CONVICTION

unlawfully and feloniously use Methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug in

violation of the said law.[4]
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

During the arraignment for both cases, Manlangit pleaded not guilty. Afterwards, the
cases were tried jointly.
At the trial of the case, the prosecution adduced evidence as follows:

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 189806

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR.,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ.
FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y Promulgated:
TRESBALLES,
Accused-Appellant. January 12, 2010
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the August 28, 2009 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 03273, which affirmed in toto the Decision dated July 12, 2007 [2]in Criminal Case
Nos. 03-4735 and 03-4961 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 in Makati City. The RTC
found accused-appellant Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes guilty of drug-sale and drug-use
penalized by Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On November 25, 2003, an information was filed charging Manlangit with violating Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165, as follows:
That on or about the 24th day of November 2003, in the City of
Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and
there willfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver zero
point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),
which is a dangerous drug.[3]
On December 11, 2003, another information was filed against Manlangit for breach of
Sec. 15, Art. II of RA 9165, to wit:
That sometime on or before or about the 24th day of November
2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to
use dangerous drugs, and having been arrested and found positive for use
of Methylamphetamine, after a confirmatory test, did then and there willfully,

On November 24, 2003, the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) Cluster 4 office
received information from an informant that a certain Negro was selling prohibited drugs
along Col. Santos Street at Brgy. South Cembo, Makati City. The MADAC thereafter coordinated
with the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSTOF) and the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency to conduct a joint MADAC-police buy-bust operation. A team was
assembled composed of several members of the different offices, among which Police Officer 2
Virginio Costa was designated as the team leader, with MADAC operative Wilfredo Serrano as
the poseur-buyer and Roberto Bayona as his back-up. The team prepared buy-bust money for
the operation, marking two (2) one hundred peso (PhP 100) bills with the initials AAM.
Upon arrival on Col. Santos Street, Brgy. Cembo, Makati City, the team spotted
Manlangit standing in front of his house. The informant approached Manlangit and convinced the
latter that Serrano wanted to purchase shabu from him. Manlangit asked Serrano how much
shabu he wanted, to which Serrano replied that he wanted two hundred pesos (PhP 200) worth
of shabu. Manlangit went inside his house and later reappeared with a plastic sachet containing
a white crystalline substance. Manlangit handed over the plastic sachet to Serrano who, in turn,
gave Manlangit the marked money. Then Serrano gave the pre-arranged signal of lighting a
cigarette to indicate to the rest of the team that the buy-bust operation had been
consummated. Thus, the rest of the team approached Manlangit and proceeded to arrest him
while informing him of constitutional rights and the reason for his arrest. The marked money was
recovered from Manlangits pocket. The plastic sachet was then marked with the initials FTM and
sent to the Philippine National Police (PNP) crime laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City for
analysis. The PNP crime laboratory identified the white crystalline substance as
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride in Chemistry Report No. D-1190-03. Manlangit was also
brought to the PNP crime laboratory for a drug test, which yielded a positive result for use of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.[5]
Manlangit denied that such buy-bust operation was conducted and claimed that the
recovered shabu was not from him. He claimed that he was pointed out by a certain Eli
Ballesteros to Serrano and Bayona. Thereafter, he was allegedly detained at the Barangay Hall
of Brgy. Pitogo. There, he was allegedly interrogated by Serrano as to the location of
the shabu and its proceeds, as well as the identity of the drug pushers in the area. He also
claimed that whenever he answered that he did not know what Serrano was talking about, he
was boxed in the chest. Later on, he said that he was brought to Camp Crame for drug testing.[6]
On July 12, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE,
rendered as follows:
1)

premises

considered,

judgment

is

In Criminal Case No. 03-4735, finding accused

Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 5, Art II,
RA 9165 (drug-sale) and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the
amount of P500,000.00. Said accused shall be given
credit for the period of his preventive detention.

hereby

2)

In Criminal Case No. 03-4735,[7] finding accused

Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 15, Art
II, RA 9165 (drug-use), and sentencing him to undergo
rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a government
rehabilitation Center under the auspices of the Bureau
of Correction subject to the provisions of Article VIII, RA
9165.

It is further ordered that the plastic sachet containing shabu,

subject of Criminal Case No. 03-4735, be transmitted to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the latters appropriate action.

2.

The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the procedure for the
custody and control of prohibited drugs was complied with.[10]
The Ruling of the Court

The appeal is bereft of merit.

First Issue:
Accused-appellants guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt
The first paragraph of Sec. 5 of RA 9165 punishes the act of selling dangerous drugs. It
provides:

SO ORDERED.[8]
From such Decision, Manlangit interposed an appeal with the CA.
In his Brief, accused-appellant Manlangit claimed that the prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To support such contention, accused-appellant claimed that
there was no buy-bust operation conducted. He pointed out that he was not in the list of
suspected drug pushers of MADAC or of the AIDSTOF. He further emphasized that the buy-bust
operation was conducted without first conducting a surveillance or test buy to determine the
veracity of the report made by the informant. He assailed the fact that despite knowledge of his
identity and location, the buy-bust team failed to secure even a search warrant.
Accused-appellant also raised the issue that the buy-bust team failed to comply with
the procedure for the custody and control of seized prohibited drugs under Sec. 21 of RA 9165.
He argued that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official function was
overturned by the officers failure to follow the required procedure in the conduct of a buy-bust
operation, as well as the procedure in the proper disposition, custody, and control of the subject
specimen.
On August 28, 2009, the CA rendered the decision which affirmed the RTCs Decision
dated July 12, 2007. It ruled that contrary to accused-appellants contention, prior surveillance is
not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation. The case was a valid example of a
warrantless arrest, accused-appellant having been caught in flagrante delicto. The CA further
stated that accused-appellants unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to show that the
witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, in this case the members of
the buy-bust team; thus, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. After examining the
testimonies of the witnesses, the CA found them credible and found no reason to disturb the
RTCs findings. Finally, the CA found that chain of evidence was not broken.

