APRIL

G.R. No. 179940 April 23, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORBERTO DEL GAPA" # OBET, accused-appellant. ONTE !

We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%. &he issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight ' evidentiary merit or probative value ' to be given the evidence $HI$O%NA&ARIO, J.' !ssailed before (s is the )ecision1 of the *ourt of !ppeals in *!-+. . * -,.*. "o. -2-.dated 2/ 0ay 2--. which affirmed with modification the )ecision2 of the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of 0alolos, 3ulacan, 3ranch ./, in *riminal *ase "o. 454.-0--2, finding accusedappellant "orberto del 0onte, a.k.a. 6bet, guilty of violation of Section %,4 !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, otherwise 8nown as 9*omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2.9 6n 11 )ecember 2--2, accused-appellant was charged with :iolation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, otherwise 8nown as *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2. &he accusatory portion of the information reads; &hat on or about the 1-th day of )ecember 2--2, in the municipality of 3aliuag, province of 3ulacan, <hilippines, and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the abovenamed accused, without authority of law and legal =ustification, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one 112 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of 0ethylamphetamine ,ydrochloride weighing -.2#- gram.5 &he case was raffled to 3ranch ./ of the &* of 0alolos, 3ulacan and doc8eted as *riminal *ase "o. 454.-0--2. When arraigned on 2- >anuary 2--4, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded 9"ot +uilty9 to the charge.% 6n 1. ?ebruary 2--4, the pre-trial conference was concluded.$ &hereafter, trial on the merits ensued. &he prosecution presented as its lone witness <61 +audencio 0. &olentino, >r., the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against appellant, and a member of the <hilippine "ational <olice 1<"<2 assigned with the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency 1<)@!2 egional 6ffice

4/Special @nforcement (nit 1S@(2 stationed at the ?ield 6ffice, 3arangay &arcan, 3aliuag, 3ulacan. &he version of the prosecution is as follows; 6n 1- )ecember 2--2, at around 4;-- oAcloc8 in the afternoon, a confidential informant went to the office of the <)@! S@( in 3arangay &arcan, 3aliuag, 3ulacan and reported that appellant was selling shabu. (pon receipt of said information, a briefing on a buy-bust operation against appellant was conducted. &he team was composed of S<62 ,ashim S. 0aung, as team leader, <61 +audencio &olentino, >r. as the poseur-buyer, and <61 !ntonio 3arreras as bac8-up operative. !fter the briefing, the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to <oblacion )i8e for the eBecution of the buy-bust operation. When the team arrived at appellantAs place, they saw the appellant standing alone in front of the gate. &he informant and <61 &olentino approached appellant. &he informant introduced <61 &olentino to appellant as his friend, saying 9Barkada ko, user.9 <61 &olentino gave appellant <4--.-- consisting of three mar8ed <1-- bills.. &he bills were mar8ed with 9+& > ,9 <61 &olentinoAs initials. (pon receiving the <4--.--, appellant too8 out a plastic sachet from his poc8et and handed it over to <61 &olentino. !s a pre-arranged signal, <61 &olentino lit a cigarette signifying that the sale had been consummated. <61 3arreras arrived, arrested appellant and recovered from the latter the mar8ed money. &he white crystalline substance/ in the plastic sachet which was sold to <61 &olentino was forwarded to <"< egional *rime Caboratory 6ffice 4, 0alolos, 3ulacan, for laboratory eBamination to determine the presence of the any dangerous drug. &he reDuest for laboratory eBamination was signed by S<62 0aung.# <er *hemistry eport "o. )-.2/-2--2,1- the substance bought from appellant was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. &he testimony of "ellson *ruz Sta. 0aria, ?orensic *hemical 6fficer who eBamined the substance bought from appellant, was dispensed after both prosecution and defense stipulated that the witness will merely testify on the fact that the drugs sub=ect matter of this case was forwarded to their office for laboratory eBamination and that laboratory eBamination was indeed conducted and the result was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.11 ?or the defense, the appellant too8 the witness stand, together with his common-law wife, !melia 0endozaE and nephew, !le=andro Cim. ?rom their collective testimonies, the defense version goes li8e this; 6n 1- )ecember 2--2, appellant was sleeping in his sisterAs house in <oblacion )i8e when a commotion wo8e him up. ,is nephew, !le=andro Cim, was shouting because the latter, together with appellantAs common-law wife, !melia 0endoza, and a niece, was being punched and 8ic8ed by several police officers. When appellant tried to pacify the policemen and as8 them why they were beating up his common-law wife and other relatives, the policemen arrested him, mauled him, punched him on the chest, slapped him and hit him with a palo-palo. ,e sustained

swollen face, lips and tooth. ,is common-law wife was li8ewise hit on the chest with the palopalo. &he policemen then too8 appellant and his common-law wife to a house located in the middle of a field where the former demanded <1%,---.-- for their liberty. &he neBt day, appellant was brought to the police station. !melia 0endoza identified <61 &olentino and <61 3arreras as the police officers who manhandled them and who demanded <1%,---.-- so that she and appellant could go home. &he following day at $;-- a.m., she said her child and cousin arrived with the <1%,---.--. She was released but appellant was detained. She does not 8now why the police officers filed this case against appellant. What she 8nows is that they were as8ing money from them. !le=andro Cim merely corroborated the testimonies of appellant and !melia 0endoza. 6n / 0arch 2--5, the trial court rendered its decision convicting appellant of :iolation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of <%,---,---.--. &he dispostive portion of the decision reads; W,@ @?6 @, the foregoing considered, this *ourt hereby finds accused "orberto del 0onte y +apay F 6bet +(7C&G beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of :iolation of Section %, !rt. 77 of .!. #1$% and sentences him to suffer the penalty of C7?@ 70< 7S6"0@"& and a fine of <%,---,---.--. With cost. &he drugs sub=ect matter of this case is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. &he 3ranch of this *ourt is directed to turn over the same to the )angerous )rugs 3oard within ten 11-2 days from receipt hereof for proper disposal thereof.12 &he trial court found the lone testimony of <61 +audencio 0. &olentino, >r. to be credible and straightforward. 7t established the fact that appellant was caught selling shabu during an entrapment operation conducted on 1- )ecember 2--2. !ppellant was identified as the person from whom <61 &olentino bought <4--.-- worth of shabu as confirmed by *hemistry eport "o. )-.2/-2--2. 6n the other hand, the trial court was not convinced by appellantAs defense of frame-up and denial. !ppellant failed to substantiate his claims that he was merely sleeping and was awa8ened by the screams of his relatives who were being mauled by the police officers. !ppellant filed a "otice of !ppeal on 1- 0arch 2--5.14 With the filing thereof, the trial court directed the immediate transmittal of the entire records of the case to us.15 ,owever, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,1% the case was remanded to the *ourt of !ppeals for appropriate action and disposition.1$ 6n 2/ 0ay 2--., the *ourt of !ppeals affirmed the trial courtAs decision but reduced the fine imposed on appellant to <%--,---.--. 7t disposed of the case as follows; W,@ @?6 @, the appeal is DIS ISSED and the decision dated 0arch /, 2--5 of the &*, 3ranch ./, 0alolos, 3ulacan, in *riminal *ase "o. 454.-0--2, finding accused-

appellant "orberto del 0onte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of :iolation of Section %, !rticle 77, epublic !ct "o. #1$%, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment is AFFIR ED with the ODIFI$ATION that the amount of fine imposed upon him is reduced from <%,---,---.-- to <%--,---.--.1. ! "otice of !ppeal having been timely filed by appellant, the *ourt of !ppeals forwarded the records of the case to us for further review.1/ 7n our esolution1# dated 1- )ecember 2--., the parties were notified that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 4- days from notice. 3oth appellant and appellee opted not to file a supplemental brief on the ground they had eBhaustively argued all the relevant issues in their respective briefs and the filing of a supplemental brief would only contain a repetition of the arguments already discussed therein. !ppellant ma8es a lone assignment of error; &,@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" ?7")7"+ &,@ !**(S@)!<<@CC!"& +(7C&G 6? &,@ 6??@"S@ *,! +@) )@S<7&@ &,@ 7"!)07SS737C7&G 6? &,@ @:7)@"*@ !+!7"S& ,70 ?6 ?!7C( @ 6? &,@ ! @S&7"+ 6??7*@ S &6 *60<CG W7&, S@*&76" 21 6? .!. #1$%.2!ppellant anchors his appeal on the arresting policemenAs failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%. ,e claims that pictures of him together with the alleged confiscated shabu were not ta8en immediately upon his arrest as shown by the testimony of the lone prosecution witness. ,e adds that <61 &olentino and <61 !ntonio 3arreras, the police officers who had initial custody of the drug allegedly seized and confiscated, did not conduct a physical inventory of the same in his presence as shown by their =oint affidavit of arrest. &heir failure to abide by said section casts doubt on both his arrest and the admissibility of the evidence adduced against him. !t the outset, it must be stated that appellant raised the police officersA alleged non-compliance with Section 2121 of epublic !ct "o. #1$% for the first time on appeal. &his, he cannot do. 7t is too late in the day for him to do so. 7n People v. Sta. Maria22 in which the very same issue was raised, we ruled; &he law eBcuses non-compliance under =ustifiable grounds. ,owever, whatever =ustifiable grounds may eBcuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain un8nown, because appellant did not Duestion during trial the safe8eeping of the items seized from him. 7ndeed, the poli() o**i()r+, -ll).)/ 0iol-1io2+ of Sections 21 and /$ of epublic !ct "o. #1$% 3)r) 2o1 r-i+)/ 4)*or) 15) 1ri-l (o6r1 461 3)r) i2+1)-/ r-i+)/ *or 15) *ir+1 1i7) o2 -pp)-l. I2 2o i2+1-2() /i/ -pp)ll-21 l)-+1 i21i7-1) -1 15) 1ri-l (o6r1 15-1 15)r) 3)r) l-p+)+ i2 15) +-*)8))pi2. o* +)i9)/ i1)7+ 15-1 -**)(1)/ 15)ir i21).ri1! -2/ )0i/)21i-r! 0-l6). O4:)(1io2 1o )0i/)2() (-22o1 4) r-i+)/ *or 15) *ir+1 1i7) o2 -pp)-l; 35)2 - p-r1! /)+ir)+ 15) (o6r1 1o r):)(1 15) )0i/)2() o**)r)/, 5) 76+1 +o +1-1) i2 15) *or7 o*

o4:)(1io2. <i15o61 +6(5 o4:)(1io2 5) (-22o1 r-i+) 15) =6)+1io2 *or 15) *ir+1 1i7) o2 -pp)-l. 1@mphases supplied.2 7n People v. Pringas,24 we eBplained that non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accusedAs arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 7n the case at bar, appellant never Duestioned the custody and disposition of the drug that was ta8en from him. 7n fact, he stipulated that the drug sub=ect matter of this case was forwarded to <"< egional *rime Caboratory 6ffice 4, 0alolos, 3ulacan for laboratory eBamination which eBamination gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from appellant not to have been compromised. We would li8e to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the ma8ing of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. (nder Section 4 of ule 12/ of the ules of *ourt, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. ?or evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. 7f there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted sub=ect only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. 6ne eBample is that provided in Section 41 of ule 142 of the ules of *ourt wherein a party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to be altered after its eBecution, in a part material to the Duestion in dispute, must account for the alteration. ,is failure to do so shall ma8e the document inadmissible in evidence. &his is clearly provided for in the rules. We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%. &he issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight ' evidentiary merit or probative value ' to be given the evidence. &he weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case. &he elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are 112 the identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob=ect, and considerationE and 122 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.25 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually too8 place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.2% !ll these elements have been shown in the instant case. &he prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu sub=ect of the sale was brought and identified in court. &he poseur buyer positively identified appellant as the seller of the shabu. <er *hemistry eport "o. )-.2/-2--2 of ?orensic *hemical 6fficer "ellson *ruz Sta. 0aria, the substance, weighing -.2#- gram, which was bought by <61 &olentino from appellant in consideration of <4--.--, was eBamined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride 1shabu2.

7n the case before us, we find the testimony of the poseur-buyer, together with the dangerous drug ta8en from appellant, more than sufficient to prove the crime charged. *onsidering that this *ourt has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial. 7t 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 and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. &he 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.2$ &he rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the *ourt of !ppeals.2. ?inding no compelling reason to depart from the findings of both the trial court and the *ourt of !ppeals, we affirm their findings. !ppellant denies selling shabu to the poseur-buyer insisting that he was framed, the evidence against him being 9planted,9 and that the police officers were eBacting <1%,---.-- from him. 7n the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellant was the sub=ect of a buy-bust operation. ,aving been caught in flagrante delicto, his identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. !gainst the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellantAs plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.2/ ?rame-up, li8e alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this *ourt, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. 0oreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the )angerous )rugs !ct.2# ?or this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.4- &his, appellant failed to do. &he presumption remained unrebutted because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive. &he presentation of his common-law wife, !melia 0endoza, and his nephew, !le=andro Cim, to support his claims fails to sway. We find both witnesses not to be credible. &heir testimonies are suspect and cannot be given credence without clear and convincing evidence. &heir claims, as well as that of appellant, that they were maltreated and suffered in=uries remain unsubstantiated. !s found by the trial court; &he accused, on the other hand, in an effort to eBculpate himself from liability raised the defense of frame-up. ,e alleged that at the time of the alleged buy bust he was merely sleeping at the house of his sister. &hat he was awa8ened by the yells and screams of his relatives as they were being mauled by the police officers. ,owever, this *ourt is not convinced. !ccused failed to substantiate these claims of maltreatment even in the face of his wifeAs and nephewAs testimony. "o evidence was presented to prove the same other than their self-serving claims.41

0oreover, we agree with the observation of the 6ffice of the Solicitor +eneral that the witnesses for the defense cannot even agree on what time the arresting policemen allegedly arrived in their house. 7t eBplained; &o elaborate, appellant testified that it was 4 oAcloc8 in the afternoon of )ecember 1-, 2--2 when he was roused from his sleep by the policemen who barged into the house of his sister 1&S", >uly ., 2--4, p. 22. ,is common-law wife, however, testified that it was 1--11 oAcloc8 in the morning when the policemen came to the house 1&S", 6ct. 14, 2--4, p. $2. 6n the other hand, !le=andro Cim testified that he went to sleep at 11 oAcloc8 in the morning and it was 1- oAcloc8 in the morning when the policemen arrived 1&S", ?eb.2, 2--5, p. $2. ,e thus tried to depict an absurd situation that the policemen arrived first before he went to sleep with appellant.42 ,aving established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements constituting the illegal sale of drugs, we are constrained to uphold appellantAs conviction. &he sale of shabu is penalized under Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%. Said section reads; S@*. %. Sale, &rading, !dministration, )ispensation, )elivery, )istribution and &ransportation of )angerous )rugs and/or *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals. ' &he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 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 Duantity and purity involved, or shall act as a bro8er in any of such transactions. (nder said law, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its Duantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of <%--,---.-- to <1-,---,---.--. ?or selling -.2#- gram of shabu to <61 &olentino, and there being no modifying circumstance alleged in the information, the trial court, as sustained by the *ourt of !ppeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment in accordance with !rticle $412244 of the evised <enal *ode. !s regards the fine to be imposed on appellant, the trial court pegged the fine at <%,---,---.-which the *ourt of !ppeals reduced to <%--,---.--. 3oth amounts are within the range provided for by law but the amount imposed by the *ourt of !ppeals, considering the Duantity of the drugs involved, is more appropriate. <HEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. &he )ecision of the *ourt of !ppeals in *!-+. . * -,.*. "o. -2-.- dated 2/ 0ay 2--., sustaining the conviction of appellant "orberto )el 0onte, a.8.a. 6bet, for violation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, is hereby AFFIR ED. "o costs. SO ORDERED.

INITA >. $HI$O%NA&ARIO !ssociate >ustice Foo12o1)+

1

<enned by !ssociate >ustice ,a8im S. !bdulwahid with !ssociate >ustices 0artin S. :illarama, >r. and !rturo +. &ayag, concurring. ollo, pp. #4-1-%.
2

ecords, pp. 112-11$.

Sale, &rading, !dministration, )ispensation, )elivery, )istribution and &ransporation of )angerous )rugs and/or *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals.
5

ecords, p. 2. 7d. at 11. 7d. at 1.. @Bhs. ), )-1 and )-2E records, p. $2. @Bh. 3E id. at $1. @Bh. !E id. at $-. @Bh. *E id. at $1. &S", 1$ >une 2--4, p. 1-. ecords, p. 11$. 7d. at 11#. 7d. at 121. +. . "os. 15.$./-/., . >uly 2--5, 544 S* ! $5-. ollo, p. $2. 7d. at 1-5. 7d. at 111. 7d. at 1#. 7d. at .4-.5.

1-

11

12

14

15

1%

1$

1.

1/

1#

2-

21

S@*. 21. *ustody and )isposition of *onfiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered )angerous )rugs, <lant Sources of )angerous )rugs, *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals, 7nstruments/<araphernalia and/or Caboratory @Duipment. ' &he <)@! shall ta8e 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 eDuipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner; 112 &he 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 )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
22

+. . "o. 1.1-1#, 24 ?ebruary 2--., %1$ S* ! $21, $44-$45. +. . "o. 1.%#2/, 41 !ugust 2--., %41 S* ! /2/, /52-/54. <eople v. !dam, 5%# <hil. $.$, $/5 12--42. <eople v. "icolas, +. . "o. 1.-245, / ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! 1/., 1#/. <eople v. >ulian-?ernandez, 524 <hil. /#%, #1- 12--12. <eople v. *abugatan, +. . "o. 1.2-1#, 12 ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! %4., %5.. <eople v. Sy, +. . "o. 1.14#., 2. September 2--$, %-4 S* ! ..2, ./4. <eople v. @ugenio, +. . "o. 15$/-%, 1$ >anuary 2--4, 4#% S* ! 41., 424. <eople v. Hheng 3ai ,ui, 4#4 <hil. $/, 14/ 12---2. ollo, p. %.. 7d. at /1-/2. ! &. $4. ules for the application of indivisible penalties. BBBB 7n all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof; BBBB

24

25

2%

2$

2.

2/

2#

4-

41

42

44

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

G.R. No. 1729?3 April 30, 2008 @ANIE ALILLIN ". LOPE&, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. ! uniDue characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are sub=ect to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. &he *ourt cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the li8elihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the lin8s in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other casesIby accident or otherwiseIin which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. ,ence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving ob=ects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more eBacting 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 eBchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. &he prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its burden of establishing the identity of the seized items because it failed to offer not only the testimony of +allinera and +arcia but also any sufficient eBplanation for such failure TINGA, J.' &he presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. @vidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of guiltlessness. !nd this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability. 7n this <etition for eview1 under ule 5% of the ules of *ourt, >unie 0alillin y Copez 1petitioner2 assails the )ecision2 of the *ourt of !ppeals dated 2. >anuary 2--$ as well as its esolution4 dated 4- 0ay 2--$ denying his motion for reconsideration. &he challenged decision has affirmed the )ecision5 of the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of Sorsogon *ity, 3ranch %2% which found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally 8nown as shabu, a prohibited drug. &he antecedent facts follow. 6n the strength of a warrant$ of search and seizure issued by the &* of Sorsogon *ity, 3ranch %2, a team of five police officers raided the residence of petitioner in 3arangay &ugos, Sorsogon *ity on 5 ?ebruary 2--4. &he team was headed by </7nsp. *atalino 3olanos 13olanos2, with <64

oberto @sternon 1@sternon2, S<61 <edro )ocot, S<61 )anilo Casala and S<62 omeo +allinera 1+allinera2 as members. &he searchIconducted in the presence of barangay kagawad )elfin Cicup as well as petitioner himself, his wife Sheila and his mother, "ormaIallegedly yielded two 122 plastic sachets of shabu and five 1%2 empty plastic sachets containing residual morsels of the said substance. !ccordingly, petitioner was charged with violation of Section 11,. !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, otherwise 8nown as &he *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2, in a criminal information whose inculpatory portion reads; &hat on or about the 5th day of ?ebruary 2--4, at about /;5% in the morning in 3arangay &ugos, Sorsogon *ity, <hilippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two 122 plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride JorK 9shabu9 with an aggregate weight of -.-.54 gram, and four empty sachets containing 9shabu9 residue, without having been previously authorized by law to possess the same. *6"& ! G &6 C!W./ <etitioner entered a negative plea.# !t the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented 3olanos, !rroyo and @sternon as witnesses. &a8ing the witness stand, 3olanos, the leader of the raiding team, testified on the circumstances surrounding the search as follows; that he and his men were allowed entry into the house by petitioner after the latter was shown the search warrantE that upon entering the premises, he ordered @sternon and barangay kagawad Cicup, whose assistance had previously been reDuested in eBecuting the warrant, to conduct the searchE that the rest of the police team positioned themselves outside the house to ma8e sure that nobody fleesE that he was observing the conduct of the search from about a meter awayE that the search conducted inside the bedroom of petitioner yielded five empty plastic sachets with suspected shabu residue contained in a denim bag and 8ept in one of the cabinets, and two plastic sachets containing shabu which fell off from one of the pillows searched by @sternonIa discovery that was made in the presence of petitioner.1- 6n cross eBamination, 3olanos admitted that during the search, he was eBplaining its progress to petitionerLs mother, "orma, but that at the same time his eyes were fiBed on the search being conducted by @sternon.11 @sternon testified that the denim bag containing the empty plastic sachets was found 9behind9 the door of the bedroom and not inside the cabinetE that he then found the two filled sachets under a pillow on the bed and forthwith called on +allinera to have the items recorded and mar8ed.12 6n cross, he admitted that it was he alone who conducted the search because 3olanos was standing behind him in the living room portion of the house and that petitioner handed to him the things to be searched, which included the pillow in which the two sachets of shabu were 8eptE14 that he brought the seized items to the 3alogo <olice Station for a 9true inventory,9 then to the trial court15 and thereafter to the laboratory.1%

