioned in Section 2 hereof, and any union member who is expelled from the UNION or fails to maintain their membership
in the UNION, like: Dissatisfied, respondent moved for reconsideration [26] but the same was denied in a Resolution [27] dated November 14, 2014. Hence,
respondent elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari,[28] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 138705.
1) non-payment of union dues;
The CA Ruling
2) resignation or abandonment from the UNION; In a Decision[29] dated January 25, 2017, the CA granted respondent's petition, finding his dismissal to be illegal. [30]Accordingly, it ordered
petitioner to immediately reinstate respondent and pay his full backwages and other allowances, computed from the time he was illegally
3) refusal to sign check-off authorization in favor of the UNION; dismissed up to the time of actual reinstatement, plus attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. [31] It
found no just cause in terminating respondent's employment for lack of sufficient evidence to support the union's decision to expel him,
explaining that the act of soliciting signatures on a blank yellow paper was not prohibited under the Labor Code nor could it be
4) organizing or joining another labor UNION or any other labor group; automatically considered as an act of disloyalty. Finally, it also found respondent to have been deprived of procedural due process. [32]

5) violation of UNION'S Constitution and By-Laws; Petitioner moved for reconsideration[33] but the same was denied in a Resolution[34] dated July 7, 2017; hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court


6) any criminal act or violent conduct of activity against the UNION and its members;
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA was correct in ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed.
7) participation in any unfair labor practice or violation of this agreement; and
The Court's Ruling
8) refusal to abide with any resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the General Membership of the UNION and by NLM- The petition is meritorious.
KATIPUNAN, shall upon written demand to the COMPANY by the UNION, be dismissed from employment by the COMPANY.
x x x x[9] At the outset, it bears stressing that only questions of law may be raised in and resolved by this Court on petitions brought under Rule
45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. [35] When supported by substantial evidence, the Court cannot inquire into the veracity of the CA's
Petitioner claimed that sometime in December 2013, respondent asked several employees to affix their signatures on a blank sheet of factual findings, which are final, binding, and conclusive upon this Court. However, when the CA's factual findings are contrary to those
yellow paper for the purpose of forming a new union, prompting the president of NLM-Katipunan to file expulsion proceedings against of the administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated, [36] the Court may examine the facts only
him for disloyalty.[10] Subsequently, or on February 9, 2014, respondent organized[11] a new union named the Bantay Manggagawa sa for the purpose of resolving allegations and determining the existence of grave abuse of discretion. This is consistent with the ruling that
SLORD Development Corporation (BMSDC), which he registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on February in a Rule 45 review in labor cases, the Court examines the CA's Decision from the prism of whether the latter had correctly determined
20, 2014.[12] the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's Decision. [37]
In the ensuing investigation, respondent failed to appear and participate at the scheduled hearings before the union. Thus, NLM- In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by
Katipunan resolved,[13] with the ratification of its members, to expel respondent on the ground of disloyalty. Accordingly, a notice of substantial evidence, which refer to that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
expulsion[14] dated February 27, 2014 was issued by NLM-Katipunan to respondent. Subsequently, a letter [15] dated March 16, 2014 was conclusion. Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has basis in the evidence and the applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of
sent by NLM-Katipunan to petitioner, demanding his termination from employment pursuant to the union security clause of the CBA. discretion exists and the CA should so declare and, accordingly, dismiss the petition. [38]
After notifying respondent of the union's decision to expel him and showing him all the documents attached to the union's demand for his
dismissal, respondent's employment was terminated on March 19, 2014.[16] Under the parameter above-described and after a thorough evaluation of the evidence, the Court finds that the CA erroneously ascribed
[17] grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, whose Decision was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law and
Consequently, respondent filed a complaint  for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and illegal deduction against petitioner before jurisprudence.