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,

Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals.The penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
act as a broker in any of such transactions. (Emphasis supplied.)
While Sec. 15, RA 9165 states:
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.A person apprehended or
arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug,
after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of
six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first
offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall
suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided,
That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also
found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug
provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated
therein shall apply. (Emphasis supplied.)
People v. Macatingag[11] prescribed the requirements for the successful prosecution of the crime
of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows.

Hence, the instant appeal.

In a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 22, 2010, accusedappellant expressed his desire not to file a supplemental brief and reiterated the same
arguments already presented before the trial and appellate courts.
The Issues

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to
the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of evidence of corpus delicti.

The issues, as raised in the Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated September 29, 2008, are:
1.

The Court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant

despite the prosecutions failure to prove his built beyond reasonable
doubt.[9]

The pieces of evidence found in the records amply demonstrate that all the elements of the
crimes charged were satisfied. The lower courts gave credence to the prosecution witnesses
testimonies, which established the guilt of accused-appellant for the crimes charged beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimonies particularly those of the police officers involved, which both

the RTC and the CA found credibleare now beyond question. As the Court ruled in Aparis v.
People:[12]

provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,

to wit:

As to the question of credibility of the police officers who served

as principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled is the rule that
prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It is a fundamental
rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which
involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross
misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported
conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that
the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses,
having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in
the present case.

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace

officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

Moreover, accused-appellants defense of denial, without substantial evidence to support it,

cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of the police officers performance of official
functions. Thus, the Court ruled in People v. Llamado:[13]
In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence
should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses
especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the
contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute
such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over
appellants self-serving and uncorroborated denial. (Emphasis supplied.)
Contrary to accused-appellants challenge to the validity of the buy-bust operation, the
Court categorically stated in Quinicot v. People that a prior surveillance or test buy is not
required for a valid buy-bust operation, as long as the operatives are accompanied by their
informant, thus:
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy
does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no
textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to
the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to
apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is
not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by
their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police
work. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may
dispense with the need for prior surveillance. In the instant case, having
been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling
the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any
prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust operation.
[14]
(Emphasis supplied.)

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested

has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested
without a warrant if he has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense. Appellant Doria was caught in the act of
committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante
delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized
but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
The Court reiterated such ruling in People v. Agulay:[16]
Accused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, making the
sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from him inadmissible in
evidence. Accused-appellants claim is devoid of merit for it is a wellestablished rule that an arrest made after an entrapment operation does not
require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest, in
line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of
Court, to wit:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent
years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending
drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates
from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the
offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal
safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.

Furthermore, accused-appellants contention that the buy-bust team should have

procured a search warrant for the validity of the buy-bust operation is misplaced. The Court had
the occasion to address this issue in People v. Doria:[15]

Second Issue:
The chain of custody of the seized drug was unbroken

We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant

Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as

Accused-appellant contends that the arresting officers did not comply with the requirements for
the handling of seized dangerous drugs as provided for under Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment.The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled
precursors
and essential
chemicals,
as well
as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(Emphasis supplied.)
In particular, accused-appellant argues that:
While the marking of the specimen was done in the place of incident by
MADAC operative Soriano, the inventory of the item was done at Cluster 4.
There was no photograph made of the plastic sachet in the presence of the
accused, media, any elected local official, or the DOJ representatives, in
clear violation of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165.[17]
Based on such alleged failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedural requirements
of Sec. 21, RA 9165, accused-appellant posits that he should, therefore, be acquitted. Such
reasoning is flawed.
In People v. Rosialda,[18] the Court addressed the issue of chain of custody of dangerous drugs,
citing People v. Rivera, as follows:
Anent the second element, Rosialda raises the issue that there is
a violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, particularly the requirement that the
alleged dangerous drugs seized by the apprehending officers be
photographed in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel. Rosialda argues that such failure to comply with the provision of
the law is fatal to his conviction.
This contention is untenable.
The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on this
matter in People v. Rivera:
The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of
seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which stipulates:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of

Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall

be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.
The same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165,
viz.:
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police
officers conducted the required physical inventory and
photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said
guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render
accused-appellants
arrest
illegal
or
the
items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the
implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added
that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items. The same provision clearly states as
well, that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds
and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
have been preserved.
This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons
existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue during
trial. Be that as it may, this Court has explained in People v.
Del Monte that what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The
existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for
conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous
drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the
fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is
essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established
beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the
function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts
as to the identity of the evidence are removed.