Supt. Corlie !rroyo 1!rroyo2, the forensic chemist who administered the eBamination on the seized items, was presented as an eBpert witness to identify the items submitted to the laboratory. She revealed that the two filled sachets were positive of shabu and that of the five empty sachets, four were positive of containing residue of the same substance.1$ She further admitted that all seven sachets were delivered to the laboratory by @sternon in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant was eBecuted eBcept that it was not she but rather a certain 0rs. 6felia +arcia who received the items from @sternon at the laboratory.1. &he evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the search and seizure conducted by the police operatives. <etitioner testified that @sternon began the search of the bedroom with Cicup and petitioner himself inside. ,owever, it was momentarily interrupted when one of the police officers declared to 3olanos that petitionerLs wife, Sheila, was tuc8ing something inside her underwear. ?orthwith, a lady officer arrived to conduct the search of SheilaLs body inside the same bedroom. !t that point, everyone eBcept @sternon was as8ed to step out of the room. So, it was in his presence that Sheila was searched by the lady officer. <etitioner was then as8ed by a police officer to buy cigarettes at a nearby store and when he returned from the errand, he was told that nothing was found on SheilaLs body.1/ Sheila was ordered to transfer to the other bedroom together with her children.1# <etitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he was summoned by @sternon to the bedroom and once inside, the officer closed the door and as8ed him to lift the mattress on the bed. !nd as he was doing as told, @sternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion of the headboard. 7n that instant, @sternon showed him 9sachet of shabu9 which according to him came from a pillow on the bed.2- <etitionerLs account in its entirety was corroborated in its material respects by "orma, barangay kagawad Cicup and Sheila in their testimonies. "orma and Sheila positively declared that petitioner was not in the house for the entire duration of the search because at one point he was sent by @sternon to the store to buy cigarettes while Sheila was being searched by the lady officer.21 Cicup for his part testified on the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the plastic sachets. ,e recounted that after the five empty sachets were found, he went out of the bedroom and into the living room and after about three minutes, @sternon, who was left inside the bedroom, eBclaimed that he had =ust found two filled sachets.22 6n 2- >une 2--5 the trial court rendered its )ecision declaring petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. <etitioner was condemned to prison for twelve years 1122 and one 112 day to twenty 12-2 years and to pay a fine of <4--,---.--.24 &he trial court reasoned that the fact that shabu was found in the house of petitioner was prima facie evidence of petitionerLs animus possidendi sufficient to convict him of the charge inasmuch as things which a person possesses or over which he eBercises acts of ownership are presumptively owned by him. 7t also noted petitionerLs failure to ascribe ill motives to the police officers to fabricate charges against him.25 !ggrieved, petitioner filed a "otice of !ppeal.2% 7n his !ppeal 3rief2$ filed with the *ourt of !ppeals, petitioner called the attention of the court to certain irregularities in the manner by which the search of his house was conducted. ?or its part, the 6ffice of the Solicitor +eneral 16S+2 advanced that on the contrary, the prosecution evidence sufficed for petitionerLs conviction and that the defense never advanced any proof to show that the members of the

raiding team was improperly motivated to hurl false charges against him and hence the presumption that they had regularly performed their duties should prevail.2. 6n 2. >anuary 2--$, the *ourt of !ppeals rendered the assailed decision affirming the =udgment of the trial court but modifying the prison sentence to an indeterminate term of twelve 1122 years as minimum to seventeen 11.2 years as maBimum.2/ <etitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the appellate court.2# ,ence, the instant petition which raises substantially the same issues. 7n its *omment,4- the 6S+ bids to establish that the raiding team had regularly performed its duties in the conduct of the search.41 7t points to petitionerLs incredulous claim that he was framed up by @sternon on the ground that the discovery of the two filled sachets was made in his and CicupLs presence. 7t li8ewise notes that petitionerLs bare denial cannot defeat the positive assertions of the prosecution and that the same does not suffice to overcome the prima facie eBistence of animus possidendi. &his argument, however, hardly holds up to what is revealed by the records. <refatorily, although the trial courtLs findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overloo8ed, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal.42 7n the case at bar, several circumstances obtain which, if properly appreciated, would warrant a conclusion different from that arrived at by the trial court and the *ourt of !ppeals. <rosecutions 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. &he dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its eBistence is vital to a =udgment of conviction.44 @ssential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.45 3e that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty reDuired to sustain a finding of guilt. 0ore than =ust the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as eBhibit must also be established with the same unwavering eBactitude as that reDuisite to ma8e a finding of guilt. &he chain of custody reDuirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.4% !s a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule reDuires that the admission of an eBhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in Duestion is what the proponent claims it to be.4$ 7t would include testimony about every lin8 in the chain, from the moment the item was pic8ed up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the eBhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnessL possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the neBt lin8 in the chain. &hese witnesses would then describe the precautions ta8en 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.4. While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbro8en 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 uniDueness.4/ &he same standard li8ewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination4# and even substitution and eBchange.5- 7n other words, the eBhibitLs level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tamperingIwithout regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise notIdictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. 7ndeed, the li8elihood of tampering, loss or mista8e with respect to an eBhibit is greatest when the eBhibit 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.51 raham vs. State52 positively ac8nowledged this danger. 7n that case where a substance later analyzed as heroinIwas handled by two police officers prior to eBamination who however did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the eBhibit at the time it was in their possessionIwas eBcluded 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 ba8ing powder. 7t ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the eBhibit at least between the time it came into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratoryLs findings is inadmissible.54 ! uniDue characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are sub=ect to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. &he *ourt cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the li8elihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the lin8s in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other casesIby accident or otherwiseIin which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. ,ence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving ob=ects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more eBacting 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 eBchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. ! mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from petitioner. 6f the people who came into direct contact with the seized ob=ects, only @sternon and !rroyo testified for the specific purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence. +allinera, to whom @sternon supposedly handed over the confiscated sachets for recording and mar8ing, as well as +arcia, the person to whom @sternon directly handed over the seized items for chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not presented in court to establish the circumstances under which they handled the sub=ect items. !ny reasonable mind might then as8 the Duestion; !re the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from petitioner the very same ob=ects laboratory tested and offered in court as evidenceM

&he prosecutionLs evidence is incomplete to provide an affirmative answer. *onsidering that it was +allinera who recorded and mar8ed the seized items, his testimony in court is crucial to affirm whether the eBhibits were the same items handed over to him by @sternon at the place of seizure and ac8nowledge the initials mar8ed thereon as his own. &he same is true of +arcia who could have, but nevertheless failed, to testify on the circumstances under which she received the items from @sternon, what she did with them during the time they were in her possession until before she delivered the same to !rroyo for analysis. &he prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its burden of establishing the identity of the seized items because it failed to offer not only the testimony of +allinera and +arcia but also any sufficient eBplanation for such failure. 7n effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the eBhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the eBhibits, which cannot but inure to its own detriment. &his holds true not only with respect to the two filled sachets but also to the five sachets allegedly containing morsels of shabu. !lso, contrary to what has been consistently claimed by the prosecution that the search and seizure was conducted in a regular manner and must be presumed to be so, the records disclose a series of irregularities committed by the police officers from the commencement of the search of petitionerLs house until the submission of the seized items to the laboratory for analysis. &he *ourt ta8es note of the unrebutted testimony of petitioner, corroborated by that of his wife, that prior to the discovery of the two filled sachets petitioner was sent out of his house to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. @Dually telling is the testimony of 3olanos that he posted some of the members of the raiding team at the door of petitionerLs house in order to forestall the li8elihood of petitioner fleeing the scene. 3y no stretch of logic can it be conclusively eBplained why petitioner was sent out of his house on an errand when in the first place the police officers were in fact apprehensive that he would flee to evade arrest. &his fact assumes prime importance because the two filled sachets were allegedly discovered by @sternon immediately after petitioner returned to his house from the errand, such that he was not able to witness the conduct of the search during the brief but crucial interlude that he was away. 7t is also strange that, as claimed by @sternon, it was petitioner himself who handed to him the items to be searched including the pillow from which the two filled sachets allegedly fell. 7ndeed, it is contrary to ordinary human behavior that petitioner would hand over the said pillow to @sternon 8nowing fully well that illegal drugs are concealed therein. 7n the same breath, the manner by which the search of SheilaLs body was brought up by a member of the raiding team also raises serious doubts as to the necessity thereof. &he declaration of one of the police officers that he saw Sheila tuc8 something in her underwear certainly diverted the attention of the members of petitionerLs household away from the search being conducted by @sternon prior to the discovery of the two filled sachets. Cest it be omitted, the *ourt li8ewise ta8es note of @sternonLs suspicious presence in the bedroom while Sheila was being searched by a lady officer. &he confluence of these circumstances by any ob=ective standard of behavior contradicts the prosecutionLs claim of regularity in the eBercise of duty. 0oreover, Section 2155 of the 7mplementing ules and egulations of .!. "o. #1$% clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in ta8ing custody of seized drugs. 7n a language too plain to reDuire a different construction, it mandates that the officer acDuiring initial custody of drugs

under a search warrant must conduct the photographing and the physical inventory of the item at the place where the warrant has been served. @sternon deviated from this procedure. 7t was elicited from him that at the close of the search of petitionerLs house, he brought the seized items immediately to the police station for the alleged purpose of ma8ing a 9true inventory9 thereof, but there appears to be no reason why a true inventory could not be made in petitionerLs house when in fact the apprehending team was able to record and mar8 the seized items and there and then prepare a seizure receipt therefor. Cest it be forgotten, the raiding team has had enough opportunity to cause the issuance of the warrant which means that it has had as much time to prepare for its implementation. While the final proviso in Section 21 of the rules would appear to eBcuse non-compliance therewith, the same cannot benefit the prosecution as it failed to offer any acceptable =ustification for @sternonLs course of action. Ci8ewise, @sternonLs failure to deliver the seized items to the court demonstrates a departure from the directive in the search warrant that the items seized be immediately delivered to the trial court with a true and verified inventory of the same,5% as reDuired by ule 12$, Section 125$ of the ules of *ourt. People v. o5. characterized this reDuirement as mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of or tampering with said items by interested parties.5/ &hus, as a reasonable safeguard, People vs. !el "astillo5# declared that the approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary before police officers can retain the property seized and without it, they would have no authority to retain possession thereof and more so to deliver the same to another agency.%- 0ere tolerance by the trial court of a contrary practice does not ma8e the practice right because it is violative of the mandatory reDuirements of the law and it thereby defeats the very purpose for the enactment.%1 +iven the foregoing deviations of police officer @sternon from the standard and normal procedure in the implementation of the warrant and in ta8ing post-seizure custody of the evidence, the blind reliance by the trial court and the *ourt of !ppeals on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly misplaced. &he presumption of regularity is merely =ust thatIa mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.%2 Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.%4 7n the present case the lac8 of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the manner by which the same were placed under police custody before offered in court, strongly militates a finding of guilt. 7n our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the wea8ness of the defense. &he rule is invariable whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.%5 7n dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acDuittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right. W,@ @?6 @, the assailed )ecision of the *ourt of !ppeals dated 2. >anuary 2--$ affirming with modification the =udgment of conviction of the egional &rial *ourt of Sorsogon *ity, 3ranch %2, and its esolution dated 4- 0ay 2--$ denying reconsideration thereof, are

RE>ERSED and SET ASIDE. <etitioner >unie 0alillin y Copez is A$BAITTED on reasonable doubt and is accordingly ordered immediately released from custody unless he is being lawfully held for another offense. &he )irector of the 3ureau of *orrections is directed to implement this )ecision and to report to this *ourt the action ta8en hereon within five 1%2 days from receipt. S6 6 )@ @). #uisumbing,"hairperson "arpio-Morales, $elasco, %r., Brion, %%., concur.

Foo12o1)+
1

ollo, pp. /-22.

7n *!-+. . "o. 2/#1%. <enned by !ssociate >ustice enato *. )acudao and concurred in by !ssociate >ustices Cucas <. 3ersamin and *elia *. Cibrea-Ceagogo. *! rollo, pp. /1-#-.
4

7d. at 1-#. 7n *riminal *ase "o. 2--4-%/55. ecords, pp. 115-11#. <resided by >udge ,onesto !. :illamor. ecords, pp. 11-12.

Sec. 11. <ossession of )angerous )rugs.I&he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following Duantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereofE 112 1- grams or more of opiumE 122 1- grams or more of morphineE 142 1- grams or more of heroinE 152 1- grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloriedeE 1%2 %- grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or 9shabu9E 1$2 1- grams or more of mari=uana resin or mari=uana resin oilE 1.2 %-- grams or more of mari=uanaE and

1/2 1- grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioBymethamphetamine 10)0!2 or 9ecstasy,9 paramethoByamphetamine 1<0!2, trimethoByamphetamine 1&0!2, lysergic acid diethylamide 1CS)2, gamma hydroBybutyrate 1+,32, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the Duantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic reDuirements, as determined and promulgated by the 3oard in accordance to Section #4, !rticle N7 of this !ct. 6therwise, if the Duantity involved is less than the foregoing Duantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows; 112 Cife imprisonment and a fine ranging from ?our hundred thousand pesos 1<5--,---.--2 to ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2, if the Duantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or 9shabu9 is ten 11-2 grams or more but less than fifty 1%-2 gramsE 122 7mprisonment of twenty 12-2 years and one 112 day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from ?our hundred thousand pesos 1<5--,---.--2 to ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2, if the Duantities of dangerous drugs are five 1%2 grams or more but less than ten 11-2 grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, mari=uana resin or mari=uana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or 9shabu,9 or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, 0)0! or 9ecstasy,9 <0!, &0!, CS), +,3, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the Duantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic reDuirementsE or three hundred 14--2 grams or more but less than five hundred 1%--2 grams or mari=uanaE and 142 7mprisonment of twelve 112 years and one 112 day to twenty 12-2 years and a fine ranging from &hree hundred thousand pesos 1<4--,---.--2 to ?our hundred thousand pesos 1<5--,---.--2, if the Duantities of dangerous drugs are less than five 1%2 grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, mari=uana resin or mari=uana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or 9shabu,9 or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, 0)0! or 9ecstasy,9 <0!, &0!, CS), +,3, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the Duantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic reDuirementsE or less than three hundred 14--2 grams of mari=uana.
/

ecords, p. 2. 7d. at 51, 54. &S", 22 !pril 2--4, pp. $-#. 7d. at 1%-1$. &S", 24 >uly 2--4, pp. $-., 1-. 7d. at 1$-1..

1-

11

12

14

15

&S", 24 >uly 2--4, pp. 14-1%. 7d. at #. &S", 2/ 0ay 2--4, p. 15. &he results of the chemical analysis are embodied in *hemistry eport "o. )--4.--4. See records, p. 1/. 7d. at 4. &S", 2 )ecember 2--4, pp. $-1-. 7d. at 14. 7d. at 11-12. &S", 11 "ovember 2--4, p. 4E &S", 24 0arch 2--5, p. 5. &S", 5 ?ebruary 2--5, pp. 5-%, #. ecords, p. 11#. &he dispositive portion of the decision reads;

1%

1$

1.

1/

1#

2-

21

22

24

W,@ @?6 @, premises considered, the *ourt finds accused >unie 0alillin y Copez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of :iolation of Sec. 11, !rticle 77 of .!. "o. #1$% otherwise 8nown as the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2 and he is hereby sentenceJdK to suffer the penalty of &welve 1122 years and one 112 day to &wenty 12-2 years and fine of <4--,---.--. &he shabu recovered is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government and the same shall be turned over to the 3oard for proper disposal without delay. S6 6 )@ @).
25

7d. at 11.-11/. 7d. at 121. *! rollo, pp. 4%-5.. 7d. at $%-.4. 7d. at /#. &he *ourt of !ppeals disposed of the appeal as follows;

2%

2$

2.

2/

(<6" &,@ :7@W W@ &!O@ 6? &,7S *!S@, &,(S, the appeal is )7S07SS@) for lac8 of merit, and the =udgment appealed from is hereby !??7 0@) with 06)7?7*!&76" in the sense that the accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term

ranging from twelve 1122 years, as minimum, to seventeen 11.2 years as maBimum. 7n all other respects, the =udgment appealed from is hereby 0!7"&!7"@). *osts against accused-appellant. S6 6 )@ @).
2#

7d. at 1-#. ollo, pp. 1-2-112. 7d. at 1-..

4-

41

42

<eople v. <edronan, +. . "o. 15/$$/, 1. >une 2--4, 5-5 S* ! 1/4, 1//E <eople v. *asimiro, +. . "o. 15$2.., 2- >une 2--2, 4/4 S* ! 4#-, 4#/E <eople v. CaBa, +. . "o. 14/%-1, 2- >uly 2--1, 4$1 S* ! $22, $2..
44

<eople v. Simbahon, +. . "o. 1424.1, # !pril 2--4, 5-1 S* ! #5, 1--E <eople v. CaBa, +. . "o. 14/%-1, 2- >uly 2--1, 4$1 S* ! $22, $45E <eople v. )ismu8eE <eople v. 0apaE
45

<eople v. Simbahon, +. . "o. 1424.1, # !pril 2--4, 5-1 S* ! #5, 1--E <eople v. Oimura, +. . "o. 14-/-%, 2. !pril 2--5, 52/ S* ! %1, .-.
4%

!n !nalytical !pprocah to @vidence, onad >. !llen, ichard 3. Ouhns, by Cittle 3rown P *o., (S!, 1#/#, p. 1.5.
4$

(nited States v. ,oward-!rias, $.# ?.2d 4$4, 4$$E (nited States v. icco, %2 ?.4d %/.

4.

@vidence Caw, oger *. <ar8, )avid <. Ceonard, Steven ,. +oldberg, 1##/, $1- 6pperman )rive, St. <aul 0innesota, p. %-..
4/

@vidence Caw, oger *. <ar8, )avid <. Ceonard, Steven ,. +oldberg, 1##/, $1- 6pperman )rive, St. <aul 0innesota, p. %-.E 2#! !m. >ur. 2d @vidence Q #5$.
4#

2#! !m. >ur. 2d @vidence Q #5$. See +raham v. State, 2%% ".@.2d $%2, $%%. +raham v. State, 2%% ".@2d $%2, $%%. +raham v. State, 2%% ".@2d $%2. +raham v. State, 2%% ".@2d $%2, $%%.

5-

51

52

54

55

Section 21. *ustody and )isposition of *onfiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered )angerous )rugs, <lant Sources of )angerous )rugs, *ontrolled <recursors and essential *hemicals, 7nstruments/<araphernalia and/or Caboratory @Duipment.I B B B

1a2 &he apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; <rovided that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is servedE or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizuresE <rovided, further, that non-compliance with these reDuirements under =ustifiable 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 the said itemsE B B B 1emphasis ours2.
5%

ecords, p. 12.

5$

S@*. 12. )elivery of property and inventory thereof to court.I &he officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the =udge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
5.

+. . "o. 155$4#, 12 September 2--4, 511 S* ! /1. 7d. at 1-1.

5/

5#

+. . "o. 1%42%5, 2- September 2--5, 54# S* ! $-1, citing <eople v. +esmundo, 21# S* ! .54 11##42.
%-

7d. at $1#. <eople v. +esmundo, +. . "o. /#4.4, # 0arch 1##4, 21# S* ! .54, .%4.

%1

%2

<eople v. !mbrosio, +. . "o. 14%4./, 15 !pril 2--5, 52. S* ! 412, 41/ citing <eople v. &an, 4/2 S* ! 51# 12--22.
%4

<eople v. !mbrosio, +. . "o. 14%4./, 15 !pril 2--5, 52. S* ! 412, 41/ citing <eople v. &an, 4/2 S* ! 51# 12--22.
%5

<eople v. CaBa, id. at $2.E <eople v. )iopita, 5 )ecember 2---E <eople v. 0albog, 12 6ctober 2---E <eople v. ?erras, 2/# S* ! #5.

>("@
G.R. No. 1791?0 @62) 17, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DELIA BA"ANI ! BOTANES, accused-appellant. ! police officerAs act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is 8nown as a 9decoy solicitation,9 is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buybust operations. &he sale of contraband is a 8ind of offense habitually committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the criminalAs course of conduct $HI$O%NA&ARIO, J.' !ppellant )elia 3ayani y 3otanes assails the )ecision1 of the *ourt of !ppeals dated 2)ecember 2--% in *!-+. . * -,.*. "o. --41-, affirming the )ecision2 dated 1$ >uly 2--5 of 3ranch 1-4 of the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of Ruezon *ity, in *riminal *ase "o. R--411%%#/. &he &* found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of drug pushing, in violation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%,4 also 8nown as the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2, and sentenced her to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos. 6n . 0arch 2--4, an 7nformation5 was filed before the &* charging appellant with :iolation of Section % of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, which reads; &hat on or about the 4rd day of 0arch 2--4, in the Ruezon *ity, <hilippines, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as bro8er in the said transaction, +iC poi21 *or1! o2) DE.41F .r-7+ o* )15!l-7p5)1-7i2) H!/ro(5lori/), a dangerous drug. 6n # September 2--4, appellant, with the assistance of counsel , was arraigned and she pleaded 9"ot guilty.9 &hereafter, a pre-trial conference was held, and trial ensued accordingly.% @vidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimony of <64 :irgilio 3ernardo, who testified that on 4 0arch 2--4, a confidential informant arrived at <olice Station 4, Ruirino ,ighway, 3arangay &alipapa, Ruezon *ity, where he was on duty, and reported to the )rug @nforcement (nit that appellant was illegally trading drugs along &rinidad Street, 3arangay +ulod, "ovaliches, Ruezon *ity. *hief Superintendent +erardo atuita formed a team composed of <64 3ernardo, S<65 3rigido !n, S<62 Cevi Sevilla, <62 0anny <anlilio, and <62 *ecil

*ollado to conduct a buy-bust operation. &he team too8 with them 9boodle9 money with two 122 pieces of genuine one-hundred-peso bills on top as buy-bust money.$ !t around 1-;4- in the morning of the same day, <64 3ernardo and the informant went in front of the appellantAs house located at "o. 22 3arangay +ulod, &rinidad Street, "ovaliches, Ruezon *ity, while the other police officers positioned themselves within viewing distance. &he appellant was standing in front of her house. !s they approached her, the informant introduced 3ernardo to her as a buyer. Witness testified that he told appellant that he wanted to buy ten thousand pesos 1<1-,---.--2 worth of shabu, and the appellant nodded her head. &hereafter, she handed him two sachets containing a crystalline substance which was suspected to be shabu. Witness, in turn, gave the boodle money, after which he grabbed the appellantAs right hand, apprehended her, and identified himself as a police officer.. !fter the apprehension of the appellant, the team brought her before the <olice Station investigator, while the drugs and the buy-bust money were turned over to the crime laboratory. !ppellant was apprised of her constitutional rights./ )uring his testimony, <64 3ernardo identified the accused, the boodle money with his initials 9:3,9 as well as two 122 sachets of crystalline substance 1also with the same initials2 which was positive of methylamphetamine hydrochloride after laboratory eBamination.# )enying the charge filed against her, appellant testified that at around .;-- in the morning of 4 0arch 2--4, she was inside her house with her children and her sister-in-law. While changing her clothes inside her room at the third floor, seven men barged inside her house. When she as8ed them what they were doing inside her house, they refused to answer. !lthough they continued to search her house, they did not find drugs therein. &hereafter, they introduced themselves as police officers and commanded her to show them the shabu. When she denied possession of any shabu, the police officers got angry and forced her to go with them to the <olice Station. She also testified that she could not cry to her neighbors for help because she was loc8ed inside her room while her sister-in-law and her five children were all afraid of the police.1When they arrived at the <olice Station, she was as8ed if she 8new a certain 9!llan.9 She answered in the negative. !fter a day of detention, she was brought to the office of the inDuest fiscal where she was informed that she was being charged with drug pushing.11 !ppellantAs seventeen-year-old son, )an >efferson, corroborated his motherAs testimony. ,e recounted that he was about to leave their house when five men barged into their house and went straight to his motherAs room at the third floor. ,e testified that he did not 8now what happened on the third floor since, at that time, he stayed in their sala at the second floor of the house. &hereafter, the rest of the police officers and his mother left the house, while he stayed put.12 7n a )ecision dated 1$ >uly 2--5, the &* decreed that the accused was guilty without reasonable doubt since the fact of the illegal sale of a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine hydrochloride, was sufficiently and indisputably established by the prosecution. <64 3ernardo, as the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant as the person who handed him two

sachets containing $.51 grams of shabu in eBchange for <1-,---.--. &he boodle money was mar8ed as @Bhibit 939 for the prosecution.14 &he two sachets of shabu were li8ewise presented and mar8ed in court as @Bhibits 9+9 and 9,.915 &he &* gave full credence to <64 3ernardoAs testimony, given the presumption of regularity in the performance of his functions as a police officer, especially since no ill motive was attributed to him for the appellantAs apprehension. 6n the other hand, the &* found the testimony of appellantAs son, )an, on what transpired on the third floor to be unreliable, since at that time he was supposedly staying in the sala, which was located at another floor.1% !ccording to the dispositive part of the )ecision dated 1$ >uly 2--5; A$$ORDINGL", =udgment is hereby rendered finding the accused GAILT" beyond reasonable doubt for 1sic2 violation of Section %, !rticle 77, .!. #1$% for drug pushing of siB point forty one 1$.512 grams of crystalline substance containing 0ethylamphetamine hydrochloride and is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE I PRISON ENT and to pay a fine of ?ive ,undred &housand <esos. &he drug involved in this case is hereby ordered transmitted to the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency 1<)@!2 through the )angerous )rugs 3oard for proper disposition.1$ &he appellant filed an appeal before the *ourt of !ppeals doc8eted as *!-+. . * -,.*. "o. --41-. aising only one assignment of error, appellant faulted the &*As finding of guilt for being based on a buy-bust transaction instigated by the arresting officers. 7n affirming the &* )ecision, the appellate court declared that the police officers did not induce the appellant to sell the prohibited drugs. 3y pointing out the fact that appellant had the shabu in her possession, ready for selling, before the police officer approached her, it ad=udged that the appellantAs criminal resolve was evidentE no inducement to sell the prohibited drugs had led to the commission of the offense. 7t maintained that the fact that the police officers did not conduct a prior surveillance does not affect the validity of an entrapment operation. 7t further held that presentation by the prosecution of the informant and other police officers who had witnessed the buy-bust operations was not reDuired to prove the appellantAs guilt, where their testimonies would merely repeat the testimony of the poseur-buyer.1. 7n the )ecision dated 2- )ecember 2--%, the fallo reads; <HEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is hereby DIS ISSED and the assailed )ecision AFFIR ED in toto. Without pronouncement as to costs.1/ ,ence, the present petition in which the appellant reiterates the sole assignment of error, to wit; &,@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" *6":7*&7"+ &,@ !**(S@)-!<<@CC!"& 6? &,@ * 70@ *,! +@) )@S<7&@ &,@ ?!*& &,!& &,@ <6C7*@ 7"S&7+!&@) &,@ !CC@+@) 3(G-3(S& & !"S!*&76". &his petition must fail, since the argument raised by appellant is specious. !ppellant argues that <64 3ernardoAs act of approaching the appellant to buy shabu during a buy-bust operation amounted to instigation. Such contention lac8s basis and is contrary to =urisprudence.

7nstigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. 6n the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbrea8er.1# &hus, in instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of committing. 3ut in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemesE thus, the accused cannot =ustify his or her conduct. 7n instigation, where law enforcers act as co-principals, the accused will have to be acDuitted. 3ut entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. !s has been said, instigation is a 9trap for the unwary innocent,9 while entrapment is a 9trap for the unwary criminal.92!s a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of arresting violators of epublic !ct "o. #1$%. 7t is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. 7n a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. ! police officerAs act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is 8nown as a 9decoy solicitation,9 is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buybust operations. &he sale of contraband is a 8ind of offense habitually committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the criminalAs course of conduct.21 7n <eople v. Sta. 0aria, the *ourt clarified that a 9decoy solicitation9 is not tantamount to inducement or instigation; 7t is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the 9decoy solicitation9 of persons see8ing to eBpose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission. @specially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. !s here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. &he police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. &hey duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with appellant. &here was no showing that the informant induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.22 *onversely, the law deplores instigation or inducement, which occurs when the police or its agent devises the idea of committing the crime and lures the accused into eBecuting the offense. 7nstigation absolves the accused of any guilt, given the spontaneous moral revulsion from using the powers of government to beguile innocent but ductile persons into lapses that they might otherwise resist.24 People v. !oria enumerated the instances when this *ourt recognized instigation as a valid defense, and an instance when it was not applicable;

7n &nited Sates v. Phelps, we acDuitted the accused from the offense of smo8ing opium after finding that the government employee, a 37 personnel, actually induced him to commit the crime in order to persecute him. Smith, the 37 agent, testified that <helpsA apprehension came after he overheard <helps in a saloon say that he li8e smo8ing opium on some occasions. SmithAs testimony was disregarded. We accorded significance to the fact that it was Smith who went to the accused three times to convince him to loo8 for an opium den where both of them could smo8e this drug. &he conduct of the 37 agent was condemned as 9most reprehensible.9 7n People v. 'bella, we acDuitted the accused of the crime of selling eBplosives after eBamining the testimony of the apprehending police officer who pretended to be a merchant. &he police officer offered 9a tempting price, B B B a very high one9 causing the accused to sell the eBplosives. We found there was inducement, 9direct, persistent and effective9 by the police officer and that outside of his testimony, there was no evidence sufficient to convict the accused. 7n People v. (ua "hu and &y Se )ieng, JWKe convicted the accused after finding that there was no inducement on the part of the law enforcement officer. We stated that the *ustoms secret serviceman smoothed the way for the introduction of opium from ,ong Oong to *ebu after the accused had already planned its importation and ordered said drug. We ruled that the apprehending officer did not induce the accused to import opium but merely entrapped him by pretending to have an understanding with the *ollector of *ustoms of *ebu to better assure the seizure of the prohibited drug and the arrest of the surreptitious importers.25 7n recent years, it has become common practice for law enforcement officers and agents to engage in buy-bust operations and other entrapment procedures in apprehending drug offenders, which is made difficult by the secrecy with which drug-related offenses are conducted and the many devices and subterfuges employed by offenders to avoid detection. 6n the other hand, the *ourt has ta8en =udicial notice of the ugly reality that in cases involving illegal drugs, corrupt law enforcers have been 8nown to prey upon wea8, hapless and innocent persons.2% &he distinction between entrapment and instigation has proven to be crucial. &he balance needs to be struc8 between the individual rights and the presumption of innocence on one hand, and ensuring the arrest of those engaged in the illegal traffic of narcotics on the other. 7n the present case, <64 3ernardo testified that appellant stood in front of her house and was in possession of drugs readily available for anyone who would buy them. <64 3ernardo did not even have to employ any act of instigation or inducement, such as repeated reDuests for the sale of prohibited drugs or offers of eBorbitant prices. 7n addition, <64 3ernardo was able to identify the accused, the boodle money, and the two pac8ets of crystalline substance, which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.2$ &he essential elements for the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu were established; 112 the identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob=ect of the sale and the considerationE and 122 the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. 7n short, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the mar8ed money, as relayed by <64 3ernardo, successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.2. 7n the case before us, we find the testimony of the poseur-buyer, together with the dangerous drug ta8en from the appellant, more than sufficient to prove the crime charged. *onsidering that this *ourt has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally

relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. 7t 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 errorsE gross misapprehension of factsE or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. &he 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.2/ &he rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the *ourt of !ppeals.2# ?inding no compelling reason to depart from the findings of both the trial court and the *ourt of !ppeals, this *ourt affirms the same. &he self-serving denial of the appellant deserves scant credence, since it is unsupported by any evidence other than the testimony of her son, )an >efferson. &his *ourt finds her sonAs testimony even more suspect, considering that his statement that five men barged into their house was belied by appellantAs allegation that seven men forcibly entered their home. !n allegation of frame-up and eBtortion by police officers is a common and standard defense in most dangerous drug cases. &o substantiate such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing.47n this case, there was no allegation of any attempt at eBtortion on the part of police officers or any reason for the police officers to falsify a serious criminal charge against appellant. !ppellant admitted that she had never even seen any of the police officers until she was arrested. &his negates any vengeful motive for her arrest. 7n the absence of proof of any ill motive or intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute a serious crime to the appellants, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties must prevail over the latterAs selfserving and uncorroborated claim. &his presumption is placed on an even more firm foothold when supported by the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witness, <64 3ernardo.41 *ontrary to the appellantAs claim, the prevailing doctrine is that additional corroborating testimony of the confidential informant is not essential to a successful prosecution. 7ntelligence agents are not often called to testify in court in order to hide their identities and preserve their invaluable service to the police. 6nce 8nown, they may even be the ob=ect of revenge by criminals they implicate. 42 Castly, the testimonies of other arresting officers are not reDuired in obtaining a conviction. &he testimony of <64 3ernardo, being candid and straightforward, is complete and sufficient for a finding of guilt. Section $, ule 144 of the ules of *ourt allows the court to stop introduction of further testimony upon a particular point when more witnesses to the same point cannot be eBpected to be additionally persuasive. ?urthermore, appellant cannot allude to or suggest the possibility of any irregularity that could have been revealed by the presentation of additional witnesses, when she herself failed to eBert any effort to summon these witnesses when she had the chance to do so.

<HEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. &he )ecision of the *ourt of !ppeals dated 2)ecember 2--% in *!-+ . * -,.*. "o. --41- is AFFIR ED. !ppellant )elia 3ayani y 3otanes is found GAILT" of violation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o #1$%. "o costs. SO ORDERED. INITA >. $HI$O%NA&ARIO !ssociate >ustice Foo12o1)+
S

<er Special 6rder "o. %-., dated 2/ 0ay 2--/, signed by *hief >ustice eynato S. <uno, designating !ssociate >ustice !rturo ). 3rion to replace !ssociate >ustice !ntonio @duardo 3. "achura, who is on official leave under the *ourtAs Wellness <rogram.
1

<enned by !ssociate >ustice >osefina +uevara-Salonga with !ssociate >ustices @liezer . de los Santos and ?ernanda Campas <eralta, concurringE ollo, pp. 2-1-.
2

<enned by <residing >udge >aime ". Salazar, >r.E *! rollo, pp. 4$-4/.

S)(1io2 ?. Sale, &rading, !dministration, )ispensation, )elivery, )istribution and &ransportation of )angerous )rugs and/or *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals. - &he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 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 Duantity and purity involved, or shall act as a bro8er in any of such transactions.
5

*! rollo, p. 11. 7d. at 12. 7d. 7d. 7d. at 14. 7d. 7d. 7d.

1-

11

12

7d. ecords, p. 25. 7d. at 2/. *! rollo, pp. 14-15. 7d. at 15. ollo, pp. 2-1-. 7d. at 1-. <eople v. +atong-o, +. . "o.C-./$#/, 2# )ecember 1#//, 1$/ S* ! .1$, .1..

14

15

1%

1$

1.

1/

1#

2-

*abrera v. <a=ares, !.0. "os. -2./- &> P -4-#- &>, 4- 0ay 1#/$, 152 S* ! 12., 145E !raneta v. *ourt of !ppeals, +. . "o. C-5$$4/, # >uly 1#/$, 152 S* ! %45, %4#E <eople v. Capatha, +. . "o. C-$4-.5, # "ovember 1#//, 1$. S* ! 1%#, 1.2-1.4E and <eople v. <atog, +. . "o. C-$#$2-, 25 September 1#/$, 155 S* ! 52#, 54..
21

<eople v. +onzales, 54- <hil. %-5, %14 12--22. <eople v. Sta. 0aria, +. . "o. 1.1-1#, 24 ?ebruary 2--., %1$ S* ! $21, $2/.

22

24

<eople v. )oria, +. . "o. 12%2##, 22 >anuary 1###, 4-1 S* ! $$/, $/$E <eople v. 3oco, +. . "o. 12#$.$, 24 >une 1###, 4-# S* ! 52, $%.
25

<eople v. )oria, id. at $#2-$#4.

2%

7d. at $#.E <eople v. !le, +. . "o. C-.-##/, 15 6ctober 1#/$, 15% S* ! %-, %/-%#E <eople v. ?ernando, +. . "o. C-$$#5., 25 6ctober 1#/$, 15% S* ! 1%1, 1%#E <eople v. *risostomo, +. . "o. #.52., 25 0ay 1##4, 222 S* ! %11,%15E <eople v. Salcedo, +. . "o. /$#.%, 1/ 0arch 1##1, 1#% S* ! 45%, 4%2E and <eople v. *ruz, +. . "o. 1-2//-E 2% !pril 1##5, 241 S* ! .%#, .$5-.$%.
2$

*hemistry eport "o. )-24$-2--4, 5 0arch 2--4E ecords, p. /.

2.

<eople v. +onzales, supra note 21 at %14E and <eople v. >ocson, +. . "o. 1$#/.%, 1/ )ecember 2--..
2/

<eople v. >ulian-?ernandez, 524 <hil. /#%, #1- 12--12. <eople v. *abugatan, +. . "o. 1.2-1#, 12 ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! %4., %5.. <eople v. 3oco, supra note 24 at $%.

2#

4-

41

<eople v. <acis, 545 <hil. 15/, 1%/-1%# 12--12E <eople v. Simon, +. . "o. #4-2/, 2# >uly 1##5, 245 S* ! %%%, %$4.
42

<eople v. )oria, supra note 24 at $##E <eople v. <acis, id. at 1%#E <eople v. 3oco, supra note 24 at $2.

G.R. No. 17E73? @62) 2E, 2008 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. @ERR" SANTOS ! -2/ RA ON $ATO$ ! PI$A"O, accused-appellants. A$OL

We uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. !s testified to by the appellants, they did not 8now any of the policemen who arrested them, and it was only during the trial in open court that they came to 8now of the identities of the above-mentioned policemen. &hus, there was no indication that the police were impelled by any improper motive in ma8ing the arrests $HI$O%NA&ARIO, J.' !ssailed before (s is the )ecision1 of the *ourt of !ppeals dated 2# "ovember 2--$ in *!+. . *. .-,* "o. -12#1 which affirmed the )ecision2 of the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of <asig *ity, 3ranch .-, in *riminal *ases "o. 121#4-) and "o. 121#5-), finding accusedappellants >erry Santos y 0acol and amon *atoc y <icayo guilty of illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly 8nown as shabu, and finding accusedappellant amon *atoc y <icayo guilty of illegal possession of the said prohibited drug, respectively. 6n 1- 0arch 2--4, two 7nformations were filed against appellants >erry Santos y 0acol and amon *atoc y <icayo before the &* of <asig *ity, for violating the provisions of epublic !ct "o. #1$% or the "omprehensive !angerous !rugs 'ct of *++*. 7n *riminal *ase "o. 121#4-), appellants Santos and *atoc allegedly violated Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%4 in the following manner; 6n or about 0arch /, 2--4, in <asig *ity and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the accused, (o2+piri2. -2/ (o2*)/)r-1i2. 1o.)15)r -2/ 4o15 o* 15)7 7616-ll! 5)lpi2. -2/ -i/i2. o2) -2o15)r, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously +)ll, /)li0)r -2/ .i0) -3-! 1o PO3 $-rlo L62-, - poli() po+)6r 46!)r, o2) D1F 5)-1%+)-l)/ 1r-2+p-r)21 pl-+1i( +-(5)1 (o21-i2i2. 15r)) D3F ()21i.r-7+ D0.03 .r-7F o* 35i1) (r!+1-lli2) +64+1-2(), 35i(5 3-+ *o62/ po+i1i0) 1o 15) 1)+1 *or

7)15!l-7p5)15-7i2) 5!/ro(5lori/), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.5 1@mphasis ours2. 6n the other hand, in *riminal *ase "o. 121#5-), appellant *atoc was additionally charged with violation of Section 11, !rticle 77 of the same law,% committed as follows; 6n or about 0arch / 2--4, in <asig *ity and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the accused, 2o1 4)i2. l-3*6ll! -615ori9)/ 1o po++)++ -2! /-2.)ro6+ /r6., did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously 5-0) i2 5i+ po++)++io2 -2/ 62/)r 5i+ (6+1o/! -2/ (o21rol o2) D1F 5)-1%+)-l)/ 1r-2+p-r)21 pl-+1i( +-(5)1 (o21-i2i2. 15r)) D3F ()21i.r-7+ D0.03 .r-7F o* 35i1) (r!+1-lli2) +64+1-2(), 35i(5 3-+ *o62/ po+i1i0) 1o 15) 1)+1 *or 7)15!l-7p5)15-7i2) 5!/ro(5lori/), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.$ 1@mphasis ours2. )uring their arraignment on 1# 0ay 2--4, appellants Santos and *atoc pleaded not guilty to the above-mentioned charges.. 6n 4 >une 2--4, the <re-&rial *onference of the cases was terminated without the prosecution and the defense agreeing to any stipulation of facts./ 6n % !ugust 2--4, the parties, however, agreed to re-open the <re-&rial *onference and they entered into a stipulation of facts as to the testimony to be given by the first prosecution witness, ?orensic *hemist <olice 7nspector 1</7nsp.2 Courdeliza *e=es.# !s contained in the <re-&rial 6rder dated % !ugust 2--4, the parties stipulated on; 112 the due eBecution and genuineness of the eDuest for Caboratory @Bamination dated / 0arch 2--4, and the stamp showing receipt thereof by the <hilippine "ational <olice 1<"<2 *rime CaboratoryE 122 the due eBecution, genuineness and truth of the contents of <hysical Science eport "o. )-5-%--4@ issued by ?orensic *hemist </7nsp. Courdeliza *e=es, the finding or conclusion appearing on the report, and the signature of the forensic chemist over her typewritten name appearing thereinE and 142 the eBistence of the plastic sachets, but not their source or origin, contained in a brown envelope, the contents of which were the sub=ect of the eDuest for Caboratory @Bamination.1&hereafter, the cases were consolidated and tried =ointly.11 &he prosecution presented two witnesses; 112 <olice 6fficer 1<624 *arlo Cuna12 and 122 Senior <olice 6fficer 1S<624 Ceneal 0atias,14 both members of the Station )rug @nforcement (nit 1S)@(215 of the <asig *ity <olice Station. &he defense, on the other hand, presented 112 appellant >erry Santos y 0acol1%E 122 appellant amon *atoc y <icayo1$E 142 0aria :ioleta *atoc,1. sister of appellant *atocE and 152 @ric Santos,1/ brother of appellant Santos. &he <eopleLs version of the facts shows that on / 0arch 2--4, the S)@( operatives of the <asig *ity <olice conducted a buy-bust operation in a residential area along )r. SiBto !ntonio !venue, 3rgy. osario, <asig *ity, on the basis of reports that a certain alias 0onching Cabo was selling illegal drugs in the said locality.1# !ccompanied by a confidential informant, the police team

composed of <64 *arlo Cuna, S<64 Ceneal 0atias, <61 0ichael @spares and <61 0ichael ?amilara, proceeded to the target area at around 1;1% to 1;2- a.m. on the above-mentioned date. <64 *arlo Cuna was to act as the poseur-buyer, whereas the other members of the team were to serve as his bac8up.2(pon reaching the designated place, <64 Cuna and the informant alighted from their vehicle, while the rest of the team were left inside.21 &he informant then pointed to two persons standing along the target area, one of whom was 0onching Cabo, later identified as appellant amon *atoc y <icayo.22 !fter approaching, the informant introduced <64 Cuna as a shabu customer to one of the persons, later identified as appellant >erry Santos y 0acol. !ppellant Santos then as8ed <64 Cuna how much worth of shabu he was buying and as8ed for the money. <64 Cuna gave appellant Santos the buy-bust money consisting of a pre-mar8ed <1--.-- bill.24 !ppellant Santos handed this money to appellant *atoc, who too8 out from his poc8et a sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance,25 which he handed bac8 to appellant Santos. When appellant Santos gave the plastic sachet to <64 Cuna, the latter nabbed the former and introduced himself as a policeman.2% !t that point, the other members of the team arrived and li8ewise held and arrested appellant *atoc. S<64 0atias then ordered appellant *atoc to empty the contents of his poc8ets. !fter having done so, another plastic sachet containing a similar crystalline substance2$ was recovered from appellant *atoc, together with the mar8ed <1--.-- buy-bust money.2. 7mmediately thereafter, the policemen mar8ed the two plastic sachets.2/ &he sachet handed by appellant Santos to <64 Cuna was mar8ed with the latterLs initials 9*@C,9 his signature, and appellant SantosLs initials 9>0S.92# 6n the other hand, the sachet recovered from appellant *atoc by S<64 0atias was mar8ed with the latterLs initials 9C&0,9 his signature and appellant *atocLs initials 9 <*.94- &he policemen then informed the appellants of their violations and apprised them of their constitutional rights.41 !fterwards, appellants Santos and *atoc were brought to the <asig *ity <olice Station at <ariancillo <ar8, <asig *ity, for proper investigation. <64 Cuna submitted the two plastic sachets containing the white crystalline substance to the <"< *rime Caboratory Service, @astern <olice )istrict in 0andaluyong *ity for an eBamination of the contents thereof.42 &he laboratory test results as contained in *hemistry eport "o. )-5-%-4@44 stated the following; S<@*70@" S(307&&@); &wo 122 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with mar8ings 9*@C/>0S -4-/-4 and <*/C&0 -4-/-49 containing -.-4 gram of white crystalline substance and mar8ed as ! and 3 respectively. BBBB ?7")7"+S; Rualitative eBamination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave JaK <6S7&7:@ result to the tests for 0ethylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. B B B

*6"*C(S76"; Specimens ! and 3 contains 1sic2 0ethylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. !s eBpected, the appellants offered a version of the facts that was diametrically opposed to that of the prosecution. !ccording to them, there was no buy-bust operation to spea8 of and that prior to their arrests, they were literally strangers to each other. !ppellant >erry Santos y 0acol testified that on / 0arch 2--4, at around 12;-- midnight to 1;-a.m., while he was watching television at their house at 1%1 )r. SiBto !ntonio !venue, 3arangay 13rgy.2 osario, <asig *ity, and was about to sleep, five male persons in civilian clothing suddenly entered and handcuffed him.45 Santos claimed that he voluntarily went with the men when they tried to arrest him because his ailing mother, who was then awa8ened, was already becoming nervous.4% Santos was brought outside and placed in a tricycle, and the entire group left for the police station. &here, Santos was detained and Duestioned about the mar8ed money, which he said he 8new nothing about. Santos was then charged with the offense of selling illegal drugs in violation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%.4$ 7t was also at that time in the police station where he first met appellant *atoc.4. ?or his part, appellant amon *atoc y <icayo narrated that on / 0arch 2--4, between the hours of 11;-- p.m. and 12;-- midnight, he awo8e to a loud sound at the door of their house at 12% )r. SiBto !ntonio !venue, 3rgy. osario, <asig *ity.4/ When *atoc opened the door, five male persons with guns entered their house.4# &he men fris8ed *atoc and searched his house. !fter being li8ewise awa8ened, *atocLs mother as8ed the men what his sonLs fault was. &hey replied that they were loo8ing for the drugs that *atoc was selling.5- When their search yielded nothing, the men mauled *atoc. !fterwards, *atoc was placed in a tricycle and the group headed for a gasoline station along >. @. 0analo Street. &here, *atoc was transferred to a par8ed vanE inside the vehicle was appellant >erry Santos y 0acol, whom the former saw for the first time.51 &he men too8 the appellants to the police station in <ariancillo <ar8 where they were again mauled. &he policemen who arrested the appellants produced two plastic sachets of shabu and a <1--.-bill and alleged that the same were ta8en from *atocLs possession. &he appellants were then charged with violation of Sections % and 11, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%.52 6n 5 0ay 2--%, the trial court rendered its decision, the pertinent portion of which states; &he *ourt is more inclined to give credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses given the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to them by law and =urisprudence vis-T-vis the self-serving disclaimers of the herein accused whose version of the incident as narrated above hardly inspires belief. 7t has been clearly established from the evidence adduced by the State that at around 1;-- in the morning of 0arch /, 2--4, accused >erry Santos and amon *atoc, in conspiracy with one another, sold or traded and delivered, to <64 *arlo Cuna, in a buy-bust operation, one transparent plastic sachet of shabu containing white crystalline substance 1@Bh. 9*-192 in consideration of the amount of <,< 1--.-- 1@Bh. 9)92. B B B