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), asserting that he did not violate any CBA provision since he validly organized
BMSDC during the freedom period.[18]
Case law states that in order to effect a valid dismissal of an employee, both substantial and procedural due process must be observed
The Labor Arbiter's (LA) Ruling by the employer.[39] An employee's right not to be dismissed without just or authorized cause, as provided by law, is covered by his right
In a Decision[19] dated August 27, 2014, the LA dismissed the case for lack of merit, [20] ruling that respondent's dismissal was neither to substantial due process. On the other hand, compliance with procedure provided in the Labor Code constitutes the procedural due
illegal nor an unfair labor practice. Among others, the LA held that petitioner was duty-bound to terminate respondent's employment process right of an employee.[40]
after having been expelled by NLM-Katipunan for organizing a rival union. Notably, NLM-Katipunan has a valid closed shop agreement
in the CBA that required the members to remain with the union as a condition for continued employment. [21] While not explicitly mentioned in the Labor Code, [41] case law recognizes that dismissal from employment due to the enforcement of the
union security clause in the CBA is another just cause for termination of employment. [42] Similar to the enumerated just causes in the
Aggrieved, respondent appealed[22] to the NLRC. Labor Code, the violation of a union security clause amounts to a commission of a wrongful act or omission out of one's own volition;
hence, it can be said that the dismissal process was initiated not by the employer but by the employee's indiscretion. [43] Further, a
The NLRC Ruling stipulation in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of employees is of equal import as the statutory provisions on dismissal under the Labor
31
Code, since a CBA is the law between the company and the union and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy to give attesting to respondent's act of soliciting signatures for the purpose of forming a new union; [53] (d) an affidavit[54] of NLM-Katipunan
protection to labor;[44] thus, there is parallel treatment between just causes and violation of the union security clause. President Lolita Abong, further corroborating Gonzales' statement and formally lodging a complaint against respondent before the union;
[55]
 and (e) an application for registration[56] of BMSDC, showing that respondent formed and organized BMSDC on February 9, 2014. [57]
Pertinent is Article 259 (formerly 248), paragraph (e) of the Labor Code, which states that "[n]othing in this Code or in any other law shall
stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those Notably, in contrast to the factual milieu of PICOP Resources, Incorporated v. Tañeca ,[58] which was relied upon by the CA, respondent,
employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. x x x" The in this case, did not only solicit support in the formation of a new union but actually formed and organized a rival union, BMSDC, outside
stipulation in a CBA based on this provision of the Labor Code is commonly known as the "union security clause." the freedom period. Similarly, in Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC ,[59] the Court ruled that the organization by union members of a
rival union outside the freedom period, without first terminating their membership in the union and without the knowledge of the officers
of the latter union, is considered an act of disloyalty, for which the union members may be sanctioned. [60] As an act of loyalty, a union
"Union security is a generic term which is applied to and comprehends 'closed shop,' 'union shop,' 'maintenance of membership' or any may require its members not to affiliate with any other labor union and to consider its infringement as a reasonable cause for separation,
other form of agreement which imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting pursuant to the union security clause in its CBA. Having ratified the CBA and being members of the union, union members owe fealty
employment. There is union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain period for their and are required under the union security clause to maintain their membership in good standing during the term thereof. This
continued employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees, who are union members as of the effective date of requirement ceases to be binding only during the sixty (60)-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA, which
the agreement, or who thereafter become members, must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until enjoys the principle of sanctity or inviolability of contracts guaranteed by the Constitution. [61]
they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit, or the agreement is terminated. A closed shop, on the other hand, may be
defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person may be Thus, based on the above-discussed circumstances, the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that there existed just cause
employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, to validly terminate respondent's employment. This notwithstanding, petitioner, however, failed to observe the proper procedure in
remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part." [45] terminating respondent's employment, warranting the payment of nominal damages.