To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records

or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at
least between the time it came into possession of the police
officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine
its composition up to the time it was offered in
evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)
Here, accused-appellant does not question the unbroken chain of evidence. His only contention
is that the buy-bust team did not inventory and photograph the specimen on site and in the
presence of accused-appellant or his counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official. However, as ruled by the Court
in Rosialda, as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, even though the procedural
requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the
accused will not be affected.
And as aptly ruled by the CA, the chain of custody in the instant case was not broken as
established by the facts proved during trial, thus:
Lastly, the contention of appellant, that the police officers failed to comply
with the provisions of paragraph 1, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for the
proper procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs, is
untenable. Record shows that Serrano marked the confiscated sachet
of shabu in the presence of appellant at the place of incident and was
turned over properly to the investigating officer together with the marked
buy-bust money. Afterwards, the confiscated plastic sachet suspected to be
containing shabu was brought to the forensic chemist for examination.
Likewise, the members of the buy-bust team executed their Pinagsanib na
Salaysay sa Pag-aresto immediately after the arrest and at the trial, Serrano
positively identified the seized drugs. Indeed, the prosecution evidence had
established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs from the buybust team, to the investigating officer and to the forensic chemist. Thus,
there is no doubt that the prohibited drug presented before the court a quo
was the one seized from appellant and that indeed, he committed the
crimes imputed against him.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CAs August 28, 2009 Decision in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 03273 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

ACQUITTAL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 199403

Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
- versus - PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.
GOMER S. CLIMACO, Promulgated:

Appellant. June 13, 2012

x--------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a consolidated criminal case filed against appellant Gomer S. Climaco (Climaco) for
violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002) for illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL) and illegal sale (Criminal Case
No. 4912-SPL) of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in its Decision dated 20
January 2009 (RTC Decision), found Climaco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and sentenced him to
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months with a fine of 300,000.00 in
Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL.[1] In Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL, the RTC found Climaco guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale ofmethamphetamine hydrochloride, and
sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, the Special Fifteenth
Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated 29 March 2011 (CA Decision),
affirmed the RTC Decision.[2] Climaco appealed to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal in
accordance with Section 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.[3]
Prosecutions Version
The prosecutions version of events is summarized in the RTC Decision: [4]
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses in the persons of PO1
Alaindelon M. Ignacio, who gave his testimony on 5 January 2005, 8
February 2006 and 2 August 2006; and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa
Huelgas, whose testimony was dispensed with on 5 January 2005 upon
defenses admission of the existence of the following: 1) Written Request for
Laboratory Examination as Exhibit A; 2) The Chemistry Report No. D-110204 as Exhibit B; 3) 1 white envelope as Exhibit C; 4) the existence of two (2)
plastic sachets with markings GSC-1 as Exhibit C-1; and 5) another one
with markings GSC-2 as Exhibit C-2.
PO1 Ignacio testified that he is a member of the Philippine National Police
since 15 October 1999 and was assigned at Intelligence Division, San Pedro
Municipal Police Station. As member of the Intelligence Division, he was
tasked to conduct surveillance operation and apprehend persons engaged in
illegal drug activity. On 7 September 2004, he was on 24-hour duty at PAC
base located at United Bayanihan, San Pedro, Laguna. At around 6:00 in
the evening of the same day, PO1 Ignacio, SPO3 Samson, SPO4 Balverde,
some members of the Laguna Special Operation Team, Members of the
Provincial Intelligence and Investigation Division conducted a briefing
regarding a drug operation against a certain Gomer Climaco, No. 5 in the
drug watch list in San Pedro, Laguna. During the briefing, PO1 Ignacio was
tasked to act as the poseur-buyer and SPO4 Almeda as the overall team
leader. The buy-bust money was prepared, which consist of P500.00 bill and
some boodle money. The team was also armed with a Warrant of Arrest for
illegal drugs issued by Judge Pao. After the briefing, the team proceeded to
the target area. When they arrived, PO1 Ignacio saw the suspect standing in
front of his house. The other members of the team strategically positioned
themselves. Since PO1 Ignacio already knew the suspect, PO1 Ignacio just
told Gomer that he would buy shabu. Gomer entered his house and took

something. When he came out, Gomer showed to PO1 Ignacio the

shabu. PO1 Ignacio scratched his head to signal the team that item was
shown to him and he would execute the buying of the shabu. After Gomer
asked for the money and PO1 Ignacio gave it to him, SPO3 Samson and the
rest of the team immediately moved in to effect the arrest of the
suspect. Since he was caught in the act, Gomer did not resist anymore. The
team likewise showed Gomer his warrant of arrest. PO1 Ignacio saw SPO3
Samson frisk and ask Gomer to empty his pockets. SPO3 Samson was able
to recover another plastic sachet, which was inserted between Gomers
fingers. The plastic sachet, which was the product of the buy-bust, and the
one recovered from Gomer were turned over to SPO4 Teofilo Royena, who
turned them over to the Office of the Special Operation Group located at
Brgy. Tubigan, Bian, Laguna. The plastic sachet product of the buy-bust was
marked TR-B, which means Teofilo Royena and the letter B means
Bust. While the plastic sachet recovered from Gomer was marked TR-R,
which means Teofilo Royena and the letter R means Recovered. PO1
Ignacio identified the accused Gomer Climaco in open court. He likewise
identified his sworn statement. During the cross-examination, PO1 Ignacio
admitted that he learned of the warrant of arrest on 7 September 2004
only. It was SPO4 Valverde who instructed PO Ignacio to conduct
surveillance operation against Gomer, who was engaged in rampant selling
of shabu.[5]
Aside from the testimony of PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio (Ignacio), the following documentary
exhibits were offered for the prosecution: (1) Exhibit A Letter dated 7 September 2004; (2)
Exhibit B Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04; (3) Exhibit C One-half white envelope; (4) Exhibit C1 Plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings GSC-1; (5) Exhibit C-2 Plastic
sachet with white crystalline susbtance with markings GSC-2; and (6) Exhibit D Pinanumpaang
Salaysay of PO1 Ignacio.[6]