&hat there was JaK conspiracy between the two accused as alleged in the information in *riminal *ase "o. 121#4-), is evident. &he transaction was successfully consummated between the poseur buyer <64 Cuna, on the one hand, and the accused amon *atoc, together with his coaccused, >erry Santos, on the other, with accused Santos receiving the mar8ed money from the poseur buyer and thereafter handing the same to his co-accused *atoc who, thereafter, too8 out from his right poc8et a plastic sachet of shabu which he gave to Santos, and which the latter in turn handed to <64 Cuna. &here can be no other conclusion that can be drawn from the above concerted actions of both accused, but that they were bound by a common purpose and community of interest, indicative of conspiracy, in committing the offense charged against them. 6n the same occasion of the buy-bust operation, the police officers were also able to recover from the possession of accused amon *atoc another sachet of shabu weighing -.-4 grams 1@Bh. 9*-292 which is in violation of Section 11 1<ossession of )angerous )rugs2, !rticle 77 of the same law, sub=ect of *riminal *ase "o. 121#5-), which penalizes the mere possession of dangerous drugs w/o 1sic2 being authorized by law. BBBB <HEREFORE, premises considered, =udgment is hereby rendered, as follows; 7n $ri7i2-l $-+) No. 12193%D, both accused, @ERR" SANTOS ! A$OL and RA ON $ATO$ ! PI$A"O are hereby found +(7C&G beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of :iolation of Section %, !rticle 77, epublic !ct J"o.K #1$% 1illegal sale of shabu2 and are hereby sentenced to LIFE I PRISON ENT and to solidarily pay a ?ine of Fi0) H62/r)/ T5o6+-2/ P)+o+ DPHP?00,000.00F. 7n $ri7i2-l $-+) No. 12194%D, accused RA ON $ATO$ ! PI$A"O is hereby found GAILT" beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of :iolation of Section 11, !rticle 77, epublic !ct J"o.K #1$% 1illegal possession of shabu2 and is hereby sentenced to T3)l0) D12F ")-r+ and O2) D1F D-! to T3)21! D20F ")-r+ and to pay a ?ine of T5r)) H62/r)/ T5o6+-2/ P)+o+ DPHP 300,000.00F. *onsidering the penalty imposed by the *ourt, JtKhe immediate commitment of accused >erry Santos and amon *atoc to the "ational <enitentiary, "ew 3ilibid <risons, 0untinlupa *ity is hereby ordered. <ursuant to Section 2- of epublic !ct J"o.K #1$%, the amount of <,< 1--.-- recovered from accused amon *atoc representing the proceeds from the illegal sale of the transparent plastic sachet of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. !gain, pursuant to Section 21 of the same law, representatives from the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency 1<)@!2 is 1sic2 hereby ordered to ta8e charge and have custody over the sachets of shabu sub=ect of these cases, for proper disposition.54 7n an 6rder dated 21 >une 2--%, the trial court elevated the entire records of the case to the *ourt of !ppeals for automatic review in accordance with our ruling in People v. Mateo.55

6n 2# "ovember 2--$, the *ourt of !ppeals rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads; <HEREFORE, the )ecision appealed from is hereby AFFIR ED. 7n sustaining the trial court, the *ourt of !ppeals ruled that the buy-bust operation conducted by the S)@( operatives was legitimate and regular.5% ?urthermore, the testimonies of the appellants and their witnesses were said to have contained irreconcilable inconsistencies and that no ill motive for the alleged frame-up was put forth by the appellants.5$ !ppellants Santos and *atoc filed a "otice of !ppeal assailing the appellate courtLs decision before the Supreme *ourt.5. 7n a esolution5/ dated 5 >une 2--., the *ourt reDuired the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 4- days from notice. &he parties manifested their intention not to file their supplemental briefs anymore, as their respective 3riefs already encapsulated all the matters and arguments that support their positions.5# 7n pleading for their innocence, appellants assign the following errors; 7. &,@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" *6":7*&7"+ &,@ !**(S@)-!<<@CC!"&S 6? :76C!&76" 6? S@*&76"S % !") 11, ! &7*C@ 77, 6? &,@ @<(3C7* !*& "6. #1$%, W,@" &,@ C!&&@ LS +(7C& W@ @ "6& < 6:@" 3@G6") @!S6"!3C@ )6(3&. 77. &,@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" ?7")7"+ J&,!&K &,@ !**(S@)!<<@CC!"&S *6"S<7 @) 7" *6007&&7"+ 7CC@+!C S@CC7"+ !") 7CC@+!C <6SS@SS76" 6? )!"+@ 6(S ) (+S. !ppellants contend that the trial court erred in convicting them, as their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering that the prosecution failed to prove that a buy-bust operation too8 place and that their arrests without warrant were not legally effected. !ppellants also maintain that there was no basis for the trial courtLs conclusion that a conspiracy eBisted between them. &he arguments put forth by the appellants fail to persuade. ?undamental is the principle that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errorsE gross misapprehension of factsE and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. &he 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. &he rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the *ourt of !ppeals.%!fter a careful evaluation of the entire records of the instant case, we find no error in the trial and the appellate courtsL factual findings and conclusions. ?or the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, the following elements must be proven; 112 the identity of the buyer and seller, ob=ect, and considerationE and 122 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.%1 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually too8 place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.%2 7n the present case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established. &he prosecution witnesses <64 Cuna and S<64 0atias consistently testified that a buy-bust operation did indeed ta8e place, and the shabu sub=ect of the sale was presented and duly identified in open court. <64 Cuna, being the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellants Santos and *atoc as the persons who sold the sachet containing a white crystalline substance,%4 which was later confirmed by a chemical analysis thereof to be shabu.%5 &he relevant portions of <64 CunaLs testimony that detailed the events leading to the arrests of appellants are as follows; R; !; )o you remember having been assigned as a poseur buyer on said date, 0arch /, 2--4M Ges, sir.

R; !gainst whom was supposed to be the tas8 that you are going to perform as a poseur buyerM !; !gainst 0onching Cabo, sir.

BBBB R; What was the basis of this planned operation against 0onching CaboM

!; 3ecause we have been receiving reports that this certain 0onching Cabo has been selling illegal drugs along )r. SiBto !venue in <asig, sir. R; !re you trying to say that 0arch / was not the first time that you received information regarding 0onching CaboM !; Ges, sir.

R; 3ut it was only 0arch / that you decided to conduct a buy-bust operation against 0onching CaboM

!;

Ges, sir.

R; Were there preparations made by your office or by you regarding this plan, buy-bust operation, to be conducted against 0onching CaboM !; Ges, sir, we contacted an informant to confirm where 0onching Cabo sells illegal drugs.

BBBB R; !; R; !; What are you going to use in buyingM 0ar8ed money, sir. )id you prepare for that alsoM Ges, sir.

R; Were there other police personnel that were assigned, aside from you, to conduct this buybust operation against 0onching CaboM !; Ges, sir, S<64 Ceneal 0atias, <61 0ichael @spares and <61 0ichael ?amilara.

BBBB R; What were supposed to be the role of these other police officers that were going to accompany you particularly, 0atias, @spares and ?amilaraM !; R; !; &hey will act as bac8-up, sir. Gou said you prepared for a buy-money, how much was thisM 6ne ,undred 1<,< 1--.--2 <eso bill, sir.

BBBB R; !; R; !; R; !; )id you proceed, as plan, to the target areaM Ges, sir. !nd where was this, mr. 1sic2 witnessM !long )r. SiBto !ntonio, 3rgy. osario, <asig *ity, sir. What time did you reach that placeM !bout 1;1% to 1;2-, sir.

R; !; R;

6fM 7n the early morning of 1;1% to 1;2- a.m., sir. What else happened after you reached the placeM

!; When we were ten 11-2 meters away from the designated area, the informant pointed to us to two persons who were standing along )r. SiBto !ntonio !venue, osario, <asig *ity, sir. BBBB R; !; R; !; Who are these two persons, if you 8nowM !ccording to the informant, he is 0onching Cabo, sir. 0eaning, one of them is 0onching CaboM Ges, sir.

R; !fter one of them has been identified by your informant, what else did you do if any, mr. 1sic2 witnessM !; R; !; R; !; R; !; &he informant and 7 approached them, and 7 was introduced by the informant, sir. ,ow were you introducedM &hat 7 was a customer for shabu, and that 7 wanted to buy, sir. &o whom did he tell from these two persons that you were interested to buyM 7 was introduced to >erry Santos, sir. 7n other words, the other person is a certain >erry SantosM Ges, sir.

BBBB R; !fter you were introduced as JanK interested buyer to said >erry Santos, what else happened after thatM !; ,e as8ed me how much would 7 buy, and he as8ed me for the money. !nd then, 7 told him =ust <,<1--.--, sir. R; !nd when >erry Santos as8ed you for the money, did you give him the moneyM

!; R; !; R; !;

Ges, sir. !nd after you gave him the money, what happened neBtM 7 saw >erry handed the money to the other person, sir. When you say other person, this is 0onching CaboM Ges, sir.

R; !nd after >erry Santos handed the 6ne ,undred 1<,<1--.--2 <eso bill to 0onching Cabo, what else happened, if anyM !; 0onching Cabo too8 the <,<1--.-- bill. !fter that, he put it inside his poc8et, and then, he got something from his poc8et and handed it to >erry, sir. R; !; !nd after this something was handed to >erry Santos, what else happenedM >erry Santos gave to me what was given to him by 0onching, sir.

R; !nd to your personal 8nowledge, what is that something that was given by 0onching to >erry Santos who, >erry Santos in turn handed to youM !; R; !; &hat was the shabu 7 was buying which was contained in a plastic sachet, sir. When you say contained in a plastic sachet, you mean there is only one 112M Ges, sir.

R; !fter you received this one alleged plastic sachet of shabu from >erry Santos, what else did you do, if anyM !; R; !; R; !; R; !; 7 held >erry Santos and introduced myself as a police officer, sir. !fter that, what happened neBt, if anyM 0y companions arrived and then, they also held 0onching Cabo sir. What else happened after that, mr. 1sic2 witnessM <olice 6fficer 0atias ordered 0onching Cabo to empty the contents of his poc8et, sir. !nd did 0onching Cabo complyM Ges, sir.

R; Would you 8now what 0atias discovered after 0onching Cabo complied with his order to empty his poc8etM !; R; !; R; !; R; !; Ges, sir, because he also recovered another plastic sachet, sir. Who recoveredM S<64 0atias, sir. Which came from the poc8et of 0onching CaboM Ges, sir. !fter this, what did you do or, your team do to the two personsM We brought them to our office at the ,eadDuarters for proper investigation, sir.

R; ,ow about the two plastic sachets, the first one that was sold and the other one that was recovered by S<64 0atias, what was your disposition about itM !; R; !; R; !; R; !; ight there and then at the place, we already placed the mar8ings on the sachets, sir. !fter that, what else did you do with these two sachetsM We submitted the same to the laboratory for eBamination, sir. )o you remember who delivered it personallyM Ges, sir. WhoM 7 did, sir.

R; )id you come to 8now later the true identity of >erry Santos and 0onching Cabo to whom you have transactionM !; R; !; R; Ges, sir. Would >erry Santos JbeK the true name of this >erry Santos you mentioned earlierM Ges, sir. ,ow about this 0onching Cabo, did you come to 8now what is his true nameM

!; Ges, sir. !fter we have brought him to the police station, thatLs when we discovered his real name, sir. R; !; !nd what is his real nameM amon *atoc, sir.%%

&he testimony of S<64 0atias on the conduct of the buy-bust operation corroborated the above testimony of <64 Cuna on all material points and was eDually clear and categorical. !lso proven from the testimonies of both <64 Cuna and S<64 0atias is the charge against appellant *atoc in *riminal *ase "o. 121#5-) for violation of Section 11, !rticle 77, epublic !ct "o. #1$% 1illegal possession of dangerous drugs2. 7t was shown that appellant 8nowingly carried with him the plastic sachet of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation. 6n the other hand, the appellantsL contention that no buy-bust operation too8 place was plainly anchored on the testimonies of both appellants, who both gave different versions of what transpired during the time and date in DuestionE of 0aria :ioleta *atoc, sister of appellant amon *atocE and of @ric Santos, the brother of appellant >erry Santos. 3oth appellants chorused a single line - alibi. &hey strongly insisted that they were in their respective houses during the alleged operations. &he singular reliance of the appellants on their alibis to argue their cases was misplaced. !s observed by the trial court, the self-serving disclaimers of the appellants inspired less belief than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who had in their favor a presumption of regularity accorded to them by law.%$ &he respective alibis of appellants and their witnesses also contained irreconcilable inconsistencies that only wea8ened their worth. We uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. &his presumption in favor of <64 Cuna and S<64 0atias was not overcome. !s testified to by the appellants, they did not 8now any of the policemen who arrested them, and it was only during the trial in open court that they came to 8now of the identities of the above-mentioned policemen.%. &hus, there was no indication that the police were impelled by any improper motive in ma8ing the arrests. 7n appellant >erry SantosLs testimony on the events leading to his arrest, he repeatedly changed his answer upon being as8ed why he voluntarily went with the five men who entered his house on the night in Duestion. 7n his direct testimony, appellant Santos testified that he went with the men so that his motherLs nervousness would not be further aggravated.%/ )uring his crosseBamination, he then stated that he voluntarily went with the men so as not to awa8en his sleeping mother.%# (pon being confronted with these statements, Santos then changed his answer again and stated that his mother was already awa8e at the time he went with the policemen.$0ore glaring than the above-mentioned inconsistencies, however, are the discrepancies in the testimonies of appellants >erry Santos and amon *atoc on the manner in which they were ta8en to the police station and the circumstances of their first meeting. &he very premise of their

defense is that they were total strangers to each otherE thus, they could not have been together at the time when they were arrested, much less were they in conspiracy with each other in the alleged commission of the crimes charged. !ppellant >erry Santos testified that after he was brought out of his house, he was placed in a tricycle and was then ta8en straight to the police station in <ariancillo <ar8, <asig *ity.$1 While in detention, he allegedly met amon *atoc for the first time.$2 !ppellant amon *atoc, on the other hand, gave an entirely contradictory account of the said events. *atoc narrated in his direct testimony that after the men too8 him and placed him in a tricycle, he was ta8en to a gasoline station along >. @. 0analo Street and was transferred to a par8ed van. !board the vehicle, he said, was appellant Santos, whom he claimed he saw and came to 8now for the first time.$4 @ven the testimony of defense witness @ric Santos, the brother of appellant >erry Santos, contained some noticeable incongruity with the appellantsL narration of events. !s remar8ed upon by the *ourt of !ppeals,$5 @ric Santos testified that the arrest of his brother was made at /;-- p.m. on / 0arch 2--4.$% &he timeline of both the prosecution and the defense, however, puts the occurrence of the events in Duestion between the hours of 11;-- p.m. and 1;-- a.m.$$ &he testimonies of 0aria :ioleta *atoc, sister of appellant *atoc, and @ric Santos, brother of appellant Santos, are also suspect. Without clear and convincing evidence, no credence can be accorded them. 7n all of the above instances, no satisfactory eBplanation was offered by appellants to resolve the conflicting accounts. "o other evidence was li8ewise offered to buttress these testimonies, thereby wea8ening appellantsL alibis, as against the candid and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. !s consistently enunciated by this *ourt, the established doctrine is that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or within its immediate vicinity. &he defense of alibi must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence, the reason being that it is easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence. &his is especially true in case of positive identification of the culprit by reliable witnesses, which renders their alibis worthless. <ositive identification prevails over denials and alibis.$. What is Duite important to note at this point is the fact that the defense failed to point out any single mista8e or inconsistency in the testimonies of either policeman. *onseDuently, the respective rulings of the trial court and the *ourt of !ppeals upholding the regularity and the legitimacy of the conduct of the buy-bust operation in this case are hereby affirmed. &he claim of appellants that their warrantless arrests were illegal also lac8s merit. &he *ourt notes that nowhere in the records did we find any ob=ection by appellants to the irregularity of their arrests prior to their arraignment. We have held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest

of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid =udgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from errorE such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. 7t is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid information has been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a =udgment of conviction rendered against him.$/ "evertheless, our ruling in People v. "abugatan $# provides that; &he rule is settled that an arrest made after an entrapment does not reDuire a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to ule 114, Section %1a2 of the ules of *ourt, which states; S@*. %. 'rrest without warrant, when lawful. - ! peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person; 1a2 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. !s we have already declared the legality of the buy-bust operation that was conducted by the police, it follows that the subseDuent warrantless arrests were li8ewise legally effected. ?urthermore, any search resulting from the lawful warrantless arrests was also valid, because the appellants committed a crime in flagrante delictoE that is, the persons arrested committed a crime in the presence of the arresting officers..!s for appellantsL contention that the trial court erred in finding the eBistence of a conspiracy, the same should also fail. *ontrary to appellantsL assertions,.1 the findings of the trial court that they conspired with each other is limited only to the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in *riminal *ase "o. 121#4-), and does not pertain to the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in *riminal *ase "o. 121#5-). &here is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. &he same degree of proof necessary to prove the crime is reDuired to support a finding of criminal conspiracy. )irect proof, however, is not essential to show conspiracy..2 7t need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in eBpress terms to enter into and pursue a common design. <roof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and ob=ective is sufficient..4 !s correctly held by the trial court, the act of appellant Santos in receiving the mar8ed money from <64 Cuna and handing the same to appellant *atoc, who in turn gave a sachet containing shabu to appellant Santos to give the policeman, unmista8ably revealed a common purpose and a community of interest indicative of a conspiracy between the appellants..5 7n light of the foregoing, we rule that the guilt of appellants Santos and *atoc has been established beyond reasonable doubt. ! determination of the appropriate penalties to be imposed upon them is now in order.

(nder the law, the illegal sale of shabu carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to ten million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2, regardless of the Duantity and purity of the substance involved or shall act as a bro8er in any such transaction..% 6n the other hand, the illegal possession of less than five 1%2 grams of said dangerous drug is penalized with imprisonment of twelve 1122 years and one 112 day to twenty 12-2 years and a fine ranging from three hundred thousand pesos 1<4--,---.--2 to four hundred thousand pesos 1<5--,---.--2..$ 7n accordance with Section #/, !rticle N777 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, the provisions of the evised <enal *ode find limited applicability with respect to the provisions of the said !ct. Section #/ reads; Sec. #/. (imited 'pplicability of the evised <enal *ode. - "otwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the evised <enal *ode 1!ct "o. 4/1%2, as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this !ct, eBcept in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. &hus, in determining the imposable penalty, !rticle $4122 of the evised <enal *ode shall not be applied. (nder this article, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances... Since Section #/ of the )rugs Caw contains the word 9shall,9 the non-applicability of the evised <enal *ode provisions is mandatory, sub=ect to eBception only in case the offender is a minor../ 7n the imposition of the proper penalty, the courts, ta8ing into account the circumstances attendant in the commission of the offense, are given the discretion to impose either life imprisonment or death, and the fine as provided for by law. 7n light, however, of the effectivity of epublic !ct "o. #45$ entitled, 9!n !ct <rohibiting the 7mposition of )eath <enalty in the <hilippines,9 the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been prohibited. *onseDuently, the penalty to be meted out to appellant shall only be life imprisonment and fine..# ,ence, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of <%--,---.-- were properly imposed on appellants >erry Santos y 0acol and amon *atoc y <icayo in *riminal *ase "o. 121#4-) for illegal sale of shabu. Ci8ewise, the conviction of appellant amon *atoc y <icayo and the imposition of the penalty of twelve 1122 years and one 112 day to fifteen 11%2 years imprisonment and the fine of <4--,---.-meted out by the trial court with respect to *riminal *ase "o. 121#5-) for illegal possession of shabu, are affirmed. <HEREFORE, premises considered, the )ecision dated 2# "ovember 2--$ of the *ourt of !ppeals in *!-+. . * -,.*. "o. -12#1, affirming in toto the )ecision of the egional &rial *ourt of <asig *ity, 3ranch .-, in *riminal *ase "o. 121#4-) and *riminal *ase "o. 121#5-), is hereby AFFIR ED. "o costs. SO ORDERED.

INITA >. $HI$O%NA&ARIO !ssociate >ustice Foo12o1)+

S

>ustice !dolfo S. !zcuna was designated to sit as additional member replacing >ustice !ntonio @duardo 3. "achura per affle dated 4- 6ctober 2--..
1

<enned by !ssociate >ustice 0agdangal 0. de Ceon with !ssociate >ustices ebecca de +uiaSalvador and amon . +arcia concurringE rollo, pp. 2-15.
2

<enned by >udge <ablito 0. o=asE records, pp. 1#-2$.

S@*. %. Sale, )rading, 'dministration, !ispensation, !elivery, !istribution and )ransportation of !angerous !rugs and-or "ontrolled Precursors and .ssential "hemicals. &he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 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 Duantity and purity involved, or shall act as a bro8er in any of such transactions.
5

*! rollo, p. /. S@*. 11. Possession of !angerous !rugs. - B B B

BBBB 142 7mprisonment of twelve 1122 years and one 112 day to twenty 12-2 years and a fine ranging from &hree hundred thousand pesos 1<4--,---.--2 to ?our hundred thousand pesos 1<5--,---.--2, if the Duantities of dangerous drugs are less than five 1%2 grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, mari=uana resin or mari=uana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or 9shabu,9 or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, 0)0! or 9ecstasy,9 <0!, &0!, CS), +,3, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the Duantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic reDuirementsE or less than three hundred 14--2 grams of mari=uana.
$

*! rollo, pp. 1--11. ecords, p. 1#. 7d. at 25. 7d. at 42.

1-

7d. at 45-4%. Section 22, ule 11# of the ules of *ourt provides;

11

Sec. 22. *onsolidation of trials of related offenses. - *harges for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of similar character may be tried =ointly at the discretion of the court.
12

&S", 2 September 2--4. &S", 14 6ctober 2--4 and 4 )ecember 2--4.

14

15

7n other parts of the ecords, S)@( was referred to as Special )rug @nforcement (nitE see &ranscript of Stenographic "otes dated 2 September 2--4, p. 5, and the )ecision of the egional &rial *ourt dated 5 0ay 2--%, p. 4 1*! rollo, pp. 1#-2$2.
1%

&S", 2% 0ay 2--5. &S", 5 !ugust 2--5. &S", 2# September 2--5. &S", 1. "ovember 2--5. &S", 2 September 2--4, p. 5. 7d. at %-$. 7d. at 2-. 7d. at .. @Bhibit 9)9 for the prosecution, ecords, p. 1-E &S", 2 September 2--4, p. /. @Bhibit 9*-19 for the prosecution, ecords, p. .E &S", 2 September 2--4, p. 1%. &S", 2 September 2--4, p. #. @Bhibit 9*-29 for the prosecution, ecords, p. .E &S", 2 September 2--4, p. 1%. &S", 14 6ctober 2--5, p. $. &S", 2 September 2--4, p. 1-. 7d. at 15.

1$

1.

1/

1#

2-

21

22

24

25

2%

2$

2.

2/

2#

4-

7d. at 15-1%E &S", 14 6ctober 2--5, p. #. &S", 14 6ctober 2--5, p. /. ecords, p. .. 7d. at /. &S", 2% 0ay 2--5, pp. 4-5, $-/. 7d. at /. 7d. at #-1-. 7d. at 1-. &S", 5 !ugust 2--5, pp. 4-5. 7d. at %. 7d. at $. 7d. at .-/. 7d. at #-12. *! rollo, pp. 41-44. 7n the said case, We ruled thus;

41

42

44

45

4%

4$

4.

4/

4#

5-

51

52

54

55

While the ?undamental Caw reDuires a mandatory review by the Supreme *ourt of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. 7f only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the *ourt now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the *ourt of !ppeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme *ourt. Where life and liberty are at sta8e, all possible avenues to determine his guilt or innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. ! prior determination by the *ourt of !ppeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an error of =udgment. 7f the *ourt of !ppeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render =udgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering =udgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the Supreme *ourt for its final disposition. 1+. . "os. 15.$./-/., . >uly 2--5, 544 S* ! $5-, $%$2. 1@mphasis ours2.

5%

ollo, p. 1-. 7d. at 14. 7d. at 1%-1$. 7d. at 1/. 7d. at 1#-2-, 22-24. People v. "abugatan, +. . "o. 1.2-1#, 12 ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! %4., %5.. People v. Padasin, 55% <hil. 55/, 5$1 12--42. People v. Macabalang, +. . "o. 1$/$#5, 2. "ovember 2--$, %-/ S* ! 2/2, 2#4-2#5. &S", 2 September 2--4, pp. 11-12. ecords, p. /. &S", 2 September 2--4, pp. 5-11. *! rollo, p. 25. &S", 2% 0ay 2--5, p. ., 1#; &S", 5 !ugust 2--5, pp. %-$, 11, 22. 7d. at /. 7d. at 1.. 7d. at 1/. 7d. at #. 7d. at 1-. &S", 5 !ugust 2--5, pp. .-/. /ollo, p. 12. &S", 1. "ovember 2--5, p. 4. &S", 5 !ugust 2--5, p. 5E &S", 2% 0ay 2--5, p.5. People v. Ballesteros, 45# <hil. 4$$, 4.% 11##/2.