This is consistent with the State policy to promote unionism to enable workers to negotiate with management on an even playing field
and with more persuasiveness than if they were to individually and separately bargain with the employer. Thus, the law has allowed In Distribution & Control Products, Inc. v. Santos ,[62] the Court has explained that procedural due process consists of the twin
stipulations for "union shop" and "closed shop" as means of encouraging workers to join and support the union of their choice in the requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two (2) written notices before the termination of
protection of their rights and interest vis-a-vis the employer.[46] employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and
(2) the second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as
To validly terminate the employment of an employee through the enforcement of the union security clause, the following requisites must there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. [63]
concur: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the
CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee from the union. [47] Here, records fail to show that petitioner accorded respondent ample opportunity to defend himself through written notices and
subsequent hearing. Thus, as held by the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, respondent's right to procedural due process was violated,
In this case, the Court finds the confluence of the foregoing requisites, warranting the termination of respondent's employment. entitling him to the payment of nominal damages, which the Court deems proper to increase from P10,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with
existing jurisprudence. It is settled that in cases involving dismissals for just cause but without observance of the twin requirements of
notice and hearing, the validity of the dismissal shall be upheld, but the employer shall be ordered to pay nominal damages in the
It is undisputed that the CBA contains a closed shop agreement stipulating that petitioner's employees must join NLM-Katipunan and amount of P30,000.00.[64]
remain to be a member in good standing; otherwise, through a written demand, NLM-Katipunan can insist the dismissal of an employee.
Notably, the Court has consistently upheld the validity of a closed shop agreement as a form of union security clause. In  BPI v. BPI WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 25, 2017 and the Resolution dated July 7, 2017 of the Court of
Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank [48] the Court has explained that: Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138705 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated September 30, 2014 and the
Resolution dated November 14, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 09-002333-14
When certain employees are obliged to join a particular union as a requisite for continued employment, as in the case of Union Security are REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION increasing the award of nominal damages to P30,000.00.
Clauses, this condition is a valid restriction of the freedom or right not to join any labor organization because it is in favor of unionism.
This Court, on occasion, has even held that a union security clause in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association SO ORDERED.
guaranteed by the Constitution.

Moreover, a closed shop agreement is an agreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only members of the contracting union
who must continue to remain members in good standing to keep their jobs. It is "the most prized achievement of unionism." It adds 24. G.R. No. 238815, March 18, 2019
membership and compulsory dues. By holding out to loyal members a promise of employment in the closed shop, it wields group
solidarity.[49]
RAQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN 2 ND DIVISION,
RESPONDENTS.
Further, records show that NLM-Katipunan requested the enforcement of the union security clause by demanding the dismissal of
respondent from employment. In a letter [50] dated March 16, 2014, NLM-Katipunan asked petitioner to dismiss respondent from
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
employment for having committed an act of disloyalty in violation of the CBA's union security clause. NLM-Katipunan explained that
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated March 9, 2018 and the Resolution [3] dated April 23, 2018 of
respondent solicited support from employees and thereafter, formed and organized a new union outside the freedom period, or from
the Sandiganbayan (SB) in Crim. Case No. SB-13-CRM-0595, which found petitioner Raquil-Ali M. Lucman (Lucman) guilty beyond
February 14, 2014 to April 14, 2014.
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, [4]entitled the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."
Finally, there is sufficient evidence to support the union's decision to expel respondent. Particularly, NLM-Katipunan presented to
The Facts
petitioner: (a) a written statement of one Elaine Rosel (Rosel), stating that respondent and one Henry Cabasa went to her house on
December 13, 2013 to convince her to join in forming another union and made her sign on a yellow paper; [51] (b) a joint written statement
of Meliorita V. Nolla and Emilda S. Rubido, corroborating Rosel's claim; [52] (c) a written statement of one Joselito Gonzales (Gonzales),
32
The instant case stemmed from an Information [5] charging Lucman of violation of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019, the accusatory portion of The petition is without merit.