Defenses Version
Appellant Climaco, on the other hand, presented three witnesses and denied the prosecutions
allegations of sale and possession of shabu. The defenses version of the events, as narrated in
the RTC Decision, is as follows:
The defense presented three (3) witnesses in the persons of the accused
himself, Gomer S. Climaco, who testified on 13 May 2008, Michael M.
Basihan, who gave his testimony on 7 October 2008, and Cristina Gamboa
Climaco, who gave her testimony on 25 November 2008.
Gomer S. Climaco testified that prior to 7 September 2004, he did not know
SPO2 Wilfredo Samson and PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio. On 7 September
2004, Gomer, together with his wife and five (5) children, were inside their
house. When Gomer was feeding the chicken in front of his yard, four (4)
unidentified armed men suddenly arrived and frisked him. When nothing
was found in his possession, the men handcuffed and brought him to the
police station. At the police station, the men filed a case against him. Gomer
denied having sold and delivered shabu to a police poseur-buyer and that
he was in possesion of shabu. During the cross-examination, Gomer said
that while he was being frisked by the men, Gomer asked the men what was
his violation. The men replied that somebody bought shabu from
him. Gomer told the men that he did nothing wrong, but the men continued
to handcuff him. Gomer was not aware that he was included in the list of top
20 illegal drug pushers. Gomer did not know of any ill motive on the part of

the police officer why he would be charged with so grave an offense. He did
not file any case against the police officer who arrested him.
Michael M. Basihan testified that Gomer Climaco was his neighbor in
Bagong Silang. On 7 September 2004, Michael went to Gomers manukan
to gather guava fruits. When he arrived there, Gomer was tending to his
cocks. While he was gathering guava fruits, Michael saw four (4)
unidentified armed men suddenly barge into the premises and arrest
Gomer. After he was handcuffed, Gomer was made to board a vehicle
where he was brought to Jaka Subdivision. Michael could not remember
whether it was morning or evening when Gomer was arrested by
unidentified armed men because the incident happened a long time ago.
Cristina Gamboa Climaco testified that she is the wife of Gomer
Climaco. She did not know SPO2 Wilfredo Samson and PO1 Alaindelon
Ignacio. On 7 September 2004, she was inside their house taking care of
her child. At around 3:00 in the afternoon of the same day, Gomer arrived in
their house, who just came from Barangay Cuyab. After taking a bath,
Gomer went outside of their house. While in front of their house, Gomer
called the person taking care of his chickens. Gomer and that person went
to the back of the house. Meanwhile, Cristina went inside the
house.Although she was inside of the house, Cristina could see Gomer and
the person through the window. At around 4:00 in the afternoon, Cristina
saw four (4) unidentified armed men approach and ask something from
Gomer. After a few minutes, Gomer left the back of the house, while the
men were left standing there. Cristina went out the house and saw her
husband go toward the direction of St. Reymond. At around 6:00 in the
evening, Cirstina went down from their house to ask Michael if he saw
Gomer. Michael told Cristina that he saw Gomer loaded into a van by
several men. During the cross-examination, Cristina said that she did not
know of any reason why SPO2 Samson and PO1 Ignacio would arrest her
husband.[7]

The Decision of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC declared Climaco guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. The dispositive portion of the
RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL, the Court finds the
accused, Gomer S. Climaco, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL, the Court finds the accused, Gomer S.
Climaco, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec.
11 of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay a
fine of three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the plastic sachets subject matter of these
cases, for said agencys appropriate disposition.

SO ORDERED.[8]

produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainly is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

The RTC found that the elements for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession
of shabu were sufficiently established by the prosecution. [9] The RTC held that Climacos defense
of frame-up is viewed with disfavor as it can be easily concocted. [10] The RTC gave full faith and
credit to the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, and declared the police officers who participated in the
buy-bust operation were properly performing their duties because they were not inspired by any
improper motive.[11]
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the conviction of Climaco. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the judgment dated January 20,
2009 of the RTC in Criminal Case Nos. 4911-SPL and 4912-SPL finding
appellant Gomer S. Climaco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Sections 5 and 11 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.[12]

The CA declared that all the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs were proven.[13] The CA found that based on the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, it
was established that the chain of custody over the seized drugs was unbroken from the
arresting officers to SPO4 Royena, and then to the forensic chemist for examination.[14]
The Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether the guilt of Climaco for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal
possession of shabu, a dangerous drug, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Chain of Custody Over the Confiscated Items

The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment.[17] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have
actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti which
means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. [18] The corpus
delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself.
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[19]
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the chain of custody over
the dangerous drug must be shown to establish the corpus delicti. In People v. Alcuizar,[20] the
Court held:
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under
Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of thecorpus delicti must
definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily
arises from the illegal drugs unique characteristic that renders it indistinct,
not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must
definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal
drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the
prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.

The Ruling of this Court

We resolve to acquit Climaco for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the dangerous drugs seized from Climaco were
marked by SPO4 Teofilo Royena as TR-B and TR-R. [15] However, the Chemistry Report
submitted to the trial court shows that the dangerous drugs examined and confirmed to be
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu by the forensic chemist were marked as GSC1 and
GSC2.[16] Since what was seized (TR-B and TR-R) by PO1 Ignacio from Climaco at the time of
the buy-bust operation was different from the dangerous drugs submitted (GSC1 and GSC2) to
the forensic chemist for review and evaluation, the chain of custody over the dangerous drugs
was broken and the integrity of the evidence submitted to the trial court was not preserved,
casting doubt on the guilt of Climaco.

Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, [21] which implements
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines chain of custody as follows:
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and
custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition.
In Malillin v. People,[22] the Court explained the importance of the chain of custody:

Constitutional Presumption of Innocence; Weight of Evidence

The Constitution guarantees the accuseds presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Section
14(2) of the Bill of Rights (Article III) provides that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise states that, in a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, which

Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the

elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with
moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by
law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the
prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere
fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable
mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just
the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the

first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a
finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in
that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.

render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with
another or been contaminated or tampered with.
In this case, PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the substances seized from Climaco
during the buy-bust operation were marked as TR-R and TR-B:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires

that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it
to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such
a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in
the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

Q: When SPO4 Almeida handed over the items to SPO4 Teofilo Royena,
what if any did SPO4 Royena do with the items?
A: He placed markings on it, maam.

While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it
is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody
becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not
distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of
testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is
susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution
and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to
fungibility, alteration or tampering without regard to whether the same is
advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in the application of
the chain of custody rule.

Q: Im showing to you a plastic sachet with the markings TR-B, please go

over this and tell if this is the same item which you confiscated from the
accused?
A: Yes, maam. This is the same.

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an

exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar
to people in their daily lives. Graham v. State positively acknowledged this
danger. In that case where a substance was later analyzed as heroin was
handled by two police officers prior to examination who however did not
testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it
was in their possession was excluded from the prosecution evidence, the
court pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed
heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the
state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the
exhibit at least between the time it came into the posession of the police
officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition,
testimony of the state as to the laboratorys findings is inadmissible.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily
identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their
composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the
likelihood or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of
custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or
substitution of substances from other cases by accident or otherwise in
which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was
submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a
standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which
are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that
entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to

Q: Where were you when he placed the markings?

A: I was present, maam.

Q: Do you know what markings was made?

A: He placed his initials TR which means Teofilo Royena and the letter B
which means bust, maam.

PROS. CASANO: Your Honor, the brown envelope which contains the
plastic sachet has already been marked as Exhibit C, the plastic sachet as
Exhibit C-1 and the markings TR-B as Exhibit C-2 (Continuing).
xxxx
Q: Tell us the markings that was placed?
A: Its TR-R, the R means recovered, maam.
Q: How sure are you that the items marked by SPO4 Teofilo Royena TR-R
was the same item taken by SPO3 Samson from the accused?
A: Because there was a difference between the two plastic sachets,
the items recovered by SPO3 Samson was a little bit bigger, maam.
Q: Im showing to you a bigger plastic sachet with the markings TR- R, are
you referring to this?
A: Yes, maam.[23]
Based on the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, the substances retrieved from Climaco and submitted to
the court were contained in two (2) plastic sachets with the markings TR-R and TR-B. However,
according to the Chemistry Report executed by Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas on 8
September 2004, the plastic sachets submitted for examination carried the markings GSC-1 and
GSC-2, different from the plastic sachets marked TR-R and TR-B containing the drugs retrieved
from Climaco:
CHEMISTRY REPORT NUMBER: D-1102-04
xxxx
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with markings GSC1,
containing 0.35 gram of white crystalline substance and placed in a staplesealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly bought by the Police PoseurBuyer)

B One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with markings GSC2,

containing 0.14 gram of white crystalline substance and placed in a staplesealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly found from the posession of
Glomer Climaco)[24]
In addition, in the Index of Exhibits submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the RTC, Exhibit C-1
was described as a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings GSC-1 while
Exhibit C-2 was described as a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings
GSC-2,[25] contrary to the testimony of PO1 Ignacio and the declaration of Prosecutor Casano
that the specimens submitted to the court carried the markings TR-B and TR-R.
Likewise, in the handwritten Minutes dated 5 January 2005, Exhibit C-1 was identified as a
plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with marking GSC-1, and Exhibit C-2 was
identified as a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with marking GSC-2.[26]
Clearly, what was submitted to the trial court were plastic sachets bearing the markings GSC-1
and GSC-2, instead of the plastic sachets bearing the markings TR-R and TR-B that contained
the substances recovered from Climaco. This fact is evident from the RTC Decision, recognizing
Exhibits C-1 and C-2 to bear the markings GSC-1 and GSC-2, while acknowledging the
testimony of PO1 Ignacio that the plastic sachets containing the substances recovered from
Climaco bore the markings TR-R and TR-B:
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses in the persons of x x
x Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas, whose testimony was
dispensed with on 5 January 2005 upon defenses admission of the
existence of the following: 1) Written Request for Laboratory Examination as
Exhibit A; 2) The Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04 as Exhibit B; 3) 1 white
envelope as Exhibit C; 4) the existence of two (2) plastic sachets with
markings GSC-1 as Exhibit C-1; and 5) another one with markings
GSC-2 as Exhibit C-2.
xxxx
The plastic sachet product of the buy-bust was marked TR-B, which means
Teofilo Royena and the letter B means Bust. While the plastic sachet
recovered from Gomer was marked TR-R, which means Teofilo Royena and
the letter R means Recovered.[27] (Emphasis supplied)
The prosecution did not explain why the markings of the plastic sachets containing the alleged
drugs, which were submitted to be TR-B and TR-R, became GSC-1 and GSC-2 in the Chemistry
Report, Index of Exhibits and Minutes of the Hearing. In their decisions, the RTC and CA were
silent on the change of the markings. In fact, since the markings are different, the presumption is
that the substance in the plastic sachets marked as TR-B and TR-R is different from the
substance in the plastic sachets marked as GSC-1 and GSC-2. There is no moral certainty that
the substance taken from appellant is the same dangerous drug submitted to the laboratory and
the trial court.
As held in Malillin v. People,[28] to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in
cases involving dangerous drugs, it is important that the substance illegally possessed in the
first place be the same substance offered in court as exhibit. This chain of custody requirement
ensures that unnecessary doubts are removed concerning the identity of the evidence. When
the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug
presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same dangerous drug
presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved due to the broken
chain of custody. With this, an element in the criminal cases for illegal sale and illegal

possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti, is not proven, and the accused must then be
acquitted based on reasonable doubt.For this reason, Climaco must be acquitted on the ground
of reasonable doubt due to the broken chain of custody over the dangerous drug allegedly
recovered from him.
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the 29 March 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 03860 affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31,
San Pedro, Laguna in Criminal Case Nos. 4911-SPL and 4912-SPL dated 20 January
2009. We ACQUIT appellant Gomer S. Climaco based on reasonable doubt and we ORDER his
immediate release from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
We DIRECT the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to implement this Decision and to report to
this Court on the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 209785, June 04, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON ABETONG Y
ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
VELASCO JR., J.:
The Case
This treats of accused-appellant Marlon Abetongs appeal from the June 28, 2013 Decision 1 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01357 affirming his conviction beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.cra1awredjgc
The Facts
Accused-appellant was charged in an Information2 that reads:
That on or about the 22nd day of August 2003, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell,
trade, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drugs, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give away
to a police poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet
containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing 0.02 gram(s) more or less, in
exchange for a price of P100.00 in mark money, consisting of two (2) P50.00 bill with Serial Nos.
BZ323461
and
CN467805,
in
violation
of
the
aforementioned
law.
Act contrary to law.
During trial, prosecution witness Police Officer 3 Wilfredo Perez (PO3 Perez) of the Police
Station 1, Bacolod City Police Office, testified that, in the morning of August 22, 2003, their office
received information that a certain alias Cano, later identified as accused-appellant, was selling
drugs in his house at Purok Sigay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City. Police Senior Inspector Jonathan
Lorilla (Inspector Lorilla) then called for a briefing for the conduct of a buy-bust operation against
Cano and designated PO3 Perez as the poseur-buyer. In preparation for the operation, PO3

Perez initialled two (2) PhP 50 bills bearing Serial Nos. CN467805 and BZ323461, which were
going to be used as marked money. After recording the details of the preparation in the police
blotter, PO3 Perez and the informant proceeded to the address while Inspector Lorilla and some
of
his
personnel
tailed
in
a
car.
Upon arrival at the target area, PO3 Perez and the asset knocked on the door and were greeted
by accused-appellant, who asked the purpose of the visit. PO3 Perez answered that he wanted
to buy PhP 100 worth of shabu. The two were ushered in by accused-appellant and once inside,
PO3 Perez saw three persons sitting around a table, passing to one another a tooter and
allegedly engaged in a pot session. The three were identified as Ricky Bayotas, Reynaldo Relos
and Archie Berturan. PO3 Perez then drew two PhP 50 bills marked WCP and handed them
over to accused-appellant who in turn gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance
from
his
right
pocket.
After receiving the plastic sachet, PO3 Perez introduced himself as a police officer and signalled
his back-up to effect the arrest of the four individuals. The suspects attempted to flee but their
plans were foiled by the timely arrival of the other policemen. They were then brought to the
police station where their arrest and the list of the items confiscated from them were entered in
the police blotter. From their arrest until the items seized were transmitted to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, the pieces of evidence were allegedly under PO3
Perezs custody. In his testimony, PO3 Perez stated that he kept the items inside the evidence
locker in the Drug Enforcement Unit Office, to which only Inspector Lorilla has a key.
On August 25, 2013, PO3 Perez brought the sachet containing crystalline substance and the
tooter to the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. The items were received by Inspector Augustina
Ompoy (Inspector Ompoy), the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Regional PNP Crime
Laboratory 6, Camp Delgado, Iloilo City, who then performed the necessary examinations on the
items
recovered.
Inspector Ompoy testified for the prosecution on the receipt in the PNP Crime Laboratory of the
letter-request for laboratory examination of the specimens. According to her, she conducted
quantitative and qualitative tests and found that the white crystalline substance in the plastic
sachet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.04
gram
while
the
tooter
tested
negative
for
any
prohibited
drug.
Accused-appellant, for his part, raised that he was illegally arrested, a defense corroborated by
Crispin Mejorada, Jr., a friend and neighbor of the former. As succinctly put by the trial court:3
Testifying in his defense, accused Marlon Abetong declared being at home in Purok Sigay, Brgy.
2, Bacolod City at 11:50 AM of August 22, 2003, sweeping the floor, alone. Suddenly, a male
person entered the open door and held him by his pants. When Marlon asked what his fault was,
the man answered to just go with him. The person was in civvies, fair-skinned and tall; he did not
introduce himself. Marlon was handcuffed while they were at the foot-walk heading to 26th
Aguinaldo Street, and searched, but nothing was recovered from him except his money P9.00.
Accused was made to board a vehicle at Aguinaldo; three handcuffed persons were inside. All
four were brought to BAC-Up 2 and placed in a cell. Abetong was not informed of the cause of
his arrest; no drugs were presented to him. He knew of the charge Violation of Section 5, R.A.
9165 only during arraignment in court.
The Ruling of the RTC
On May 25, 2011, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47 in Bacolod City did not give
credence to accused-appellants defense and rendered a Decision 4 convicting him of the crime
charged. To wit:
WHEREFORE, finding accused Marlon Abetong y Endrardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Sale, Delivery, etc. of Dangerous Drugs), as
charged, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P500,000.00. He is also to bear the accessory penalty prescribed by law. Costs against