5$

5.

5/

5#

%-

%1

%2

%4

%5

%%

%$

%.

%/

%#

$-

$1

$2

$4

$5

$%

$$

$.

$/

People v. .moy, 4#% <hil. 4.1, 4/5 12---2.

$#

Supra note %- at %%2, citing )eodosio v. "ourt of 'ppeals, +. . "o. 12545$, / >une 2--5, 541 S* ! 1#5, 2-4.
.-

See )eodosio v. "ourt of 'ppeals, id. at 2-4. *! rollo, pp. 11-12. People v. Ponce, 4#% <hil. %$4, %.1-%.2 12---2. 7d. *! rollo, p. 2%. epublic !ct "o. #1$%, !rticle 77, Section %. 7d., Section 11. ! &. $4. ules for the application of indivisible penalties.

.1

.2

.4

.5

.%

.$

..

BBBB 7n all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof; BBBB 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
./

<eople v. "icolas, +. . "o. 1.-245, / ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! 1/., 2-%. 7d.

.#

G.R. No. 17887E @62) 27, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO $ON$EP$ION ! $LE ENTE -2/ HENR" $ON$EP$ION ! $LE ENTE, accused-appellants. "on-compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accusedAs arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the

preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused $HI$O%NA&ARIO, J.' 6n appeal before (s is the )ecision1 of the *ourt of !ppeals in *!-+. . * -,.*. "o. -1/-/ dated 1/ 0ay 2--. which affirmed in toto the decision dated 14 )ecember 2--%2 of the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of 0alolos, 3ulacan, 3ranch ./, convicting accused-appellants !lfredo *oncepcion y *lemente and ,enry *oncepcion y *lemente of :iolation of Section %,4 !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, otherwise 8nown as the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2. !ppellants, together with ,egino dela *ruz, were charged before the &* of 0alolos, 3ulacan, with :iolation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$% under the following information; &hat on or about the 2.th day of "ovember, 2--2, in the municipality of Sta. 0aria, province of 3ulacan, <hilippines, and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal =ustification, in conspiracy with one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drugs consisting of three 142 heatsealed transparent plastic sachets weighing %.-/- grams, 5.55$ grams and 5.4$2 grams, respectively.5 When arraigned, appellants and accused )ela *ruz pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.% &he prosecution presented two witnesses; <olice 6fficer 1<622 <eter Sistemio$ and <62 !rlan !ro=ado,. both regular members of the <hilippine "ational <olice 1<"<2 and assigned with the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency 1<)@!2, egional 6ffice "o. 4, 3ulacan <rovincial 6ffice, 3arangay Saluysoy, 0eycauayan, 3ulacan. &he version of the prosecution is as follows; Sometime in the afternoon of 2$ "ovember 2--2, a confidential informant reported to Senior <olice 6fficer 1S<621 3uenaventura . Copez at the <)@!, egional 6ffice "o. 4, 3ulacan <rovincial 6ffice, 3arangay Saluysoy, 0eycauayan, 3ulacan, that an alias &otoy was engaged in selling drugs, particularly shabu, in 3arangay +uyong, Sta. 0aria, 3ulacan. S<61 Copez instructed the confidential agent to set a drug deal with alias &otoy and order ten 11-2 grams of shabu. &he confidential informant returned and confirmed that the delivery of the 1- grams of shabu would be made in 3arangay +uyong at 2;-- a.m. of 2. "ovember 2--2. ! buy-bust operation was planned and a team formed. &he team was composed of S<61 Copez as team leaderE <62 Sistemio as the poseur-buyerE and <62 !ro=ado, <62 "avarette and <62 Oho as bac8-up operatives. &he team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to 3arangay +uyong and arrived thereat at 1;1% a.m. of 2. "ovember 2--2. <62 Sistemio and the confidential informant alighted

from their vehicle and proceeded to a waiting shed along the highway. &he rest of the team positioned themselves ten to twenty meters away in their par8ed vehicles. !t around 2;-- a.m. a violet ,yundai van with plate number N!0-%#2 arrived with appellants and accused )ela *ruz on board. )ela *ruz was driving, while appellant !lfredo *oncepcion, a.8.a. &otoy, was seated beside him and appellant ,enry was at the bac8. &he confidential informant introduced <62 Sistemio to &otoy who as8ed the latter how much shabu he would buy. <62 Sistemio replied he would buy two plastic pac8s of shabu eDuivalent to ten grams. &otoy answered that each pac8 was worth <$,---.-- and got two plastic pac8s from the vanAs compartment and gave them to <62 Sistemio. !ppellant ,enry *oncepcion said, 9Mura pa yan, direkta kasi kami.9/ <62 Sistemio also heard someone say, 9Magandang klase yang stuff na yan.9# !fter receiving the two plastic pac8s, <62 Sistemio lit a cigarette, the pre-arranged signal for the other members of the buy-bust team to approach and arrest the culprits. &he boodle money that <62 Sistemio had with him was no longer given to &otoy. (pon seeing <62 Sistemio light a cigarette, the other team members bloc8ed the vehicle. <62 !ro=ado was ordered by <62 Sistemio to search the vanAs glove compartment where the former recovered a medium-sized plastic sachet. !ppellants and accused )ela *ruz were apprehended and brought to the <)@! office. &he two plastic sachets1- given by appellant !lfredo *oncepcion to <62 Sistemio, and the other one11 recovered in the glove compartment, were mar8ed with the initials 9<.S. !,9 9<.S. !-19 and 9!.+.!.,9 respectively. 6n the same day, per reDuest12 of S<61 Copez, these plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were sent to the <"< <rovincial *rime Caboratory 6ffice 4, 3ulacan <rovincial 6ffice, *amp !le=o Santos, 0alolos, 3ulacan, for laboratory eBamination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. !fter a Dualitative eBamination was conducted on the specimens, <olice 7nspector "ellson *. Sta. 0aria, ?orensic *hemical 6fficer, issued *hemistry eport "o. )-.---2--2 with a conclusion that said specimens contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride 1shabu2, a dangerous drug.14 &he testimony of S<61 3uenaventura Copez was dispensed with due to the admission by the defense that his testimony would merely corroborate the testimony of <62 !ro=ado, and that the alleged buy-bust operation was coordinated through cellular phone, but the same was not duly recorded before 3arangays +uyong and <oblacion per certifications issued by the 3arangay *aptains of said barangays.15 With the defenseAs admission of the eBistence, due eBecution and genuineness of the reDuest for laboratory eBamination, the *hemistry eport and specimens submitted, the testimony of <olice 7nspector "ellson *. Sta. 0aria was also dispensed with. !fter the prosecution formally offered its evidence,1% appellants and accused )ela *ruz, with leave of court, filed their respective demurrers to evidence,1$ which the trial court denied on 1 0arch 2--% for lac8 of merit.1. &he defense presented three witnesses; 112 appellant !lfredo *oncepcionE 122 >ulieta dela osa, appellant !lfredoAs spouse and appellant ,enryAs sister-in-lawE and 142 accused ,egino dela *ruz. !ppellant !lfredo *oncepcion disclosed that appellant ,enry *oncepcion is his brother and accused ,egino dela *ruz is his brotherAs friend. ,e narrated that at around /;-- to #;-- p.m. of

2$ "ovember 2--2, he was in his house at + "icolas, <oblacion, Sta. 0aria, 3ulacan, when he, together with appellant ,enry *oncepcion, ,egino dela *ruz, !rmando *abral and Ceopoldo 7gueza, was arrested by elements of the <)@!. &hey were about to rest when they were arrested and handcuffed. <)@! operatives, whom he later came to 8now when the instant case was filed, entered his house and stayed for more or less thirty minutes. &hey were loaded into the vehicle of accused ,egino dela *ruz. ,is wife and the wife of appellant ,enry were present when he was arrested. &hey were then brought to the <)@! headDuarters and were told that they had shabu. !ppellant !lfredo *oncepcion said he had no 8nowledge about the police officersA allegation that he and his co-accused sold shabu to a poseur-buyer in 3arangay +uyong, Sta. 0aria, 3ulacan. !t the time of the supposed sale of shabu, he claims they were already at the <)@! headDuarters. ,e denied he had shabu and that the police officers recovered nothing from his house. ,e was informed by his wife that a cell phone was missing in their house when the latter went to the <)@! headDuarters. !ppellant !lfredo added that upon his instruction, his wife reported his alleged arrest in his home before the 6ffice of the <unong 3arangay of 3arangays +uyong and <oblacion.1/ >ulieta dela osa testified that between /;-- p.m. and #;-- p.m. of 2$ "ovember 2--2, she was inside her house together with her brother-in-law 1appellant ,enry2 and sister-in-law. ,er husband, appellant !lfredo *oncepcion, was outside with his friends 1!rmando *abral and Ceopoldo !breza1#2 waiting for the vehicle of her other brother-in-law 1 oberto *oncepcion2 which vehicle !lfredo would use in accompanying his friends to 0anila. While she was watching television inside her house, she heard a commotion outside and when she opened a window, she saw her husband, accused ,egino dela *ruz, !rmando and Ceopoldo already handcuffed and being loaded into a van owned by accused ,egino. She went out and as8ed the person who handcuffed her husband the reason for this. She learned that the person who handcuffed her husband was a member of the <)@!. She was told to go inside the house and not to ma8e any noise. She went inside to call her sister-in-law and when she went out again, her husband and all the others were no longer there. >ulieta followed them to the office of the <)@! in Saluysoy St., 0eycauayan, 3ulacan. S<61 3uenaventura Copez told her that a case was filed against her husband because they recovered something from him which she said was not true. &hereafter, she went home and proceeded to the barangay hall of <oblacion to report that her husband and his companions were arrested without anything being recovered from them.2- She then went to the police station of Sta. 0aria, 3ulacan, to chec8 if the <)@! coordinated with them. She claims a certification21 was issued showing that there was no coordination made by <)@!. 7n connection with the instant case, she and her sister-in-law, !nna >uan, who is the wife of appellant ,enry *oncepcion, eBecuted a sworn statement.22 Castly, she eBplained she did not 8now what happened outside where her husband and his friends were apprehended. "eBt to ta8e the stand for the defense was accused ,egino dela *ruz who testified that in the late afternoon of 2$ "ovember 2--2, he was in his house at Cala8han, Sta. 0aria, 3ulacan. While resting, someone informed him that appellant ,enry *oncepcion called and was renting his ,yundai van with plate number N!0-%#2 registered in his wifeAs name. ,e then proceeded to the house of ,enry at + "icolas St. 1formerly *alderon2, Sta. 0aria, 3ulacan, and arrived

thereat before /;-- p.m. ,e par8ed the van in front of ,enryAs house. While seated at the driverAs seat, he tal8ed with ,enry who told him, 9(uluwas kami.9 ,enry was standing beside the van while !lfredo *oncepcion was seated at the side with two companions. While he was conversing with ,enry, a vehicle suddenly arrived. 6ne of its passengers told him to alight and face the van, while the other passengers went to the house of !lfredo *oncepcion. ,e was fris8ed and was arrested without being informed of the reason therefor. ,e, together with appellants *oncepcion, was brought to Saluysoy St., 0eycauayan, 3ulacan. 7n going to said place, they rode his van, which was driven by a <)@! member. (pon reaching the place, he called his family and came to 8now that the <)@! was filing a drug case against him and was told that there was shabu in the compartment of the van. ,e denied he had illegal drugs and that he was the only one using the van. <rior to the incident, he had not been charged with any offense in any other court. 6n 14 )ecember 2--%, the trial court rendered its decision convicting appellants !lfredo and ,enry *oncepcion with, but acDuitting accused ,egino dela *ruz of, the crime charged. &he decretal portion of the decision reads; <HEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this *ourt finds accused !lfredo *oncepcion y *lemente and ,enry *oncepcion y *lemente GAILT" 4)!o2/ r)-+o2-4l) /o641 of the offense of :iolation of Section %, !rticle 77 of .!. #1$%, otherwise 8nown as the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2 and hereby sentences EA$H of them to suffer the penalty of LIFE I PRISON ENT AND A FINE OF P?00,000.00. !ccused ,egino dela *ruz is hereby A$BAITTED of the offense charged for insufficiency of evidence. !ccordingly, the >ail Warden of the 3ulacan <rovincial >ail is hereby DIRE$TED to release accused ,egino dela *ruz from detention unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. 7n the service of their sentence, accused !lfredo *oncepcion and ,enry *oncepcion who are detention prisoners shall be credited with the entire period of their preventive imprisonment. &he drugs sub=ect matter of this case is hereby forfeited in favor of the government. &he 3ranch *ler8 of *ourt is hereby directed to turn over the same to the )angerous )rugs 3oard for proper disposal thereof.24 7n convicting the brothers *oncepcion, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of <-2 Sistemio and <62 !ro=ada when they positively identified appellant !lfredo *oncepcion as the one from whom they bought and got the sachets of shabu. !lso from their testimonies, the trial court found that appellant ,enry *oncepcion conspired with appellant !lfredo in trading the dangerous drugs for which they were charged. !ppellant ,enryAs statement 9Mura pa yan, direkta kasi kami9 when he tried to persuade the poseur-buyer to accept the price of the drugs when the buy-bust transaction was ta8ing place, convinced the trial court of his participation in the offense. &he trial court further applied in favor of the <)@! agents the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. !s regards accused )ela *ruz, the trial court was not convinced of his guilt. 7t eBplained that mere presence in the scene of the crime was not

sufficient to convict in light of <62 SistemioAs statement that he was not certain if it was accused dela *ruz who uttered 9Magandang klase yang stuff na yan.9 6n 1% )ecember 2--%, appellants !lfredo and ,enry *oncepcion filed a "otice of !ppeal.25 7n an 6rder dated 4 >anuary 2--$, the trial court approved the notice of appeal and directed the 3ranch *ler8 of *ourt to immediately transmit the entire records of the case to the *ourt of !ppeals pursuant to !dministrative *ircular "o. 2--2--%.2% 7n its decision dated 1/ 0ay 2--., the *ourt of !ppeals totally agreed with the trial court. 7t disposed of the case as follows; W,@ @?6 @, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby )7S07SS@) for lac8 of merit. &he appealed )ecision dated )ecember 14, 2--% of the egional &rial *ourt of 0alolos *ity, 3ulacan, 3ranch ./ in *riminal *ase "o. 442/-0-2--2 is hereby !??7 0@) and (<,@C). With costs against the accused-appellants.2$ 6n 41 0ay 2--., appellants !lfredo and ,enry *oncepcion filed a "otice of !ppeal with manifestation were terminating the legal services of their private counsel and praying that they be represented by the <ublic !ttorneyAs 6ffice 1<!62.2. 6n 1% >une 2--., the *ourt of !ppeals gave due course to the "otice of !ppeal and ordered the forwarding of the records of the case to the Supreme *ourt. &he appellate court appointed the <!6 to represent the appellants.2/ With the elevation of the records to the *ourt and the acceptance of the appeal, the parties were reDuired to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty days from notice.2# &he parties manifested that they were not filing supplemental briefs, arguing that the relevant issues of the case had been discussed in their respective briefs filed before the *ourt of !ppeals. !ccused-appellants ma8e the following assignment of errors; ! &,@ ,6"6 !3C@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" "6& ?7")7"+ &,!& &,@ < 6S@*(&76" W!S "6& !3C@ &6 @S&!3C7S, &,@ +(7C& 6? &,@ !**(S@)-!<<@CC!"&S 3@G6") @!S6"!3C@ )6(3&. 3 &,@ ,6"6 !3C@ & 7!C *6( & <!&@"&CG @ @) 7" )@:7!&7"+ ? 60 &,@ @S&!3C7S,@) (C@ &,!& &,@ < @S(0<&76" 6? @+(C! 7&G 7" &,@ <@ ?6 0!"*@ 6? 6??7*7!C )(&G 3G <6C7*@ 6??7*@ S S,6(C) "6& 3G 7&S@C? < @:!7C 6:@ &,@ < @S(0<&76" 6? 7""6*@"*@ !") &,@ *6"S&7&(&76"!CCG < 6&@*&@) 7+,&S 6? &,@ !**(S@)-!<<@CC!"&S.

* &,@ ,6"6 !3C@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" *6":7*&7"+ !**(S@)-!<<@CC!"&S "6& 6" &,@ 3!S7S 6? &,@ S& @"+&, 6? &,@ < 6S@*(&76"AS @:7)@"*@ 3(& !&,@ 6" &,@ W@!O"@SS 6? &,@ @:7)@"*@ ?6 &,@ )@?@"S@. ) &,@ ,6"6 !3C@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" "6& ?7")7"+ &,!& &,@ @ ! @ S7&(!&76"S W,@ @ !" !**(S@) *!" ,!:@ "6 6&,@ )@?@"S@ 3(& ! )@"7!C 6? *60<C7*7&G 7" &,@ 6??@"S@ *,! +@), !S &,!& *6(C) 3@ &,@ & (&,, &,@ W,6C@ & (&, !") "6&,7"+ 3(& &,@ & (&,.4!ppellants argue that the alleged buy-bust operation was not satisfactorily proven and was of doubtful legitimacy because of the failure of the prosecution to present and offer in evidence the physical inventory and the photograph of the evidence confiscated as reDuired by Section 21,41 !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, and that said operation was not coordinated with the <)@!. !fter going over the evidence on record, we find that there, indeed, was a buy-bust operation involving appellants. &he prosecutionAs failure to submit in evidence the reDuired physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph pursuant to Section 21, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$% will not eBonerate appellants. "on-compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accusedAs arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.42 7n the instant case, we find the integrity of the drugs seized intact. &he chain of custody of the drugs sub=ect matter of the case was shown not to have been bro8en. !fter seizure of the drugs from appellantsA possession, <-2 Sistemio and <62 !ro=ada mar8ed them with their initials and turned them over to S<61 Copez who, on the same day, sent these plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to <"< <rovincial *rime Caboratory 6ffice 4, 3ulacan <rovincial 6ffice, *amp !le=o Santos, 0alolos, 3ulacan, for laboratory eBamination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. !fter a Dualitative eBamination conducted on the specimens, <olice 7nspector "ellson *. Sta. 0aria, ?orensic *hemical 6fficer, concluded that the white crystalline substance was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride 1shabu2, a dangerous drug. &here can be no doubt that the drugs seized from appellants were the same ones eBamined in the crime laboratory. &his statement is bolstered by the defenseAs admission of the eBistence, due eBecution and genuineness of the reDuest for laboratory eBamination, the *hemistry eport and specimens submitted. We agree with the *ourt of !ppeals when it said; While it is true that counsel for appellants, during the cross-eBamination of <62 Sistemio, Duestioned the latter on non-compliance with Sec. 21 of .!. "o. #1$% regarding the immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug, there is no showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu from appellants at the time of the buy-bust had not been properly preserved by the

apprehending team. <62 Sistemio eBplained that the seized substance contained in three properly mar8ed plastic sachets were sent for chemical analysis to the <"< *rime Caboratory at *amp !le=o Santos in 0alolos *ity, 3ulacan. Significantly, such an ob=ection was not reiterated by the appellants in their )emurrer to @vidence which was focused merely on the alleged inconsistencies in the narration of the details of the buybust by prosecution witnesses <62 Sistemio and <62 !ro=ado, as well as nonpresentation of the mar8ed boodle money which supposedly disproves the sale.44 !ppellantsA argument that the buy-bust operation was not coordinated with the <)@! is specious. ?rom the testimonies of the defense witnesses, it is clear that they all 8now that the buy-bust operation was conducted by the elements of the <)@!. 7t is thus nonsensical for the defense to argue that the operation was not coordinated with the <)@! if it was the <)@! itself that conducted the entrapment. 0oreover, said argument is belied by the defenseAs admission that the <)@! coordinated with 3arangays +uyong and <oblacion via cellphone regarding the conduct of the buy-bust operation. !ppellantsA contention that they were not apprised of their constitutional rights upon their arrest cannot lead to their acDuittal. &he arresting officersA alleged failure to inform them of their 0iranda rights or the nature of their arrest should have been raised before arraignment. 7t is too late in the day for appellants to raise these alleged illegalities after a valid information has been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a =udgment of conviction rendered.45 !ppellants claim that the <)@!, aside from its supposed non-compliance with epublic !ct "o. #1$%, failed to prove and eBecute certain matters that would show that a proper buy-bust operation was conducted. &he alleged reDuirements for a proper buy-bust which the <)@! did not underta8e include the following; 112 the prosecution failed to offer proof that appellants were 8nown drug traffic8ersE 122 no surveillance was done to verify appellantsA illicit activitiesE 142 the serial numbers of the boodle money were not =otted down in the log/blotter boo8 during the planning and eBecution of the buy-bust operationE and 152 the boodle money prepared was grossly inadeDuate 1<$,---.--2 for the price of two plastic pac8s of shabu eDuivalent to 1grams, as one pac8 commands a price of <$,---.--, which fact was 8nown by the entrapping officers. &he absence of all these, appellants say, shows that they are innocent of the charge. We find their claim untenable. 7n this =urisdiction, the conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in the illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. 7t has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.4% (nless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.4$ >urisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs; 112 the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and 122 he 8new that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug.4. &hese two elements were clearly established in this case. &he records show that appellants sold and delivered the shabu to the <)@! agent posing as a poseur-buyer. &he plastic sachets containing white crystalline

substance, which were seized and were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride 1shabu2, a dangerous drug, were identified and offered in evidence. &here is also no Duestion that appellants 8new that what they were selling and delivering was shabu, a dangerous drug. !fter reviewing the evidence on record, we find the testimonies of the poseur-buyer and his bac8-up, as well as the dangerous drug seized from appellants, more than sufficient to prove the crime charged. *onsidering that this *ourt has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial. 7t 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 and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. &he 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.4/ &he rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the *ourt of !ppeals.4# ?inding no reason to deviate from the findings of both the trial court and the *ourt of !ppeals, we uphold their findings. !ppellantsA assertion that the prosecution should have offered proof showing that they are drug traffic8ers and are notorious in the drug trade as proof of a proper buy-bust operation, is without basis. &his *ourt does not 8now of any law or =urisprudence that reDuires such evidence before it can be held that there was a legal buy-bust operation. !ppellants li8ewise insist that surveillance should have been conducted to verify their illicit activities. We do not agree. Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. &here is no teBtboo8 method of conducting buy-bust operations. &he *ourt has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.5- ! prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.51 ?leBibility is a trait of good police wor8.52 7n the instant case, the entrapment or buy-bust operation was conducted without the necessity of any prior surveillance because the confidential informant, who was previously tas8ed by the buy-bust team leader to order dangerous drugs from appellant !lfredo *oncepcion, accompanied the team to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs. &he failure of the <)@! operatives to record the boodle money will not render the buy-bust operation illegal. &he recording of mar8ed money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. &he recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acDuittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adeDuately proven.54 7n the case at bar, <62 Sistemio, the poseur buyer and <62 !ro=ado testified as to how the shabu sub=ect of the case was seized from appellants. Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of mar8ed money does not