which states:

On 8 September 2009 to 16 October 2009, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in General Santos City, Philippines, and within the Section 3 (c) of RA 3019 states:
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, RACQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN, a public officer being then the OIC-Regional
Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region XII, committing the offense in relation to and in Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers . - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
abuse of his office, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully, and criminally request for himself the amount of Two Million Five Hundred following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) from Sergio Balolong, Aladin Saydala, and Hadji Abdulwahid D. Bualan, and actually receive the xxxx
amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) from the said parties, in consideration for the assistance of
accused Lucman in the investigation, processing, and approval of the aforementioned parties' application over two (2) parcels of
alienable and disposable public lands located at Brgys. Olympog and Tambler, General Santos City. (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from
any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government
permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]

The prosecution alleged that sometime in August 2009, private complainants Hadji Abdulwahid D. Bualan (Bualan), Sergio Balolong As may be gleaned from above, the elements of the crime charged are as follows: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he has secured
(Balolong), and Aladin Saydala (Saydala; collectively, private complainants) went to the office of Lucman, then the Officer-in-Charge or obtained, or would secure or obtain, for a person any government permit or license; (3) he directly or indirectly requested or received
(OIC)-Regional Executive Director (RED) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region XII, to discuss with from said person any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another; and (4) he requested or received the
the latter their intended applications for the issuance of Free Patent title. During the said meeting, Lucman allegedly demanded Two gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in consideration for help given or to be given. [20]
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) from them as consideration for the grant of their applications. Private After a judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the SB correctly convicted Lucman for violating Section 3 (c) of RA
complainants acceded but asked to pay in installments. [7] Subsequently, on September 4, 2009, Bualan applied for Free Patents on 3019. It is undisputed that Lucman was a public officer at the time the offense was committed, then being the OIC-RED of the DENR,
behalf of Balolong and Saydala before the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of General Santos City. On Region XII. As the OIC-RED, he had the authority to grant applications for Free Patents, such as the ones filed by private complainants.
[21]
September 8, 2009, Lucman called up Bualan and demanded Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as part of their agreement,  It was likewise established through the testimony of Bualan and the evidence on record that Lucman demanded Two Million Five
as the former needed the money for his trip to Manila. Complying with Lucman's demand, Bualan proceeded to Tambler International Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) and actually received One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) [22] from
Airport where he gave Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Lucman's driver for which the latter signed a cash voucher. private complainants, and that these amounts were for and in consideration of the grant of their applications. [23]
[8]
 Thereafter, Bualan regularly followed up their applications with Lucman, but the latter told him to wait for two (2) to three (3) months
for approval.[9] On October 16, 2009, Lucman again called up Bualan and told him to go to the house of Balolong for the payment of One In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to overturn the SB's findings, as there is no showing that it overlooked,
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). Thereat, Balolong allegedly issued a check worth One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) for which Lucman misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of this case, and considering further the fact that it was in the
signed a check voucher.[10] However, despite the payment of a total of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00), their best position to assess and determine the credibility of the parties' witnesses. [24] As such, Lucman's conviction for violation of Section 3
applications remained pending. Thus, private complainants filed a joint complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of General (c) of RA 3019 must stand.
Santos City.[11]
As regards the proper penalty to be imposed on Lucman, Section 9 (a) [25] of RA 3019, as amended,[26] states that the prescribed
Pleading "not guilty" to the charge, [12] Lucman denied demanding and receiving money from private complainants for and in penalties for a violation of the said crime includes,  inter alia, imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month to fifteen (15)
consideration of the approval of their Free Patent applications. He claimed that Bualan merely wanted to destroy his honor and integrity. years and perpetual disqualification from public office. Taking into consideration the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
[27]
[13]
 He further claimed that Bualan's testimony cannot be given any weight since it was not corroborated either by other witnesses or by  which states that "in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by acts of the Philippine Legislature, otherwise than by the
supporting documents.[14] Revised Penal Code, the court shall order the accused to be imprisoned for a minimum term, which shall not be less than the minimum
term of imprisonment provided by law for the offense, and for a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed law," [28] the
The SB Ruling Court deems it proper to modify Lucman's sentence to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as
In a Decision[15] dated March 9, 2018, the SB found Lucman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification to hold public office.