accused.
The subject one (1) sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride/shabu (Exh. B-3-A)
recovered/bought from him being a dangerous drug, the same is hereby ordered confiscated
and/or forfeited in favor of the government, and to be forthwith delivered/turned over to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) provincial office for immediate destruction or
disposition
in
accordance
with
law.
The immediate commitment of accused to the national penitentiary for service of sentence is
likewise
further
ordered.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA, raising the sole issue that his guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. He maintained that, assuming without conceding the validity
of the buy-bust operation, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove that the integrity of the
evidence was preserved. Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date and time of the
confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days have passed since the items were
confiscated before they were brought to the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an
inventory nor a photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. Accused-appellant likewise hinged
his appeal on the fact that Inspector Lorilla, who had the only key to the evidence locker, did not
testify during trial.cra1awredjgc
The Ruling of the CA
On June 28, 2013, the court a quo promulgated the assailed Decision denying the appeal.
The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The decision dated May 25, 2011
of the Regional Trial Court Branch 47 in Bacolod City, convicting the accused-appellant of the
offense charged and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00,
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
In upholding the RTC conviction, the CA ratiocinated that the prosecutions evidence was
sufficient to afford the court a reliable assurance that the evidence presented is one and the
same as those confiscated from accused-appellant. Hence, this appeal.cra1awredjgc
The Courts Ruling
We

find

for

accused-appellant.

Sec. 21 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in part, requires:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and
be
given
a
copy
thereof;

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.
The case People v. Musa5 was instrumental for the CA in justifying leniency in the compliance
with Sec. 21 of RA 9165. Relying on the case, the CA dispensed with several procedural
requirements resulting in accused-appellants conviction. As cited:
Since the perfect chain is almost always impossible to obtain, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of
RA 9165, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, does not, without more,
automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void, and evidence is admissible as long
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending
officer/team.
In the present case, accused-appellants insist on the police officers non-compliance with the
chain of custody rule since there was no physical inventory and photograph of the seized items
were taken in their presence or in the presence of their counsel, a representative from the media
and
the
Department
of
Justice
and
an
elective
official.
We, however, find these observations insignificant since a review of the evidence on record
shows that the chain of custody rule has been sufficiently observed by the apprehending
officers.
Jurisprudence indeed instructs that failure to observe strictly the above-quoted provision can be
excused as long as (1) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officers and (2) non-compliance was attended by justifiable
grounds.6 However, the prosecution in this case was unsuccessful in showing that there was no
opportunity for tampering, contamination, substitution, nor alteration of the specimens submitted.
On the contrary, there is a dearth of evidence to show that the evidence presented was wellpreserved. The prosecution likewise failed to offer any justification on why the afore-quoted
provision
was
not
complied
with.
The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the drug evidence
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact
they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. And the risk of
tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit of this nature is greatest when the exhibit is
small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to
substances familiar to people in their daily lives. As a reasonable measure, in authenticating
narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which
are readily identifiable must be applieda more exacting standard that entails a chain of
custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original
item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. 7
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up
to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while
in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity
for
someone
not
in
the
chain
to
have
possession
of
it. 8
In the case at bar, the failure of Inspector Lorilla to testify is fatal to the prosecutions case. To
recall, only PO3 Perez and Inspector Ompoy testified against accused-appellant. During his
testimony, PO3 Perez admitted that he put the confiscated item in the evidence locker on August
22, 2003 for safekeeping and subsequently brought them to Inspector Ompoy at the crime
laboratory on August 25, 2003. 9 During this three-day interval, the items were allegedly kept
inside the evidence locker to which only Inspector Lorilla has the key. As per the records: 10

Q:

From the time that the items were confiscated on August 22, 2003 at around 11:50 in the
morning up to the time it was delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory on August 25, 2003 at
10:40 in the morning, where were the items kept?

A:

It was placed in the evidence locker of the Drug Enforcement Unit together with other
exhibits.

Q:

Who placed the confiscated items inside the locker in the office of the Drug Enforcement
Unit?

A:

Myself.

Q:

Who keeps the key to that locker?

A:

Police Inspector Jonathan Lorilla.

Q:

Aside from Police Inspector Jonathan Lorilla, is there any other person who has access to
that locker?