create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adeDuately proven and the drug sub=ect of the transaction is presented before the court. "either law nor =urisprudence reDuires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.55 What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually too8 place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.5% &he prosecution duly established both in this case. !ppellants claim that the boodle money prepared by the buy-bust team was grossly insufficient. We find such claim baseless. &he *ourt, after eBamining the transcript of stenographic notes containing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, did not find the eBact amount of boodle money that was prepared. What is clear, though, is the fact that the boodle money was not given to appellant !lfredo *oncepcion because of the apprehension that followed after the poseurbuyer signaled that the transaction had already been consummated. !ppellantsA argument that the poseur-buyer was not able to stri8e a deal or a sale because one of the elements of the crime charged was wanting - payment by the poseur-buyer for the thing sold or receipt of the mar8ed money by the seller of the dangerous drugs - is erroneous. !s abovementioned, the transaction between the poseur-buyer and appellants was already consummated. &here is no rule of law which reDuires that in buy-bust operations there must be a simultaneous eBchange of the mar8ed money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the pusher.5$ 7t must be emphasized that appellants were charged with selling, trading, delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and transporting dangerous drugs under Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%. &he charge was not limited to selling. Said section punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. 7n the distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial. &he mere act of distributing the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a punishable offense.5. 7n the case at bar, the shabu was delivered to the poseur-buyer after appellants agreed on the price of the contraband. <62 Sistemio, the poseur-buyer, failed to give the boodle money to appellant !lfredo as payment for the shabu. ,owever, he satisfactorily eBplained why he was not able to do so. ,e testified that there was boodle money with him during the operation to pay for the sale of the drugs, but he was unable to utilize the same because he immediately performed the pre-arranged signal alerting the rest of the buy-bust team that he had received the drugs. !ppellants deny the eBistence of the buy-bust operation and cry frame-up. We are not swayed. 7n the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellants were involved in the buy-bust operation. ,aving been caught in flagrante delicto, appellants !lfredo and ,enryAs participation cannot be doubted. !gainst the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellantsA plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.5/ ?rame-up, li8e alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this *ourt, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. 0oreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the )angerous )rugs !ct.5# ?or this

claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.%We uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. &he presumption remains because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive. &he presumption was not overcome as there was no evidence showing that <62 Sistemio and <62 !ro=ado were impelled by improper motive. &he testimony of defense witness >ulieta dela osa does not convince us. !s the wife of appellant !lfredo and sister-in-law of appellant ,enry, we find her not to be credible. ,er testimony is suspect and unsubstantiated. 7n her direct testimony, she said her husband, appellant !lfredo, was outside their house with his friends.%1 ,owever, such statement was belied by !lfredo himself who said he was inside his house when he was allegedly arrested by members of the <)@!. Such inconsistency as to where appellant !lfredo was when the alleged unlawful arrest was made, further diminishes the credibility of the defense witnesses. (ndeniably, appellants are guilty of sale and delivery of shabu, a dangerous drug. 7t was duly established that there was a conspiracy between them to sell and deliver dangerous drugs. !n eBamination of the information reveals that appellants were charged with selling, trading, delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and transporting dangerous drugs consisting of three 142 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets weighing %.-/- grams, 5.55$ grams and 5.4$2 grams, respectively. ,owever, from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, only two sachets%2 were sold and delivered to the poseur-buyer. &he third sachet%4 was not sold or delivered but was found by <62 !ro=ado in the glove compartment of the ,yundai van. ?rom the foregoing, it is thus clear that appellants could have been charged with possession of dangerous drugs%5 on account of the third sachet. &his was not done. &hey cannot be convicted of possession of dangerous drugs, though proved, without being properly charged therefor. &he error on the part of the public prosecutor notwithstanding, the appellants are still guilty, as charged in the information, of selling and delivering the two sachets to the poseur-buyer. We now go to the penalty to be imposed. &he court a 0uo imposed on each of the appellants the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of <%--,---.-- which the *ourt of !ppeals sustained. (nder Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its Duantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of <%--,---.-to <1-,---,---.--.%% &he statute, in prescribing the range of penalties imposable, does not concern itself with the amount of dangerous drug sold by an accused.%$ With the effectivity, however, of epublic !ct "o. #45$, otherwise 8nown as 9!n !ct <rohibiting the 7mposition of )eath <enalty in the <hilippines,9 the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been proscribed. !s a conseDuence, the penalty to be meted to appellants shall only be life

imprisonment and fine. &he penalty imposed by the court a 0uo being in accordance with law, and which the appellate court upheld, this *ourt similarly sustains the same. <HEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. &he )ecision of the *ourt of !ppeals in in *!-+. . * -,.*. "o. -1/-/ dated 1/ 0ay 2--. which affirmed in toto the )ecision of the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of 0alolos, 3ulacan, 3ranch ./, convicting appellants !lfredo *oncepcion y *lemente and ,enry *oncepcion y *lemente of violation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, is hereby AFFIR ED. "o costs. SO ORDERED. INITA >. $HI$O%NA&ARIO !ssociate >ustice Foo12o1)+
1

<enned by !ssociate >ustice 0artin S. :illarama, >r. with !ssociate >ustices ,a8im S. !bdulwahid and !rturo +. &ayag, concurring. *! rollo, pp. 1%.-1./.
2

ecords, pp. 4$/-4/-.

Sale, &rading, !dministration, )ispensation, )elivery, )istribution and &ransportation of )angerous )rugs and/or *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals.
5

ecords, p. 2.

!ppellants were arraigned on 12 )ecember 2--2 while accused )ela *ruz was arraigned on 4 !pril 2--4. ecords, pp. 2# and $..
$

&S", 2. ?ebruary 2--4, 4 !pril 2--4, . >uly 2--4 and 1 September 2--4. &S", 1 )ecember 2--4, 1% )ecember 2--4 and 1% 0arch 2--5. &S", 2. ?ebruary 2--4, p. 1-. 7d. at 11. @Bhs. 3 and 3-1. @Bh. 3-2. @Bh. !E records, p. 4$%. @Bh. *E id. at 4$$. ecords, p. 145.

1-

11

12

14

15

1%

7d. at 151. 7d. at 2#5-4-1, 411-41/. 7d. at 44$. @Bhibits 1 and 2E records, pp. 4%%-4%$. !lso referred to as 7gueza. @Bh. 2E records, p. 4%$. @Bh. 5E id. at 4%/. @Bh. %E id. at 4%#. ecords, pp. 4.#-4/-. 7d. at 4/2. 7d. at 4/5. *! rollo, p. 1... 7d. at 1/1-1/2. 7d. at 1/4. ollo, p. 2$. *! rollo, pp. %$-%..

1$

1.

1/

1#

2-

21

22

24

25

2%

2$

2.

2/

2#

4-

41

S@*. 21. *ustody and )isposition of *onfiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered )angerous )rugs, <lant Sources of )angerous )rugs, *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals, 7nstruments/<araphernalia and/or Caboratory @Duipment. ' &he <)@! shall ta8e 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 eDuipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner; 112 &he 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 )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

42

<eople v. )el 0onte, +. . "o. 1.##5-, 24 !pril 2--/. *! rollo, p. 1.$. <eople v. Gang, 5$. <hil. 5#2, %-# 12--52. <eople v. *abugatan, +. . "o. 1.2-1#, 12 ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! %4., %%2. <eople v. )el 0undo, +. . "o. 1$#151, $ )ecember 2--$, %1- S* ! %%5, %$%-%$$. <eople v. <acis, 545 <hil. 15/, 1%# 12--22. <eople v. >ulian-?ernandez, 524 <hil. /#%, #1- 12--12. <eople v. *abugatan, +. . "o. 1.2-1#, 12 ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! %4., %5.. <eople v. Ci Gin *hu, 5$. <hil. %/2, %#. 12--52. <eople v. +onzales, 54- <hil. %-5, %15 12--22. <eople v. *adley, 5$# <hil. %1%, %2% 12--52. <eople v. Suson, +. . "o. 1%2/5/, 12 >uly 2--$, 5#5 S* ! $#1, .-%. <eople v. !studillo, 55- <hil. 2-4, 225 12--22. <eople v. *hen &iz *hang, 4/2 <hil. $$#, $/5 12---2. <eople v. *adley, supra note 52. <eople v. odriguez, 52# <hil. 4%#, 4.- 12--22. <eople v. Sy, +. . "o. 1.14#., 2. September 2--$, %-4 S* ! ..2, ./4. <eople v. @ugenio, 554 <hil. 511, 51# 12--42. <eople v. Hheng 3ai ,ui, 4#4 <hil. $/, 14/ 12---2. &S", 1# >uly 2--%, p. $. @Bhs. 3 and 3-1. @Bh. 3-2. Section 11, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%.

44

45

4%

4$

4.

4/

4#

5-

51

52

54

55

5%

5$

5.

5/

5#

%-

%1

%2

%4

%5

%%

S@*. %. Sale, &rading, !dministration, )ispensation, )elivery, )istribution and &ransportation of )angerous )rugs and/or *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals. ' &he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 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 Duantity and purity involved, or shall act as a bro8er in any of such transactions.
%$

<eople v. Ruiaoit, >r., +. . "o. 1.%222, 2. >uly 2--., %2/ S* ! 5.5, 5/#.

SEPTEMBER
G.R. No. 181747 S)p1)74)r 2E, 2008 P)opl) o* 15) P5ilippi2)+, Pl-i21i**%-pp)ll)) 0+. N-r(i+o A.6l-! ! Lop)9 0oreover, non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 211a2, !rticle 77 of the 7mplementing ules and egulations of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers $HI$O%NA&ARIO, J.: ?or eview under ule 5% of the evised ules of *ourt is the )ecision1 dated 41 !ugust 2--. of the *ourt of !ppeals in *!-+. . * "o. -1##5 entitled, <eople of the <hilippines v. "arciso !gulay y Copez, affirming the )ecision2 rendered by the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of Ruezon *ity, 3ranch 1-4, in *riminal *ase "o. R--2-111%#., finding accused-appellant "arciso !gulay y Copez guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride more popularly 8nown as 9shabu.9 6n 2$ !ugust 2--2, accused-appellant was charged in an 7nformation before the &* of Ruezon *ity with violation of Section %, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, otherwise 8nown as the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2. &he 7nformation reads; &hat on or about the 25th day of !ugust, 2--2 in Ruezon *ity, <hilippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as bro8er in the said transaction, zero point twenty five 1-.2%2 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride a dangerous drug.4 When arraigned on 24 September 2--2, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.5 &hereafter, trial ensued. )uring the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of <olice 6fficer 1<62 2 aul ,errera, the poseur-buyer, <62 eyno iparip 1member of the buy-bust team2, and ?orensic !nalyst Ceonard 0. >abonillo. &he prosecutionAs version of the events are narrated as follows; 6n 25 !ugust 2--2, at around $;4- in the evening, an informant arrived at <olice Station % and reported to the *hief of the Station )rug @nforcement (nit 1S)@(2 that a certain 9Sing9 had been selling shabu at 3rgy. Sta. Cucia, in "ovaliches, Ruezon *ity.

! police entrapment team was formed. <62 ,errera was assigned as poseur-buyer and was given a <1--.-- bill, which he mar8ed 9 ,,9 his initials. ! pre-operation report bearing control "o. 25-S)@(--2 was made and signed by <olice 7nspector 1</7nsp.2 <alaleo !dag dated 25 !ugust 2--2. &he buy-bust team rode in two vehicles, a Space Wagon and a 3esta van, with a group of police officers inside. &hey stopped along >.<. izal St., Sta. Cucia, "ovaliches, Ruezon *ity. <62 ,errera and his informant stepped down from their vehicle and wal8ed. &he informant pointed the target pusher to <62 ,errera. &hey approached and after being introduced to Sing, <62 ,errera bought shabu using the mar8ed <1--.-- bill. Sing gave a small plastic sachet to <62 ,errera who, thereafter, scratched his head as a signal. &he other police companions of <62 ,errera, who were deployed nearby, then rushed to the crime scene. <62 ,errera grabbed Sing and then fris8ed him. <62 ,errera recovered two 122 plastic sachets from SingAs poc8et. ,e also got the mar8ed money from Sing. &he following specimens were submitted to the <hilippine "ational <olice 1<"<2 *rime Caboratory of the *entral <olice )istrict in Ruezon *ity for chemical analysis; &hree 142 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having the following mar8ings and recorded net weights; 1!2 1 ,1- +12 U -.-. gm 132 1 ,2- +22 U -.-# gm 1*2 1 ,4- +42 U -.-# gm% *hemistry eport "o. )-1-2--2--2 dated 2% !ugust 2--2 and prepared and presented in court by ?orensic !nalyst Ceonard 0. >abonillo 1of the <"< *rime Caboratory of the *entral <olice )istrict of Ruezon *ity2 yielded the following results' ?7")7"+S; Rualitative eBamination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave <6S7&7:@ result to the test for 0ethylamphetamine ,ydrochloride, a regulated drug. B B B. *6"*C(S76"; Specimen !, 3 and * contain 0ethylamphetamine ,ydrochloride, a regulated drug.$ &he defense, on the other hand, had an entirely different version of what transpired that night. 7t presented three witnesses; accused-appellant "arciso !gulay, 3en=amin !gulay 1brother of "arciso2, and 3ayani de Ceon.

!ccused-appellant "arciso !gulay narrated that at around /;4- to #;-- oAcloc8 in the evening of 25 !ugust 2--2, he was manning his store when a car stopped in front of it. &he passengers of said vehicle opened its window and po8ed a gun at him. &he passengers alighted from the car, approached him and put handcuffs on him. !ccused-appellant as8ed what violation he had committed or if they had a search warrant with them, but the arresting team =ust told him to go with them. !ccused-appellant reDuested that he be brought to the barangay hall first, but this reDuest was left unheeded. 7nstead, he was immediately brought to the police station. (pon reaching the police station, <62 ,errera handed something to <61 iparip. &hereafter, <62 ,errera and <61 iparip approached and punched him on the chest. &hey removed his shorts and showed him a plastic sachet. Cater that night, the arresting officers placed him inside the detention cell. !fter about 4- minutes, <61 iparip and <62 ,errera approached him. <62 ,errera told him that if he would not be able to give them <%-,---.--, they would file a case against him, to which he answered, 97 could not do anything because 7 do not have money.9. 3en=amin !gulay, brother of accused-appellant, testified that at around /;4- to #;-- oAcloc8 in the evening of 25 !ugust 2--2, while he was smo8ing in their compound, a group of armed men in civilian clothes entered the place and arrested his brother, who was then manning a store. ,e tried as8ing the arresting officers what the violation of accused-appellant was but he was ignored. &hey then too8 accused-appellant to the police station. 6n the other hand, the testimony of 3ayani de Ceon 1a police asset of S<61 :aldez of the buybust team2 narrated that he, together with </7nsp. Suha, <61 ,errera, <62 iparip, <62 +ulferic and an arrested individual were on board a car while conducting a follow-up operation regarding a hold-up incident. When the car they were riding reached "o. %1 >.<. izal Street, their team alighted and entered a compound. &hey saw accused-appellant and arrested him as he was allegedly involved in a hold-up incident, not with drug pushing. !ccused-appellant was ta8en to <olice Station %. 6n 1. ?ebruary 2--$, the &* found accused-appellant guilty of the offense charged, and meted out to him the penalty of Cife 7mprisonment. &he dispositive portion of the &* )ecision is as follows; !ccordingly, =udgment is rendered finding the accused "! *7S6 !+(C!G G C6<@H +(7C&G beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section % of .!. #1$% as charged 1for drug pushing2 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a =ail term of C7?@ 70< 7S6"0@"& and to pay a fine of <%--,---.--. &he methylamphetamine hydrochloride 1in 4 sachets2 involved in this case is ordered transmitted to the <)@! thru ))3 for proper disposition./ !ccused-appellant filed his "otice of !ppeal with 0otion to Citigate as <auper Citigant on . 0arch 2--$. !ccused-appellant filed his appellantAs brief# with the *ourt of !ppeals on 22 September 2--$.

6n 41 !ugust 2--., the *ourt of !ppeals issued its )ecision denying accused-appellantAs appeal as follows; W,@ @?6 @, finding no reversible error in the )ecision appealed from, the appeal is )@"7@). &he )ecision of the &* dated ?ebruary 1., 2--$ is !??7 0@).1<etitioner elevated the case to this *ourt via "otice of !ppeal11 dated 21 September 2--.. 7n its esolution dated 2 !pril 2--/, this *ourt resolved to; 142 "otify the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty 14-2 days from notice. &o avoid a repetition of the arguments, accused-appellant opted to adopt his appellantAs brief dated 22 September 2--$ while plaintiff-appellee adopted its appelleeAs brief dated 22 >anuary 2--., instead of filing their respective supplemental briefs. &he issues raised are the following; 7. &,@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" "6& ?7")7"+ &,!& &,@ !**(S@)-!<<@CC!"& W!S 7CC@+!CCG ! @S&@) !") !S S(*,, &,@ S!*,@&S 6? S,!3( !CC@+@)CG @*6:@ @) ? 60 ,70 ! @ 7"!)07SS73C@ 7" @:7)@"*@. 77. &,@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" ?7")7"+ &,@ !**(S@)!<<@CC!"& +(7C&G 3@G6") @!S6"!3C@ )6(3& 6? &,@ * 70@ *,! +@). 777. !**(S@)-!<<@CC!"& *!""6& 3@ ,@C) C7!3C@ ?6 &,@ *6"S(00!&@) * 70@ 6? 7CC@+!C S!C@ 6? S,!3( 3@*!(S@ 6? &,@ ?!7C( @ 6? &,@ < 6S@*(&76" &6 @S&!3C7S, !CC 6? 7&S @SS@"&7!C @C@0@"&S. !ccused-appellant maintains that his arrest was illegal, and that the subseDuent seizure of shabu allegedly ta8en from him is inadmissible as evidence against him. ,e also claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, since the prosecution failed to show all the essential elements of an illegal sale of shabu. ?rom the foregoing issues raised by accused-appellant, the basic issue to be resolved hinges on whether accused-appellant was arrested in a legitimate 9buy-bust9 operation. &he law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proved. &he presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine. *onsistent with the rulings of this *ourt, it is a fundamental and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court

and its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the *ourt of !ppeals, as in this case. &he eBception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overloo8ed, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. *onsidering that what is at sta8e here is the liberty of accused-appellant, we have carefully reviewed and evaluated the records of the &* and the *ourt of !ppeals. 6n evaluation of the records, this *ourt finds no =ustification to deviate from the lower courtAs findings and conclusion that accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto selling shabu. 7n order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements; 112 identities of the buyer and seller, the ob=ect, and the considerationE and 122 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.12 &he testimonies of the prosecution witnesses proved that all the elements of the crime have been established; that the buy-bust operation too8 place, and that the shabu sub=ect of the sale was brought to and identified in court. 0oreover, <62 ,errera, the poseur-buyer, positively identified accused-appellant as the person who sold to him the sachet containing the crystalline substance which was confirmed to be shabu.14 ,e narrated the events which too8 place the night accused-appellant was apprehended; ?7S. >( !)6; Gou said that you are stationed at <olice Station %, what were your duties thereM W7&"@SS; !s an operative sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What was your tour of duty on !ugust 25, 2--2M W7&"@SS; 3ro8en hour sir. ?7S. >( !)6; 3ut at around $;4- in the evening, you are on dutyM W7&"@SS;

Ges, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; While you are on duty at that time and place, will you please inform this ,onorable *ourt if there was an operationM W7&"@SS; Ges, sir. ?7S >( !)6; What is that operation all aboutM W7&"@SS; 3uy bust operation sir. ?7S. >( !)6; egarding whatM W7&"@SS; "arcotic sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What is this all aboutM W7&"@SS; !lias Sing at Sta. Cucia sir. ?7S. >( !)6; ,ow did you prepare for that buy-bust operationM W7&"@SS; !n informant arrived and we reported to our *hief of S)@( and the *hief gave us <1--.-- and 7 acted as poseur-buyer sir. ?7S. 0>( !)6;

!side from that what elseM W7&"@SS; 7 put my mar8ings sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What is that mar8ings 1sic2M W7&"@SS; .,. sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What is the significance of this .,.M W7&"@SS; &hat mean1sic2 aul ,errera sir. ?7S. >( !)6; )o you have said money with youM W7&"@SS; Ges sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Will you please show that to this ,onorable *ourtM W7&"@SS; ,ere sir. BBBB ?7S. >( !)6; !fter you prepared the buy bust money, what else did you doM W7&"@SS;

We proceeded to the target location, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Gou said 9we9 who were with youM W7&"@SS; </7nsp. !ddag, osario, S<61 @l :aldez, S<62 ey :aldez, "ogoy, iparip and the confidential informant sir. ?7S. >( !)6; ,ow did you proceed to the place of Sta. CuciaM W7&"@SS; We rode in a tinted vehicles 1sic2 one space wagon and 3esta van, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; When you arrived in that place, what happened thereM W7&"@SS; We as8ed our confidential informant to loo8 for Sing, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; )id the confidential informant locate the said SingM W7&"@SS; Ges sir along the street sir. ?7S. >( !)6; WhereM W7&"@SS; >.<. izal St., Sta. Cucia, "ovaliches, Ruezon *ity, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; !fter your confidential informant found this Sing, what happened neBtM

W7&"@SS; 6ur confidential informant as8ed me to go with him to see Sing to buy drug1s2 sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Where is 1sic2 the transaction too8 1sic2 placeM W7&"@SS; !long the street sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What happened thereM W7&"@SS; 7 was introduced by the confidential informant to Sing as buyer sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What happened neBtM W7&"@SS; 7 bought from him worth one hundred peso 1sic2 of shabu, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What 1sic2 Sing do, if anyM W7&"@SS; Sing gave me one small plastic sachet sir. ?7S >( !)6; !fter that what did you do neBtM W7&"@SS; 7 eBecuted our pre-arranged signal sir. ?7S. >( !)6;

?or whom you eBecuted this pre-arranged signalM W7&"@SS; &o my companions sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Where are 1sic2 your companions at that timeM W7&"@SS; 6n board at 1sic2 3esta and Space Wagon sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What was the pre-arranged signalM W7&"@SS; 7 scratched my head sir. ?7S. >( !)6; !fter scratching your head, what happened neBtM W7&"@SS; 0y bac8-up rushed to our place, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; !fter that what did you do neBtM W7&"@SS; 7 grabbed Sing and arrested him sir. ?7S. >( !)6; ,ow about the moneyM W7&"@SS; 7 recovered the buy bust money from Sing, sir.

?7S. >( !)6; Gou mentioned plastic sachet, 7 am showing to you three 142 plastic sachets, which of these three was ta8en or sold to youM W7&"@SS; &his one sir. ?7S. >( !)6; ,ow did you come to 8now that this is the oneM W7&"@SS; 7 have my initial1sic2 .,. sir. BBBB ?7S. >( !)6; !side from that, what happened neBtM W7&"@SS; When 7 fris8ed Sing, 7 was able to recover from him two 122 more plastic sachets sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Where did you get that plastic sachetM W7&"@SS; ight side poc8et sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Short or pantM W7&"@SS; Short sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Where are these two plastic sachets that you are mentioningM

W7&"@SS; ,ere sir. ?7S. >( !)6; ,ow did you come to 8now that these are the two plastic sachetsM W7&"@SS; 7 put my mar8ings sir ,. BBBB *6( &; !fter that what happened neBtM W7&"@SS; We brought him to our <olice Station, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Gou mentioned Sing if this Sing is inside this courtroom, will you be able to identify himM W7&"@SS; Ges sir that man. 7"&@ < @&@ ; Witness pointing to a man who identified himself as "arciso !gulay and his nic8name is 9Sing.915 ,is testimony was corroborated on material points by <61 iparip, one of the bac8-up operatives in the buy-bust operation that night, to wit; ?7S. >( !)6; Gou said that you are a police officer, where were you assigned on !ugust 25, 2--2M W7&"@SS; 7 was assigned at <olice Station % for drug1sic2 sir.