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month with perpetual disqualification to hold WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 9, 2018 and the Resolution dated April 23, 2018 of
public office.[16] the Sandiganbayan  in Crim. Case No. SB-13-CRM-0595 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Raquil-Ali M. Lucman
The SB found that the prosecution had established all the elements for violation of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019, considering that: ( a) is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the "Anti-Graft and
Lucman was the OIC-RED of the DENR, Region XII at the time of the commission of the offense; ( b) as the OIC-RED, he had authority Corrupt Practices Act," and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and
to grant applications for Free Patent, such as the ones applied for by private complainants; ( c) he demanded Two Million Five Hundred one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) and actually received One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) from private
complainants; and (d) the amount was for and in consideration of the grant of such applications.[17] SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, Lucman moved for reconsideration, [18] which was, however, denied in a Resolution [19] dated April 23, 2018; hence, this 25. G.R. No. 240676, March 18, 2019
petition.
JIMMY LIM PALACIOS, PETITIONER, V. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
The Issue Before the Court
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The primordial issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the SB correctly convicted Lucman for the crime of violation of Section 3 Assailed in this petition[1] for review on certiorari are the Decision[2] dated January 18, 2018 and the Resolution [3]dated July 11/2018
(c) of RA 3019. rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150260, which upheld the Orders dated October 5, 2016 [4] and January 25,
2017[5] of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 86 (RTC) denying petitioner Jimmy Lim Palacios' (petitioner) motion for
reinvestigation and to recall warrant of arrest.
The Court's Ruling
33
The Facts unless the reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent
officer."[30] Section 1,[31] Rule 112 of the Rules of Court requires the conduct of a preliminary investigation before the filing of a complaint
The present case stemmed from a complaint[6] for violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9262 [7]otherwise known as the "Anti- or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" filed by Maria Cecilia Ramirez (Ramirez) against petitioner. Ramirez alleged regard to fine.
that she and petitioner were married [8] on November 17, 1987 and thereafter, had a son. [9]However, petitioner abandoned them and
refused to give them financial support, acts which constitute economic abuse under Section 5 (i) of RA 9262. Further, in In this case, although the OCP-QC conducted a preliminary investigation relative to the complaint filed by Ramirez against petitioner, the
her Sinumpaang-Reklamong Salaysay filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City (OCP-QC), she alleged that latter bewails the lack of notice to him of the proceedings, which resulted in his failure to participate in the preliminary investigation. He
petitioner's residence where he may be served with summons is Block 3 Lot 24 Turquoise St., Las Piñas Royale Estate, Naga Road, claims that Ramirez committed fraud by intentionally giving the wrong address in her  Sinumpaang-Reklamong Salaysay instead of his
Brgy. Pulang Lupa Dos, Las Piñas City. true and correct residence address, which is Block 9 Lot 6 Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon IV, Las Piñas City, as evidenced by: (a) a
Certification[32] dated July 10, 2017 issued by Barangay Talon Kuatro, Las Piñas City; (b) his Seaman's Service Record Book; [33] and (c)
In a Resolution[10] dated March 19, 2015, the OCP-QC recommended that petitioner be indicted for the crime charged. In resolving the their Marriage Contract[34] dated November 17, 1987. To bolster his claim that Ramirez was fully aware of his correct address, he pointed
case based on the evidence proffered solely by Ramirez, the investigating prosecutor held that petitioner failed to appear during the out that in the petition[35] for declaration of nullity of their marriage and the Affidavit of Withdrawal [36] dated May 3, 1990, both of which
preliminary investigation and submit his counter-affidavit despite being given ample opportunity to do so. [11] Consequently, the Ramirez filed, she indicated his address at Block 9 Lot 6 [37] Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. Thus, petitioner contends
corresponding Information[12] was filed before the RTC, docketed as Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286 and a warrant [13] for petitioner's that he was denied due process when Ramirez supplied the wrong address when she filed the present complaint against him.
arrest was issued pursuant to the RTC Order[14] dated May 12, 2015 (May 12, 2015 Order).