A: No more.
It is evident from this sequence of events that during the interim, Inspector Lorilla constructively
acquired custody over the seized items. As the lone key holder and consequentially a link in the
chain, Inspector Lorillas testimony became indispensable in proving the guilt of accusedappellant beyond reasonable doubt. Only he could have testified that from August 22 to 25, 2003
no one else obtained the key from him for purposes of removing the items from their receptacle.
Only he could have enlightened the courts on what safety mechanisms have been installed in
order to preserve the integrity of the evidence acquired while inside the locker. Absent his
testimony, therefore, it cannot be plausibly claimed that the chain of custody has sufficiently
been established. To be sure, PO3 Perez did not even testify that he was assigned to safeguard
the evidence locker for the said duration; only that he was the one who put it in and three days
later took them out of the locker room before bringing them to the crime laboratory.
Requiring the key holders testimony is especially significant in this case in view of the law
enforcers failure to deliver the confiscated items to the crime laboratory within 24 hours, as
required under Sec. 21 of RA 9165. While the delay in itself is not fatal to the prosecutions case
as it may be excused based on a justifiable ground, it exposes the items seized to a higher
probability of being handled by even more personnel and, consequently, to a higher risk of
tampering or alteration. Thus, the testimony of the key holder becomes necessary to attest to the
fact that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated evidence have been preserved.
The CA erred in applying the doctrine that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long
as it is credible and positive, can prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11 Such
doctrine is unavailing in drugs cases wherein all who acquired custody over the confiscated
items would necessarily have to testify in order to establish an unbroken chain. Additionally,
worth noting is that PO3 Perezs testimony is not virtually free from any form of inconsistency
and contradictions as to besmirch it with doubt and question contrary to the CAs findings. 12 In
fact, it can be gleaned from the records that one of his key statements has been refuted by
forensic
chemist
Ompoy
herself.

enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law.
But where the official act in question is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse
presumption
arises
as
a
matter
of
course. 16
A perusal of the Information filed against accused-appellant and Inspector Ompoys chemistry
report reveals a glaring inconsistency in this case. As can be recalled, the Information charges
accused-appellant of selling 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Relative to the
crime charged, Inspector Ompoy, on the other hand, testified17 in the following wise:
Q: Tell us what kind of tests did you conduct on the specimen?
A: This consists of the physical, chemical and confirmatory tests. In the physical this includes the
weighing of the specimen out of its container. Specimen A weighs 0.04 gram of white
crystalline substance. Then I proceeded to my chemical test in which Marqui and Simons tests
were employed. In the Marqui test, a drop of Marqui reagent was added to the representative
sample and it [yielded] orange-to-brown color which is indicative of the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride. In the Simons test, Simons reagents 1, 2 and 3 were added to
another representative sample and it produced a deep-blue color reaction, also indicative of the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
xxxx
Q: For the record, please read the description of Specimen A
A: One heat-sealed transparent plastic packet with markings containing 0.04 gram of white
crystalline substance, placed inside a staple-sealed transparent plastic bag with markings.
From the foregoing transcript, the incongruence between the weight of the drug accusedappellant is being charged of selling and the weight of the drug tested by the forensic chemist
becomes patent. For sure, this discrepancy in the weight of the substance is fatal to the case of
the prosecution.18 It automatically casts doubt as to the identity of the item seized and of the one
tested as it erases any assurance that the evidence being offered is indeed the same as the one
recovered
during
the
buy-bust
operation.
Well-settled is that the dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the offense, and in sustaining a conviction under RA 9165, the identity and integrity of
the corpus delictimust definitely be shown to have been preserved. x x x Thus, to remove any
doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely
show that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same illegal drug actually recovered from
the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under RA 9165 fails. 19 Applying this
precept in the case at bar, any guarantee of the drug items preservation was effectively
removed by the failure of the prosecution to describe consistently the very corpus delicti of the
criminal
offense.
The

arresting

officers

unduly

deviated

from

legal

procedure

overturned

It is beyond dispute that the date and time of confiscation do not appear on the markings of the
seized items. It cannot also be denied that no photograph was taken of the recovered items for
documentation purposes. It is admitted that no representative from the media, from the
Department of Justice, or any elective official was present to serve as witness in recording the
arrest. The prosecutions testimonial evidence is likewise bereft of any allegation of efforts
undertaken by the law enforcers to contact these representatives. Nevertheless, an accused can
still be convicted in spite of these circumstances provided that a justifiable ground for excusing
non-compliance with the requirements under Sec. 21 of RA 9165 has satisfactorily been
established by the prosecution as required by jurisprudence and the laws implementing rules.

The prosecution cannot skirt the issue of the broken chain of custody by relying on the
presumption of regularity. This presumption, it must be stressed, is not conclusive. Any taint of
irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. 15 The
presumption, in other words, obtains only when nothing in the records suggests that the law

Such justifiable ground is wanting in this case. No explanation whatsoever was offered by PO3
Perez in his testimony justifying non-compliance. Without this justification, it was improper for
the court a quo to affirm accused-appellants conviction. To sustain the RTC and the CAs
findings would render the legal requirements under Sec. 21 of RA 9165 inutile and would

13

Based on the affidavit executed by PO3 Perez on August 25, 2003, three persons were
engaged in a pot session in the house of accused-appellant. However, when the tooter allegedly
confiscated from the three was tested for dangerous drugs, the test yielded a negative result. 14
While the guilt of the three others is not an issue in this case, this is illustrative of a disparity in
the prosecutions version of facts and militates against PO3 Perezs credibility.
The

presumption

of

regularity

has

been

effectively diminish the safeguards offered by the law in favor of the accused.cra1awlaw1ibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The June 28, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals is
herebyREVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Marlon Abetong y Endrano is
hereby ACQUITTED based
on
reasonable
doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to immediately RELEASE accused-appellant
from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to INFORM this Court,

within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, of the date accused-appellant was actually
released
from
confinement.
SO ORDERED.