?7S. >( !)6; What was your tour of duty at that timeM W7&"@SS; 3ro8en hour sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Gou were on duty on !ugust 25, 2--2 at $;4- in the eveningM W7&"@SS; Ges sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What was your functions1sic2 as suchM W7&"@SS; &o conduct follow up operation on drugs and other crimes sir. ?7S. >( !)6; )id you conduct operation on that dayM W7&"@SS; Ges sir we conducted "arcotic operation sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Gou said you conducted narcotic operation, whereM W7&"@SS; Sta. Cucia, particularly at >.<. izal St., "ovaliches, Ruezon *ity, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; &o whom this "arcotic operation conductedM W7&"@SS;

&o certain !lias Sing, sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Who were with you at that timeM W7&"@SS; :aldez, osario, ,errera, !ddag and other1sic2 sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What was your participation in the said operationM W7&"@SS; 7 acted as bac8 up sir. ?7S. >( !)6; !s bac8 up, what did you doM W7&"@SS; We position ourselves to a certain distance and where we can see the poseur-buyer sir. ?7S. >( !)6; Who was the poseur-buyerM W7&"@SS; ,errera sir. ?7S. >( !)6; What did you seeM W7&"@SS; &he poseur buyer eBecuted the pre-arranged signal and we rushed to his position and arrested the target person Sing sir. ?7S. >( !)6; When we 1sic2 rushed to the target place what happened neBtM

W7&"@SS; ,errera fris8ed Sing and we brought him to the police station sir.1% !ccused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, ma8ing the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from him inadmissible in evidence. !ccused-appellantAs claim is devoid of merit for it is a well-established rule that an arrest made after an entrapment operation does not reDuire a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid 9warrantless arrest,9 in line with the provisions of ule 114, Section %1a2 of the evised ules of *ourt, to wit; Section %. !rrest without warrantE when lawful. ' ! peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person; 1a2 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. ! 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. 7n a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.1$ 7f carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves =udicial sanction.1. &here are eight 1/2 instances when a warrantless search and seizure is valid, to wit; 112 consented searchesE 122 as an incident to a lawful arrestE 142 searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug lawsE 152 searches of moving vehiclesE 1%2 searches of automobiles at borders or constructive bordersE 1$2 where the prohibited articles are in 9plain viewE9 1.2 searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulationsE and 1/2 9stop and fris89 operations. *onsidering that the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is beyond Duestion, the subseDuent warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure, were permissible. &he search, clearly being incident to a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for its validity. &hus, contrary to accusedappellantLs contention, the contraband seized from him, having been obtained as a result of the buy-bust operation to which the defense failed to impute any irregularity, was correctly admitted in evidence. "oteworthy is the fact that prior to the dispatch of the entrapment team, a preoperation report1/ was made bearing *ontrol "o. 25-S)@(--2 dated 25 !ugust 2--%. &he preoperation report stated that an !nti-"arcotic 6peration was to be conducted at 3arangay Sta. Cucia in "ovaliches, Ruezon *ity, and indicated the police officers involved, including the vehicles to be used. &his only bolsters the testimony of <62 ,errera and <61 iparip as to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation. &he defense contends there is a clear doubt on whether the specimens eBamined by the chemist and eventually presented in court were the same specimens recovered from accused-appellant. &he prosecutionAs failure to submit in evidence the reDuired physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to Section 21,1# !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$% will not

discharge accused-appellant from his crime. "on-compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accusedAs arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 7n <eople v. )el 0onte,2- this *ourt held that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 7n the instant case, we find the integrity of the drugs seized intact, and there is no doubt that the three sachets of drugs seized from accusedappellant were the same ones eBamined for chemical analysis, and that the crystalline substance contained therein was later on determined to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride 1shabu2. &he defense, in fact, admitted the eBistence and authenticity of the reDuest for chemical analysis and the subseDuent result thereof; ?7S. >( !)6; *hemist @ngr. >abonillo is present your honor. *6( &; !ny proposal for stipulationM ?7S. >( !)6; &hat there is letter reDuest for eBamination of white crystalline substance mar8ed as follows; ! 1p,12E 3 1p,22 and * 1p,42M !&&G. R(7C!S; !dmitted your honor. ?7S. >( !)6; !s a result of the said Dualitative eBamination chemist issued a chemistry report "o. )-1-2-2--2M !&&G. R(7C!S; !dmitted your honor. ?7S. >( !)6; 7n view of the admission your honor, may we reDuest that Cetter reDuest dated !ugust 2%, 2--2 be mar8ed as @Bhibit V)A and *hemistry eport "o. )-1-2--2--2 as @Bhibit V@A your honor. *6( &;

0ar8 it. 7n view of the presence of the *hemist, @ngr. >abonillo, ,e is being called to the witness stand for cross eBamination of the defense counsel.21 6n cross-eBamination by the defense, ?orensic !nalyst >abonillo stated that the drugs presented in court were the same drugs eBamined by him and submitted to him on 2% !ugust 2--2; !&&G. R(7C!S; 7n this particular case, you received three plastic sachetsM W7&"@SS; Ges sir. !&&G. R(7C!S; When you receive these three plastic sachets were these already segregated or in one plastic containerM W7&"@SS; 7 received it as is sir. BBBB !&&G. R(7C!S; ,ow sure you were 1sic2 that three plastic sachet 1sic2 containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride were the same drug 1sic2 submitted to you on !ugust 2%, 2--2. W7&"@SS; 7 personally place 1sic2 my mar8ing sir. !&&G. R(7C!S; Gou want to impress before this ,onorable *ourt these were the same items that you received on !ugust 2%, 2--2M W7&"@SS; Ges sir.22 6n cross-eBamination by the defense, the same witness testified, to wit;

!&&G. )@ +(H0!"; 7 understand you are *hemical @ngineer, am 7 correctM W7&"@SS; Ges, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; !nd that you have been 1sic2 wor8ed as a *hemist in the <"< for several yearsM W7&"@SS; Since 0arch, 2-- 1sic2, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; What would be your practice when specimen submitted for you to eBamine, was it already premar8ed by the person who submit for eBaminationM W7&"@SS; "ormally, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; What do you mean normally, you also put the mar8ingM W7&"@SS; Ges, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; So everything has pre-mar8M W7&"@SS; Ges, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; !nd then when pre-mar8 specimen is submitted to you, you merely analyze the same is that correctM

W7&"@SS; Ges, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; !nd you do not change any mar8ing thereM W7&"@SS; Ges, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; "ow in the mar8ing that we have it appearing that @Bhibits !, 3, and * are <,, am 7 correctM W7&"@SS; , sir, not <,. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; 3ecause it shows in the zeroB 1sic2 copy that it is , because of that slant. "ow when this specimen was submitted to you was it three specimens submitted to you or only one specimen !, 3, * were ran8ing to oneM W7&"@SS; "o sir, three 142 specimens.24 7t is significant to note that accused-appellant stated in his demurrer to evidence that the specimens submitted for laboratory eBamination were not the three plastic sachets that were allegedly recovered by the poseur-buyer <62 aul ,errera, which may thus be construed to be an implied admission.25 !ccused-appellantAs allegation that he is a victim of a frame-up, which has been held as a shopworn defense of those accused in drug-related cases, is viewed by the *ourt with disfavor. Ci8e the defense of alibi, frame-up is an allegation that can easily be concocted.2% ?or this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity of official acts of government officials.2$ !bsent any proof of motive to falsely accuse him of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over that of the accused-appellant.2. !part from his defense that he is a victim of a frame-up and eBtortion by the police officers, accused-appellant could not present any other viable defense. !gain, while the presumption of

regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption of regularity. &his, it failed to do. 3ayani de CeonAs testimony that the accused was being ta8en as a carnapping suspect only further wea8ened the defense, considering it was totally out of sync with the testimony of accused-appellant vis-T-vis the positive testimonies of the police officers on the events that transpired on the night of 25 !ugust 2--2 when the buy-bust operation was conducted. 7t is also highly suspect and unusual that accused-appellant never mentioned that he was ta8en as a carnapping suspect if indeed this were the case, considering it would have been his tic8et to freedom. &o recall, on direct eBamination by the defense counsel, 3ayani de Ceon testified as follows; !&&G. *6"*@<*76"; 0r. Witness, were you able to tal8 to "arciso !gulay that time he was arrestedM W7&"@SS; Ges maAam, when "arciso !gulay was put inside a room at Station % and in that room, 7, iparip and ,errera entered. !&&G. *6"*@<*76"; What was the conversation all aboutM W7&"@SS; ,e was being as8ed if he was one of those who held up a taBi maAam. !&&G. *6"*@<*76"; What was the response of "arciso !gulayM W7&"@SS; "arciso !gulay was crying and at the same time denying that he was with that person. When we told him that the person we arrested with the firearm was pointing to him, he said that he does not 8now about that incident and he does not 8now also that person who pointed him maAam.2/ Witness 3ayani de CeonAs testimony is dubious and lac8s credence. ?rom the testimony of 3ayani de Ceon, it is apparent that accused-appellant would necessarily have 8nown what he was being arrested for, which was entirely inconsistent with accused-appellantAs previous testimony.

Such inconsistency further diminished the credibility of the defense witness. 7t would seem that 3ayani de CeonAs testimony was but a mere afterthought. 0oreover, 3ayani de Ceon testified that he allegedly came to 8now of the fact that accusedappellant was being charged under epublic !ct "o. #1$% when he 13ayani de Ceon2 was also detained at the city =ail for robbery with homicide, testifying as follows; ?7S. ! !(C!; !nd you only 8new that "arciso !gulay was charged of Section %, .!. #1$% when you were detained at the *ity >ailM W7&"@SS; Ges sir. ?7S. ! !(CC!; 7n fact, you were tal8ing with each otherM W7&"@SS; Ges sir, and 7 as8ed what is the case filed against him. ?7S. ! !(CC!; !nd that is the time you 8now that "arciso !gulay was charged of 1sic2 Section %M W7&"@SS; Ges sir.2# &his *ourt, thus, is in agreement with the trial court in finding that; 3ayani himself appears to be a shady character. 3y his admission he is a bata or agent of <6 :asDuez. !s far as the court 8nows, such characters are used by the police because they are underworld character 1sic2.4?inally, the testimony of accused-appellantAs brother, 3en=amin !gulay, is not convincing. 3en=amin, being accused-appellantAs brother, we find him to be unreliable. Suffice it to say that, having been given by a relative of the accused-appellant, his testimony should be received with caution. 6n this premise, this *ourt has laid down the 9ob=ective9 test in scrutinizing buy-bust operations. 7n <eople v. )oria,41 we said;

We therefore stress that the 9ob=ective9 test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adeDuately shown. &his must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug sub=ect of the sale. &he manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the 9buy-bust9 money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the sub=ect of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. B B B. 7t bears to point out that prosecutions of cases for violation of the )angerous )rugs !ct arising from buy-bust operations largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the same, and unless clear and convincing evidence is proffered showing that the members of the buy-bust team were driven by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.42 &he law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proved.44 &his presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is consistent with a most fundamental constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. &his constitutional guarantee is so essential that the framers of the constitution found it imperative to 8eep the provision from the old constitution to emphasize the primacy of rights that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.45 7n his dissent, >ustice 3rion focused on the conviction that 15) 46!%46+1 op)r-1io2 -2/ 15) (o2+)=6)21 +)i96r) o* 15) pro5i4i1)/ +64+1-2() )i15)r /i/ 2o1 1-8) pl-() or 5-+ 2o1 4))2 pro0)2 4)!o2/ r)-+o2-4l) /o641 4)(-6+) o* - .-p i2 15) pro+)(61io2,+ )0i/)2(). *onvinced that under the proven facts of the present case, the dissent maintains that the prosecution has not proven that a crime had been committed through proof beyond reasonable doubt -- that the three plastic sachets that were admitted into evidence during the trial were in fact the same items seized from the accused-appellant when he was arrested. &he guilt of accused-appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt. *ontrary to the dissentAs claim, the totality of the evidence would indicate that the sale of the prohibited drug had ta8en place, and that the sale was adeDuately established and the prosecution witnesses clearly identified accused-appellant as the offender. 0oreover, the seized items, proven positive to be shabu, were properly identified and presented before the court. &o reiterate, in prosecutions for illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, conviction is proper if the following elements are present; 112 the identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob=ect, and the considerationE and 122 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually too8 place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug.4% &he term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.

&he procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21 1a2, paragraph 1 of !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, to wit; 1a2 &he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereofE Section 21 1a2, !rticle 77 of the 7mplementing ules and egulations of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, which implements said provision, reads; 1a2 &he 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 )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereofE <rovided, further that non-compliance with these reDuirements under =ustifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. &he above provision further states that non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under =ustifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. &he evident purpose of the procedure provided for 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 of or innocence of the accused. 6n the chain of custody of the seized drugs &he dissent agreed with accused-appellantAs assertion that the police operatives failed to comply with the proper procedure in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. 7t premised that noncompliance with the procedure in Section 211a2, !rticle 77 of the 7mplementing ules and egulations of epublic !ct "o. #1$% creates an irregularity and overcomes the presumption of regularity accorded police authorities in the performance of their official duties. &his assumption is without merit. Fir+1, i1 76+1 4) 7-/) (l)-r 15-1 i2 +)0)r-l (-+)+G3EH decided by the *ourt, failure by the buybust team to comply with said section did not prevent the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty from applying. S)(o2/, )0)2 prior 1o 15) )2-(17)21 o* R.A. 91E?, 15) r)=6ir)7)21+ (o21-i2)/ i2 S)(1io2 21D-F 3)r) -lr)-/! 15)r) p)r D-2.)ro6+ Dr6.+ Bo-r/ R).6l-1io2 No. 3, S)ri)+ o* 1979.

D)+pi1) 15) pr)+)2() o* +6(5 r).6l-1io2 -2/ i1+ 2o2%(o7pli-2() 4! 15) 46!%46+1 1)-7, 15) $o6r1 +1ill -ppli)/ +6(5 pr)+67p1io2.4. We held; &he failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said ))3 egulation "o. 4, Series of 1#.# is a matter strictly between the )angerous )rugs 3oard and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the )angerous )rugs 3oard. While accused-appellant contends in his appellantAs brief that the police operatives did not submit the reDuired inventory of the seized items pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 1a2, !rticle 77 of the 7mplementing ules and egulations of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, the records belie this claim. 6n cross-eBamination by the defense, <olice 6fficer 1<62 2 ,errera testified on ma8ing an inventory of the seized items. <62 ,errera testified as follows; R; When you arrested the suspect in this case, you confiscated two 122 items from himM !; Ges sir. R; !nd you said that it is part of your procedure when you confiscated items from the suspect you made an inventory of the item confiscatedM !; Ges sir. R; )id you ma8e inventory of the confiscated itemsM !; Ges sir it is with the police investigator.4/ 0oreover, non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 211a2, !rticle 77 of the 7mplementing ules and egulations of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. *onsistent with this *ourtAs pronouncements in <eople v. 3ano4# and in <eople v. 0iranda,5contrary to appellantAs claim, there is no showing of a bro8en chain in the custody of the seized items, later on determined to be shabu, from the moment of its seizure by the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the <"< *rime Caboratory for laboratory eBamination. 7t was duly established by documentary, testimonial, and ob=ect evidence, including the mar8ings on the plastic sachets containing the shabu that the substance tested by the forensic chemist, whose laboratory tests were well-documented, was the same as that ta8en from accused-appellant. &he records of the case indicate that after his arrest, accused-appellant was ta8en to the police station and turned over to the police investigator. <62 ,errera testified that he personally51 made the mar8ings 9 ,9 1representing his initials2 on the three sachets, the inventory52 of which was

delivered to the police investigator. !fter the arrest, the seized items which had the mar8ings 9 ,9 alleged to contain shabu were brought to the crime laboratory for eBamination.54 &he reDuest for laboratory eBamination and transfer of the confiscated sachets to the <"< crime laboratory was prepared by another officer, <62 +ulferic, the designated officer-on-case.55 7t was signed as well by the *hief of 6ffice/!gency 1S)@(/S7732 <olice *hief 7nspector Ceslie *astillo *astillo. &he reDuest indicated that the seized items were delivered by <62 +ulferic and received by ?orensic *hemist >abonillo.5% &he three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance were later on determined to be positive for 0ethylamphetamine ,ydrochloride or shabu. When the prosecution presented the mar8ed sachets in court, <62 ,errera positively identified the plastic sachets containing shabu which he bought from accused-appellant in the buy-bust operation. &he sachets containing shabu had the mar8ings 9 ,9 as testified by ?orensic *hemist >abonillo. <62 ,errera positively identified in court that he put his initials 9 ,9 on the sachets. &hus, the identity of the drugs has been duly preserved and established by the prosecution. 3esides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. &he accused-appellant in this case bears the burden to ma8e some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of eBhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.5$ <62 ,errera identified the sachets in court, and more importantly, accused-appellant had the opportunity to cross-eBamine him on this point. &his *ourt, thus, sees no doubt that the sachets mar8ed 9 ,9 submitted for laboratory eBamination and which were later on found to be positive for shabu, were the same ones sold by accused-appellant to the poseur-buyer <62 ,errera during the buy-bust operation. &here is no Duestion, therefore, that the identity of the prohibited drug in this case was certainly safeguarded. &he dissent maintains that the chain of custody rule 9would include testimony about every lin8 in the chain, from the moment the item was pic8ed up to the time it is offered into evidence B B B.9 &his means that all persons who came into contact with the seized drugs should testify in courtE otherwise, the unbro8en chain of custody would not be established. We disagree. "ot all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are reDuired to testify in court. &here is nothing in the "ew )rugs Caw or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a reDuirement. !s long as the chain of custody of the seized substance was clearly established not to have been bro8en and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should ta8e the witness stand. 7n <eople v. Heng ,ua )ian,5. we held; !fter a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not bro8en and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. &he non-presentation of witnesses of other persons such as S<61 +rafia, the evidence custodian, and <64 !lamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. &he matter of presentation of witneses by the prosecution is not for the court to

decide. &he prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. 7n connection with this, it must not be forgotten that entries in official records made by a public officer in the performance of his duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.5/ 7f it is now a reDuirement that all persons who came into contact with the seized drugs should testify in court, what will now happen to those public officers 1e.g., person who issued reDuest for eBamination of drugs or those who tested the drugs2 who issued documents regarding the seized drugsM Shall they be obligated to testify despite the fact the entries in the documents they issued are prima facie evidence of the facts therein statedM We do not thin8 so. (nless there is proof to the contrary, the entries in the documents are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated and they need not testify thereon. &he dissenting opinion li8ewise faults the prosecution for failing to disclose the identity of the person who submitted the item that was eBamined. &he answer to this Duestion can easily be seen from the stamp made in the reDuest for drug analysis. &here being no Duestion by the accused on this matter, the entry thereon made by the public officer is definitely sufficient, same being an entry in official records. 6n the credibility of the witnesses <rosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the 9buy-bust9 operation.5# 7n cases involving violations of the )angerous )rugs Caw, appellate courts tend to heavily rely upon the trial court in assessing the credibility of witnesses, as it had the uniDue opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-eBamination.%- &his *ourt, not being a trier of facts itself, relies in good part on the assessment and evaluation by the trial court of the evidence, particularly the attestations of the witnesses, presented to it.%1 &hus, this *ourt will not interfere with the trial courtAs assessment of the credibility of witnesses considering there is nothing on record that shows some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overloo8ed, misappreciated, or misinterpreted. (nless compelling reasons are shown otherwise, this *ourt, not being a trier of facts itself, relies in good part on the assessment and evaluation by the trial court of the evidence, particularly the attestations of witnesses, presented to it. !s this *ourt has held in a long line of cases, the trial court is in a better position to decide the Duestion, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. !ccused-appellant casts suspicion on the means or methods by which the police officers conducted the operation and claims to be the victim of a frame-up. !ccording to accusedappellant, the trial court relied heavily on the police officersA testimonies that what had actually transpired was a buy-bust operation, which resulted in his arrest. 7n almost every case involving a buy-bust operation, the accused put up the defense of frame-up. Such claim is viewed with disfavor, because it can easily be feigned and fabricated. 7n <eople v. (y, the *ourt reiterated its position on the matter, to wit;

We are not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to eBtract information or even to harass civilians. ,owever, li8e alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the *ourt with disfavor as it can easily be concocted JandK hence commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the )angerous )rugs !ct. We realize the disastrous conseDuences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being of society, if the courts B B B accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. 7t is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed eBists. B B B %2 7n the case at bar, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are positive and convincing, sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court and the *ourt of !ppeals that accusedappellantAs guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. ?irst, the testimony of <62 aul ,errera was spontaneous, straightforward and categorical. Second, <61 eyno iparip, the bac8-up police operative of <62 ,errera, corroborated the latterAs testimony on material points. !ppellantAs defense of frame-up and self-serving assertion that he was mista8enly pic8ed up by the police operatives for a carnapping case cannot prevail over the positive and straight-forward testimonies of the police operatives who have performed their duties regularly and in accordance with law, and have not been shown to have been inspired by any improper motive or to have improperly performed their duty.%4 &o reiterate, 3ayani de CeonAs testimony that the accused was being ta8en as a carnapping suspect only further wea8ened the defense, considering it was totally out of sync with the testimony of accused-appellant vis-T-vis the positive testimonies of the police officers on the events that transpired on the night of 25 !ugust 2--2 when the buy-bust operation was conducted. &he arrest of accused-appellant was made in the course of an entrapment, following a surveillance operation, normally performed by police officers in the apprehension of violators of the )angerous )rugs !ct. &he *ourt so holds that in the absence of proof of any odious intent on the part of the police operatives to falsely impute such a serious crime, as the one imputed against accused-appellant, it will not allow their testimonies to be overcome by the self-serving claim of frame-up. @ven assuming arguendo that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty has been overcome because of failure to comply with Section 211a2, same will not automatically lead to the eBoneration of the accused. Said presumption is not the sole basis for the conviction of the accused. ,is conviction was based not solely on said presumption but on the documentary and real evidence, and more importantly, on the oral evidence by prosecution witnesses whom we found to be credible. 7t is to noted that one witness is sufficient to prove the corpus delicti ' that there was a consummated sale between the poseur buyer and the accused -- there being no Duantum of proof as to the number of witnesses to prove the same. 7n the case at bar, the selling of drugs by accused was established.

&he dissent li8ewise argues that the ponencia cannot impose on the defense the burden of proving that the police had an improper motive in charging him because of the absence of the presumption of regularity. We find this untenable. 7t is settled that if the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not impugned, full faith and credit shall be accorded them. 6ne impugns the testimony of witness during cross-eBamination. )id the defense satisfactorily impugn the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses when he said that he was a victim of hulidap and that the policemen were eBtorting money from himM Said declaration is definitely not sufficient to impugn the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. ,is mere say so that he was victimized without clear and convincing evidence to support such claim does not suffice. 7f what he claims was indeed committed by the policemen, he should have sued or charged them. &his, he did not do. Such inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.%5 ?rom the foregoing, We are fully convinced that the accused is guilty as charged. We thus hold that accused-appellantAs guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. &his *ourt shall now determine the proper penalties to be imposed on him. !n eBamination of the 7nformation reveals that accused-appellant was charged with the unauthorized sale and delivery of dangerous drugs consisting of twenty-five hundredths 1-.2%2 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride 1shabu2. ?rom the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, only one sachet%% was sold and delivered to the poseur-buyer, <62 ,errera. &he two other sachets%$ were not sold or delivered, but were found by <62 ,errera inside the right poc8et of accused-appellantAs pair of shorts upon fris8ing, after the latter was caught in flagrante delicto during the buy-bust operation. !ccused-appellant could have been charged with the possession of dangerous drugs%. on account of the second and third sachets. &his was not done. ,e cannot then be convicted of possession of dangerous drugs, without being properly charged therewith, even if proved. !ccused-appellant, however, is still guilty, as charged in the 7nformation, of selling and delivering one sachet to the poseur-buyer. (nder epublic !ct "o. #1$%, the unauthorized sale of shabu carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive ,undred &housand <esos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en 0illion <esos 1<1-,---,---.--2. <ursuant, however, to the enactment of epublic !ct "o. #45$ entitled, 9!n !ct <rohibiting the 7mposition of )eath <enalty in the <hilippines,9 only life imprisonment and fine, instead of death, shall be imposed. We, therefore, find the penalty imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the *ourt of !ppeals ' life imprisonment and a fine of <%--,---.-- ' to be proper.