Due process is comprised of two (2) components – substantive due process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering
Sometime in September 2016, petitioner, through his lawyer, filed before the RTC an extremely very urgent motion for reinvestigation with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, and procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice
and to recall warrant of arrest, [15] decrying violation of his right to due process upon learning of the case that Ramirez filed against him and hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal. [38] The essence of procedural due process
and the RTC's May 12, 2015 Order directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest. He averred that he only learned of the subject is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. [39] "Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the
complaint when, in a criminal case that he had filed against her, his lawyer was furnished with a copy of her  Kontra-Salaysay[16] where proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their interests, and upon notice, they may claim the right
the May 12, 2015 Order was attached as an annex. He further alleged that he would not have been denied of his right to due process to appear therein and present their side and to refute the position of the opposing parties." [40]
and to a preliminary investigation had Ramirez not concealed his true and correct address, i.e., Block 9 Lot 6 Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon IV,
Las Piñas City. As a result of the fraud employed by Ramirez, petitioner asserted that he was not able to interpose his valid and The Court has punctiliously examined the available records of this case and found no showing that indeed, petitioner had been duly
meritorious defenses to show that no probable cause exists to charge him in this case. [17] notified of the charges filed against him by Ramirez or served with a subpoena relative to the preliminary investigation conducted by the
OCP-QC. The Court therefore takes exception to the CA's observation [41]that petitioner failed to prove that he was denied participation in
The RTC Ruling the preliminary investigation, for it would have been impossible for him to prove such negative allegation. Instead, under the
circumstances, it was incumbent upon respondent to show that petitioner had been duly notified of the proceedings and that, despite
In an Order [18] dated October 5, 2016, the RTC denied petitioner's motion, citing A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC [19] which states that a motion for notice, he still failed to appear or participate thereat. In the absence of such proof, the Court therefore finds that petitioner had not been
preliminary investigation shall only be granted where the accused was subjected to inquest proceedings, [20] which was not the case here. given an opportunity to be heard. Case law states that "[w]hen service of notice is an issue, the rule is that the person alleging that the
notice was served must prove the fact of service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence." [42]
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration[21] was denied in an Order[22] dated January 25, 2017. Thus, he elevated the case to the CA via a It bears to stress that the right to preliminary investigation is substantive, not merely formal or technical. [43] As such, to deny petitioner's
petition for certiorari[23] ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. motion for reinvestigation on the basis of the provisions of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right
to due process[44] on purely procedural grounds. Thus, the courts a quo should allow petitioner to be accorded the right to submit
The CA Ruling counter-affidavits and evidence in a preliminary investigation for, after all, "the fiscal is not called by the Rules of Court to wait in
In a Decision[24] dated January 18, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed RTC Orders upon finding that petitioner ambush; the role of a fiscal is not mainly to prosecute but essentially to do justice to every man and to assist the court in dispensing that
was given the opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation, based on the certification [25] of Assistant City Prosecutor Pedro justice."[45]
M. Tresvalles (ACP Tresvalles) dated March 19, 2015. Likewise, it was observed that ACP Tresvalles had examined Ramirez's
statements and the pieces of evidence, and on the basis thereof, found that there was probable cause. Furthermore, it was determined Contrary to the CA's conclusion, the fact that ACP Tresvalles certified in the Information that: (a) he had conducted the preliminary
that the accused was informed of the complaint and evidence against him and was given an opportunity to submit controverting investigation in accordance with law and examined Ramirez's statements and pieces of evidence; and (b) the accused was informed of
evidence. Finally, the CA affirmed the RTC's finding that pursuant to A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC, a motion for preliminary investigation shall the complaint and evidence against him, and thus, given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence, should not suffice in light of
only be granted when accused was subjected to inquest proceedings, which was not so in this case. [26] the absence of notice to petitioner regarding the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Given petitioner's insistence that Ramirez
provided the wrong address in her complaint, it behooved the respondent to show that petitioner was duly notified at the said address,
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration[27] was denied in a Resolution[28] dated July 11, 2018; hence, this petition. especially in light of the fact that the warrant for his arrest was returned unserved [46] at the said address. Such failure, to the Court's
mind, compounded the violation of petitioner's constitutionally-guaranteed right to due process. Besides, the said certification in the
The Issue Before the Court Information is merely pro forma, and hence, does not enjoy the presumption of regularity in its issuance. [47] Consequently, Crim. Case
No. R-QZN-15-04286 pending before the RTC must be suspended until the completion of a preliminary investigation in order to afford
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in upholding the denial of petitioner's motion for preliminary petitioner a chance to present his counter-affidavit and any countervailing evidence.
investigation and to recall warrant of arrest.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 18, 2018 and the Resolution dated July 11, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 150260 upholding the Orders dated October 5, 2016 and January 25, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
The Court's Ruling Branch 86 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City is hereby ORDERED to conduct forthwith a
The petition is impressed with merit. preliminary investigation on the charge of violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 against petitioner Jimmy Lim Palacios. The
trial on the merits of Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286 shall be SUSPENDED until the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. No
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief pronouncement as to costs.
that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. [29] The rationale of
preliminary investigation is to "protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense[,] and burden of defending himself in a formal trial SO ORDERED.
34
26. A.M. No. P-19-3919 (formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3630-P), April 02, 2019 In recommending the penalty to be imposed, the OCA pointed out that Beligolo had previously been found guilty of Simple Neglect of
Duty in A.M. No. P-13-3154 [17] and had been ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00. The penalty for a second offense of simple neglect of
IONE BETHELDA C. RAMOS, COMPLAINANT, V. REBA A. BELIGOLO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL duty is dismissal from service However, the OCA recommended that the penalty be mitigated and a fine be imposed instead, absent any
COURT IN CITIES, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, RESPONDENT. showing that Beligolo committed the infraction in bad faith or with fraud. [18]

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: The Issue Before the Court


For the Court's resolution is a Complaint [1] dated March 21, 2011 filed by complainant Ione Bethelda C. Ramos (Ramos) charging The issue before the Court is whether or not Beligolo should be held administratively liable for simple neglect of duty.
respondent Reba A. Beligolo (Beligolo), Court Stenographer III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon (MTCC) with
Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee.
The Court's Ruling
The Facts The Court adopts the findings and the recommendation of the OCA except as to the recommended penalty.

Ramos was the attorney-in-fact of Rogelio Tamin, the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer case entitled " Rogelio E. Tamin, represented by
Preliminarily, records show that no evidence was presented to support Ramos's allegation as regards Beligolo's irate, sarcastic, and
Attorney-in-Fact Ione Bethelda C. Ramos v. Bernadeth Lavina and Mildred Lavina ," docketed as Civil Case No. 2185, pending before disrespectful behavior to render her liable for Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee. Nevertheless, she is administratively liable for
the MTCC. On February 25, 2011, then Acting Presiding Judge Mariflo S. Agreda (Judge Agreda) issued an order in open court
failing to prepare the Order of Referral in Civil Case No. 2185.
directing the parties in the said civil case to appear before the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) on March 17, 2011, and to obtain an
order of referral from the court prior to their appearance. [2] Pursuant to the said directive, Ramos made several follow-ups to the court for
the issuance of the same, but to no avail.[3] Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel [19] mandates that "[c]ourt personnel shall at all times perform official
duties properly and with diligence." The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the "[t]he conduct of every person connected with the
Two (2) days before the scheduled mediation, or on March 15, 2011, Ramos visited the court once more, to secure the said order. Upon administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. All public
her inquiry, the clerk of court looked for the records of the case then inquired about it from Beligolo, who " sarcastically answered that officers are accountable to the people at all times and must perform their duties and responsibilities with utmost efficiency and
she was not able to make the [o]rder of [r]eferral ."[4] The clerk of court then informed Ramos that the order could not be signed since competence."[20] "Any task given to an employee of the judiciary, however menial it may be, must be done in the most prompt and
Judge Agreda was not scheduled to report for work that day. Ramos alleged that while the clerk of court was talking, Beligolo  "suddenly diligent way."[21]
interrupted in an unruly and highly combative tone " and remarked, "[w]ell, they 'd better appear before the PMC because if they won't,
that is their problem." Thereafter, Beligolo got into an argument with the clerk of court. Ramos averred that she kept her cool, but In the case at bar, Beligolo does not dispute that it was her task to prepare the Order of Referral and that she failed to perform the same.
Beligolo kept making unsavory and offensive remarks. Ramos added that due to Beligolo's negligence, the parties were not able to As such, she should be held administratively liable for Simple Neglect of Duty, which is defined as the failure of an employee to give
appear before the PMC on the scheduled date. [5] proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference. [22] Notably, this conclusion holds true
despite the fact that the parties eventually obtained the requisite Order of Referral to the PMC and underwent mediation albeit
In her Answer,[6] Beligolo admitted that Judge Agreda instructed the parties to follow-up the order of referral from the court. [7] She unsuccessfully.
contended, however, that there was an internal agreement in their office that " the [c]lerk of [c]ourt may issue the order of referral " or
delegate the task to other court employees while the stenographers are still attending the hearings. Hence, Beligolo wondered why the Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, [23] Simple Neglect of Duty is a less grave offense punishable by
clerk of court did not issue the order of referral to the parties while Judge Agreda was in session so as to solve the problem early on. suspension or a period of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from service for the second
[8]
 Beligolo also averred that Ramos neither asked nor approached her about the subject order. She claimed that she honestly believed offense. Since Beligolo had previously been found administrative liable for Simple Neglect of Duty in A.M. No. P-13-3154 [24] for her
that the order of referral had already been given to the parties based on her assumption that the task had been delegated to and failure to submit stenographic notes within the prescribed period, the penalty of dismissal from service appears to be warranted.
accomplished by another court employee to avoid delay. [9] Nevertheless, she pointed out that an Order of Referral [10] dated March 24,
2011 was eventually issued to the parties. This notwithstanding, the mediation before the PMC was unsuccessful. [11] Nevertheless, while the Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and weed out those who
are undesirable, it also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. [25] Thus, in Re: Illegal and Unauthorized
Beligolo narrated that when she was summoned by the city mayor after Ramos had reported the incident to him, she had already asked Digging and Excavation Activities inside the Supreme Court Compound, Baguio City ,[26] wherein a Court employee was found liable for
for forgiveness, but the latter still filed several complaints against her before the Office of Court Administrator (OCA), the City Simple Neglect of Duty for the second time, the Court penalized him with suspension for a period of two (2) years without pay instead of
Prosecutor's Office, and the Civil Service Commission.[12] dismissal from service, considering his long years of service in the Judiciary. [27] Similarly, the Court, in this case, finds it proper to temper
the penalty to be imposed on Beligolo in view of her service in the judiciary for almost fifteen (15) years, [28] and thereby suspends her
The OCA's Report and Recommendation instead for a period of two (2) years without pay, with warning against the commission of the same or similar offense.

In a Report[13] dated October 23, 2018, the OCA recommended that Beligolo be held administratively liable for Simple Neglect of Duty, As a final note, it bears stressing that "[p]ublic officers must be accountable to the people at all times and serve them with the utmost
and accordingly, be fined in the amount of P10,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with degree of responsibility and efficiency. Any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those
more severely.[14] expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. It is the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in
the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice."[29]
The OCA found that Beligolo's failure to prepare the Order of Referral constituted Simple Neglect of Duty. It noted that Beligolo did not
deny that the preparation of such document was her task, and thus, it was imprudent of her to assume that another court employee had WHEREFORE, respondent Reba A. Beligolo (Beligolo), Court Stenographer III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Malaybalay City,
already accomplished it. Due to her inattention, the mediation proceedings was rescheduled to the prejudice of the parties. [15] Bukidnon, is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty, and is therefore, SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years without pay. She
is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
The OCA clarified that Beligolo's act did not constitute Grave Misconduct because her transgression was neither unlawful nor in gross
negligence of duty nor tainted with corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. It likewise found that the Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal record of Beligolo. SO ORDERED.
imputation of conduct unbecoming of a court employee must fail because no evidence was presented to prove Ramos's assertion that
Beligolo exhibited irate, sarcastic, and disrespectful behavior.[16]
35

Вам также может понравиться