W,@ @?6 @, premises considered, the *ourt of !ppeals )ecision in *!-+. . * "o. -1##5 dated 41 !ugust 2--. is !??7 0@). S6 6 )@ @). INITA >. $HI$O%NA&ARIO !ssociate >ustice !cting *hairperson Foo12o1)+
S

<er Special 6rder "o. %1., dated 2. !ugust 2--/, signed by *hief >ustice eynato S. <uno, designating !ssociate >ustices )ante 6. &inga and <resbitero >. :elasco, >r. to replace !ssociate >ustices *onsuelo Gnares-Santiago and 0a. !licia !ustria-0artinez, who are on official leave.
SS

>ustice !rturo ). 3rion was designated to sit as additional member replacing >ustice !ntonio @duardo 3. "achura per affle dated 21 !pril 2--/.
1

<enned by !ssociate >ustice <ortia-!lino-,ormachuelos with !ssociate >ustices Cucas <. 3ersamin and @stela 0. <erlas-3ernabe, concurring. ollo, pp. 2-14.
2

<enned by >udge >aime ". Salazar, >r.E *! rollo, pp. 2--24. ecords, p. 1. 7d. at 24. 7d. at 15. 7d. &S", 2% 6ctober 2--5, p. 14. ecords, p. 24. 7d. at 4%-5#. ollo, p. 12.

1-

11

<ursuant to Section 14, ule 125 of the evised ules on *riminal <rocedure, as amended by !.0. "o. ---%--4-S*.
12

<eople v. Cee ,oi 0ing, 5%# <hil. 1/., 1#4 12--42. *hemistry eport "o. )-1-2--2--2E ecords, p. 15.

14

15

&S", 1$ 6ctober 2--2, pp. 4-1-. &S", 1$ 6ctober 2--2, pp. 2--24. <eople v. :alencia, 54# <hil. %$1, %.5 12--22. <eople v. !bbu, 41. <hil. %1/, %2% 11##%2. <re-6peration eportE ecords, p. $.

1%

1$

1.

1/

1#

S@*. 21. *ustody and )isposition of *onfiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered )angerous )rugs, <lant Sources of )angerous )rugs, *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals, 7nstruments/<araphernalia and/or Caboratory @Duipment. ' &he <)@! shall ta8e 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 eDuipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner; 112 &he 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 )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
2-

+. . "o. 1.##5-, 24 !pril 2--/. &S", 2/ 0arch 2--4, pp. 2-4. 7d. at #-1-. &S", 1% ?ebruary 2--%, pp. 4-%. ecords, p. #5.

21

22

24

25

2%

<eople v. )e Ceon, 55- <hil. 4$/, 4// 12--22E <eople v. Cee ,oi 0ing, supra note 12 at 1#%.
2$

<eople v. )e Ceon, id., citing <eople v. Hheng 3ai ,ui, 4#4 <hil. $/, 14% 12---2, <eople v. 3oco, 4$/ <hil. 451, 4$$-4$. 11###2E &eodosio v. *ourt of !ppeals, +. . "o. 12545$, / >une 2--5, 541 S* ! 1#5, 2-5.
2.

<eople v. 3ongalon, 52% <hil. #$, 11$ 12--22. &S", 25 >anuary 2--$, pp. $-..

2/

2#

7d. at 11. *! rollo, p. 24. 4$1 <hil. %#%, $21 11###2. <eople v. *asolocan, +. . "o. 1%$/#-, 14 >uly 2--5, 545 S* ! 2.$, 2/2. <,7C7<<7"@ *6"S&7&(&76", !rticle 777, Section 15, <aragraph 1. 7d. <eople v. ,a=ili, 55. <hil. 2/4E <eople v. 0artinez, 24% S* ! 1.1 J1##5KE <eople v. igodon, 24/ S* ! 2. J1##5K.

4-

41

42

44

45

4%

4$

<eople v. "aDuita, +. . "o. 1/-%11, 2/ >uly 2--/E <eople v. *oncepcion, +. . "o. 1.//.$, 2. >une 2--/E <eople v. )el 0onte, +. . "o. 1.##5-, 24 !pril 2--/.
4.

<eople v. )e los eyes, +. . "o. 1-$/.5, 21 >anuary 1##5. &S", 1$ 6ctober 2--2, pp. 1/-1#. 51# S* ! $.., 1% >anuary 2--5. %45 S* ! %%2, 2 6ctober 2--.. &S", 1$ 6ctober 2--2, pp. #-1-. &S", 1$ 6ctober 2--2, p. 1$. 7d. at 11. ecords, @Bhibit ), p. 12. 7d. <eople v. 0iranda, %45 S* ! %%4, 2 6ctober 2--.. 15 >une 2--5, +. . "o. 15%45/, 542 S* ! 2%. (C@S 6? *6( &, ule 14-, Section 55. <eople v. Sy, +. . "o. 15.45/, 25 September 2--2.

4/

4#

5-

51

52

54

55

5%

5$

5.

5/

5#

%-

<eople v. 0ala, 511 S* ! 42., 1/ September 2--4E <eople v. >ulian-?ernandez, 4.2 S* ! $-/, 1/ )ecember 2--1E <eople v. *orpuz, +. . "o. 15/#1#, 1. )ecember 2--2.

%1

<eople v. *ueno, 2#/ S* ! $2$, 1$ )ecember 1##/. +. . "o.12#-1#, 1$ !ugust 2---.

%2

%4

<eople v. Saludes, 5-4 S* ! %#- J2--4KE !rcilla v. *ourt of !ppeals, 51/ S* ! 5#.E <eople v. 0ala, 511 S* ! 42. J2--4K.
%5

<eople v. !hmad, +. . "o. 15/-5/, 1% >anuary 2--5, 51# S* ! $... &S", 1$ 6ctober 2--2, pp. /-#. 7d. epublic !ct "o. #1$%, !rticle 77, Section 11.

%%

%$

%.

DISSENTING OPINION BRIONI, J.' &hat no person shall be denied the right to life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the eDual protection of the laws stands at the first section of !rticle 777 1the 3ill of ights2 of the <hilippine *onstitution because it is the most basic. 7n criminal proceedings, the due process reDuirement is so zealously guarded that over and above what !rticle 777, Section 1 provides, the framers of the *onstitution still saw it necessary to provide under Section 15 of the same !rticle that 9"o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.9 Section 15 particularizes its protection by specifying under its paragraph 122 the rights that an accused shall en=oy, foremost among them the right to be 9presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.9 *ontrary proof, in constitutional terms, is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution must adduce evidence showing that a crime has been committed as charged, and that the accused committed the crime. 7t is only upon such proof that the burden of evidence shifts to the accused who is then given his or her chance to adduce evidence to show that no crime was committedE or that circumstances eBist to =ustify the commission of the act chargedE or that somebody else committed the crimeE or that reasonable doubt eBists on whether a crime has been committed or that the accused committed the crime. !n accused is only convicted if he fails in all these. (nder the proven facts of the present case, the prosecution has not proven that a crime had been committed through proof beyond reasonable doubt that the three plastic sachets that were admitted into evidence during the trial were in fact the same items seized from the accusedappellant when he was arrested. 7n short, there eBists a gap in the prosecutionAs evidence that opens the room for doubt on whether there indeed had been a buy-bust operation where the accused was caught red-handed selling prohibited substance to a police operative.

&he ponenciaAs conviction of the accused-appellant mainly relied on the credibility of two witnesses, namely; <62 aul ,errera 1<62 ,errera, the poseur-buyer2 and <62 eyno iparip 1<62 iparip, who served as bac8-up in the buy-bust operation2. ! third witness testified for the prosecution - ?orensic !nalyst Ceonard 0. >abonillo 1?orensic *hemist >abonillo2 of the <"< *rime Caboratory of the *entral <olice )istrict of Ruezon *ity. ,is testimony, however, only dwelt on the chemical analysis of the specimens the police submitted to himE hence, it carries little relevance to the main thrust of this dissent ' i.e., that the buy-bust operation and the conseDuent seizure of the prohibited substance either did not ta8e place or have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt because of a gap in the prosecutionAs evidence. Significantly, the police testimonies did not receive the minute and detailed scrutiny that they deserve because of the presumption that the police witnesses must have spo8en the truth because they were policemen in the regular performance of their official duties. &his presumption not only lent credibility to the police witnessesE it also became the basis to disbelieve the defense evidence; who were they to be believed after the police had spo8enM 7ndeed the ponenciaAs line of reasoning is unfortunate. ,ad it chosen to minutely scrutinize the police testimonies in light of the procedural reDuirements of .!. #1$% on how seized evidence must be handled, and considered all these with the defense evidence - particularly the allegation of 9frame up9 ' a far different conclusion would have resulted, rendering this )issent unnecessaryE the accused would have been acDuitted because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus failed to overcome his constitutional presumption of innocence. )he re0uirements of Section *1, paragraph 1 of 'rticle 22 of /epublic 'ct 3o. 4156. ! police buy-bust operation, because of the built-in danger for abuse that it carries, is governed by a specific procedure with respect to the seizure and custody of drugs. 7n <eople v. &an,1 we recognized that 9by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which stic8s of mari=uana or grams of heroin can be planted in poc8ets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hic8s, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. &hus, courts have been eBhorted to be eBtra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.9 &he reDuired procedure is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$%, which provides; 12 &he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs +5-ll, immediately after seizure and confiscation, p5!+i(-ll! i20)21or! -2/ p5o1o.r-p5 15) +-7) i2 15) pr)+)2() o* 15) -((6+)/ or 15) p)r+o2J+ *ro7 35o7 +6(5 i1)7+ 3)r) (o2*i+(-1)/ and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. J@mphasis suppliedK &his is implemented by Section 211a2, !rticle 77 of the 2mplementing /ules and /egulations of .!. "o. #1$%, which reads;

1a2 &he apprehending office/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 )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; <rovided, further that non-compliance with these reDuirements under =ustifiable 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. "othing in the records or in the evidence adduced show that the buy-bust team followed this procedure despite its mandatory terms as indicated by the use of 9shall9 in its directives. &o be sure, the implementing rules offer some fleBibility when it states, albeit without any sufficient basis in the underlying law, that 9non-compliance with these reDuirements under =ustifiable 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.9 &his clause, however, is not a saving or escape mechanism that by itself =ustifies and validates every improper seizure and custody of the seized items. &here still must be shown =ustifiable grounds as well as proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved. &hese =ustificatory reDuirements must of course be read in light of the above-described purpose of the law. Significantly, not only does the present case lac8 the most basic or elementary attempt at compliance with the law and its implementing rulesE i1 *-il+ -+ 3)ll 1o pro0i/) -2! :6+1i*i(-1or! .ro62/ +5o3i2. 15-1 15) i21).ri1! o* 15) )0i/)2() -//6()/ 5-/ -ll -lo2. 4))2 pr)+)r0)/. 7n several cases that came before us, we repeatedly emphasized that the 9failure of the JpoliceK to comply with the reDuirement r-i+)+ /o641 whether what was submitted for laboratory eBamination and presented in court was actually recovered from JtheK appellant.92 ,ence, while the non-compliance with the prescribed procedure may not result in the inadmissibility of the seized items, its integrity as evidence is greatly affected. &hey taint as well the regularity of the performance of police duties, as the discussions below will show. 7n <eople v. 6rteza4 , the *ourt had the occasion to discuss the implications of the failure to comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, to wit; W 7n People v. (axa, where the buy-bust team failed to mar8 the confiscated mari=uana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the *ourt held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the mari=uana. *onseDuently, the *ourt concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. &he *ourt made a similar ruling in People v. 7imura, where the "arcom operatives failed to place mar8ings on the seized mari=uana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and ta8e custody of the drug.

0ore recently, in 8arraga v. People, the *ourt held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the mar8ings on the shabu were made and the lac8 of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. &he *ourt thus acDuitted the accused due to the prosecutionLs failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. J@mphasis suppliedK We reached the same conclusion in <eople v. "azareno5 and <eople v. Santos,% where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure. )he prosecution totally failed to provethe chain of custody over the sei9ed items. 6ther than the mar8ings that <62 ,errera alleged, the prosecution in the present case miserably failed to underta8e any of the procedures that the above-Duoted law and regulation reDuire. &here was no physical inventory and 2o p5o1o.r-p5 of the confiscated items that were ta8en in the presence of the accused. &he police failed as well to definitely show by evidence 15) 1i7) <62 ,errera mar8ed the confiscated items. &he deficiency patently shows in the following eBchange during the trial; ?7S. >( !)6; Gou mentioned plastic sachet, 7 am showing to you three 142 plastic sachets, which of these three was ta8en or sold to youM W7&"@SS; 7 have my initial 1sic2 .,. sir. BBBB ?7S. >( !)6 !side from that, what happened neBtM W7&"@SS; When 7 fris8ed Sing, 7 was able to recover from him two 122 more plastic sachets sir. BBB BBB ?7S. >( !)6; ,ow did you come to 8now that theses are the two plastic sachetsM W7&"@SS;

7 put my mar8ings sir ,. BBB *6( &; !fter that what happened neBtM W7&"@SS; We brought him to our <olice Station, sir. While <62 ,errera testified on the turnover of the seized items to the <"< *rime Caboratory for eBamination, no evidence was presented regarding the custody of the drugs during the interim period between the arrest and confiscation of the seized items and its turnover. &hus, there was a substantial and significant gap in the chain of custody of the seized evidence. 7n the recent case of Copez v. <eople,$ the *ourt eBplained the importance of establishing the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs, to wit; !s a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule reDuires that the admission of an eBhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in Duestion is what the proponent claims it to be. 7t would include testimony about every lin8 in the chain, from the moment the item was pic8ed up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the eBhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnessL possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the neBt lin8 in the chain. &hese witnesses would then describe the precautions ta8en 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. While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbro8en 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 uniDueness. &he same standard li8ewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and eBchange. 7n other words, the eBhibitLs 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. J@mphasis suppliedKalf-itc Section 11b2 of the )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 1, Series of 2--2. which implements .!. "o. #1$% defines 9chain of custody9 as follows; b. 9*hain of *ustody9 means the /6l! r)(or/)/ -615ori9)/ 7o0)7)21+ and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory eDuipment of

each stage, *ro7 15) 1i7) o* +)i96r)J(o2*i+(-1io2 1o r)()ip1 i2 15) *or)2+i( l-4or-1or! 1o +-*)8))pi2. 1o pr)+)21-1io2 i2 (o6r1 *or /)+1r6(1io2. 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 safe8eeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. !lthough this regulation too8 effect/ after the commission of the crime charged, it is nonetheless useful in illustrating how the process of preserving the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs is upheld and maintained, and that is, by duly recording its authorized movements from the time of its seizure, to its handling by the police, to the receipt of the forensic laboratory, until it is presented in court and subseDuently destroyed. &his is the 9movement9 or chain of custody of the items allegedly seized from the accused-appellant that is plainly lac8ing in the present case as early as the time of their alleged seizure. !side from the deficiencies pointed out above, the lac8 of documentation of the chain of custody is highlighted by the testimony of ?orensic !nalyst >abonillo who testified on the manner of his receipt of the seized items which he analyzed on !ugust 2%, 2--2, to wit; !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; What would be your practice when specimen submitted for you to eBamine, was it already premar8ed by the person who submit for eBaminationM W7&"@SS; "ormally, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; What do you mean normally, you also put the mar8ingM W7&"@SS; Ges, sir. !&&G. )@ +(H0!"; !nd then when pre-mar8 specimen is submitted yo tou, you merely analyze the same is that correctM W7&"@SS; Ges, sir. *learly, this testimony failed to disclose the identity of the person who submitted the items which he later on eBamined.# Ci8ewise, he failed to testify on how the evidence was handled after his chemical analysis.

)he integrity and the evidentiary value of the examined and presented sei9ed items are highly 0uestionable. &he ponencia found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved by relying on the testimony of ?orensic !nalyst >abonillo who, on the witness stand, affirmed that the sachets containing the shabu which was presented in court were the same ones that he eBamined. &his testimony, however, has no bearing on the Duestion of whether the specimens he eBamined were the ones seized from the accused or whether they were seized from the accused at all. !ll that this testimony proved ' and these the defense admitted1- ' were the eBistence and authenticity of the reDuest for chemical analysis and the results of this analysis, not the reDuired chain of custody from the time of seizure of the evidence. ?or a better appreciation of the evidentiary worth of the testimony of ?orensic !nalyst >abonillo, Section 55, ule 14- on the ules of @vidence provides that 9entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer . . . or by a person in the performance of a duty specially en:oined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.9 &he defense admission only relates to the facts stated in the document, i.e., that a reDuest for chemical analysis was made on the items submitted together with the reDuest to the <"< *rime CaboratoryE and second, the admission only relates to the results of the chemical analysis conducted on the items stated in the reDuest. )o reiterate, it did not have the effect of admitting that the items stated in the re0uest and submitted for examination were in fact the very items sei9ed from accused-appellant. )he "lash of Presumptions Where, as in this case, the ruling relies on the presumption in the regular performance of official duties, there must necessarily be a clash of presumptions in light of the presumption of innocence that every accused en=oys. We note that the presumption of innocence is the root presumption that applies at the inception of the case. 7t is a constitutional presumption that eBists for the accused arising from the fact that he is charged with the commission of a crimeE the presumption eBists without reDuiring the accused to do anything to trigger it other than the fact of standing criminally charged. &he presumption in the regularity in the performance of official duties, on the other hand, only enters the picture as part of the case for the prosecution in its bid to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. !s it operates, the prosecution calls upon government officials tas8ed with responsibilities related to the crime charged, and on the basis of their testimonies, submit that the crime has been duly proven. &hese testimonies may constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidentiary presumption that these officials were in the regular performance of their duties and had no reason to falsify ' a statutory and rebuttable presumption created under ule 141, Section 41m2 of the ules of *ourt on evidence. ?rom this perspective and from the fact that what this presumption can overturn is a constitutional presumption in favor of the accused, the premises underlying this evidentiary presumption must be sufficiently strong to support what it aims to do. &his reDuired strength in turn can only come from the general body of adduced evidence showing that the performance of functions carried no taint of irregularity whatsoever and that the official had no motive to falsify. ?ailing in either of

these, the presumption cannot eBistE in fact, to continue to recognize it as sufficient to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence would be an unconstitutional act. !s eBplained in the case of People v. Santos,11 the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. 0oreover, .. !s the *ourt ruled in People v. 'mbrosio; &he presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be used as basis for affirming accused-appellantLs conviction because, JfKirst, the presumption is precisely =ust that I a mere presumption. 6nce challenged by evidence, as in this case, . . . JitK cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.12 &he <resumption of egularity cannot apply where the performance of duty is tainted with irregularity. !s painsta8ingly shown above from the prism of the prosecutionAs own evidence, the police failed to regularly discharge its duties in the conduct of the buy-bust operations, particularly in the handling of the items seized. &here is a wide gap in the prosecutionAs evidence that cannot but have an effect on the case as a whole, even if it does not result in the inadmissibility of the evidence. 6ne such effect of the failure to comply with the procedure reDuired by Section 21, !rticle 77 of .!. "o. #1$%, as we held in (ope9 v. People;1<= is to negate the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. !ny taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should ma8e the presumption unavailable. &here can be no ifs and buts regarding this conseDuence considering the effect of the evidentiary presumption of regularity on the constitutional presumption of innocence.1awphi1.net !nother effect, as we held in $alde9 v. People15 is to create a doubt on the eBistence of corpus delicti, i.e., on the issue of whether a crime had indeed been committed. Without credible evidence showing the eBistence of the prohibited drug that had been the sub=ect matter of the illegal transaction, there can be no crime committed. Without the presumption of regularity, the testimonies of the police witnesses must stand on their own merits and must sufficiently establish proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed and that the accused committed this crime. &he defense evidence must li8ewise be so regarded once the prosecution has established a prima facie case, without however being hobbled by the presumption of regularity. !nother necessary conseDuence of the absence of any presumption of regularity is that the ponencia can no longer impose on the defense the burden of proving that the police had an improper motive in charging the accused with the illegal sale of prohibited drugE the ponencia

can no longer conclude, as it did, that the police testimonies are credible in the absence of such motive. 7nterestingly, the police motive was precisely the defense the accused presented, only to be discredited because of the ponenciaAs undue reliance on the presumption of regularity. !s its main defense, the accused testified that he was the victim of a hulidap and that his arrest was merely a scheme to eBtort money from him. &his imputation did not stand alone as it was corroborated by defense witness )e Ceon, an admitted police asset, who testified that the accused-appellant was really pic8ed up by the police on a hold-up charge on !ugust 25, 2--2. (nfortunately, )e CeonAs testimony did not stand a chance of being believed given the contrary police testimony supported by its presumption of regularity and was simply brushed aside, allegedly because )e Ceon spo8e with the accused-appellant prior to ta8ing the witness standE because he is a 9shady character9E and because his testimony was inconsistent with version of the accused. ! deeper consideration of )e CeonAs testimony ' unaffected by any contrary evidence supported by a presumption of regularity ' would however show that it is not as worthless as the ponencia concluded it to be. ?irst, )e Ceon appears to be the only disinterested witness in the case as the prosecution failed to show that he had any selfish motivation, had something to gain in the event of a favorable outcome for the accused, or had reason to falsify. Second, human eBperience ' particularly, <hilippine eBperience - tells us that as a police asset, he placed himself at a very serious ris8 in testifying as he did against the police. ?or this alone, his testimony should deserve serious notice and consideration. Castly, the prosecution miserably failed to refute )e CeonAs allegations, specifically, that he was a police asset and was with the police team who pic8ed the accused-appellant on a holdup charge, and that he saw the accused-appellant being interrogated by the police on !ugust 25, 2--2 on a carnapping charge and not on a drug-related matter. &hus, he claimed that that he did not 8now that the accused was charged in a drug case until he spo8e with him at a much later time.1% 7n the absence of any contrary presumption of regularity, the testimony of 3en=amin !gulay, brother of the accused, should not li8ewise automatically be dismissed as biased testimony. While it should be loo8ed upon with caution, it does not necessarily follow that it is unworthy of belief. 7t should have been at least eBamined for its merits in light of the prosecutionAs own evidence. 7n sum, aside from the gap in the prosecutionAs evidence proving the identity of the prohibited items allegedly seized,1$ the defense of frame-up is not without its evidentiary merits after the presumption of regularity is ta8en away. @ven granting that the accused did indeed ma8e an implied admission in his demurrer to evidence ac8nowledging that the buy-bust operation actually too8 place, the admission still does not fully constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt capable of overcoming the accusedAs presumption of innocenceE it does not establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence adduced during the trial that the prohibited drug identified in court was the same prohibited drug that the accused illegally sold. &he accused, under the circumstances, should be acDuitted on ground of reasonable doubt.

ARTARO D. BRION !ssociate >ustice Foo12o1)+

S

)esignated additional member of the &hird )ivision vice >ustice !ntonio @duardo 3. "achura per affle dated !pril 21, 2--/.
1

+. . "o. 144--1, )ecember 15, 2---, 45/ S* ! 11$, 12$-12., citing People v. ireng, 251 S* ! 11 11##%2. People v. (im, +. . "o. 151$##, !ugust ., 2--2, 4/$ S* ! %/1, %#/. +. . "o. 1.4-%1. >uly 41, 2--., %2/ S* ! .%-, .%/-.%#. +. . "o. 1.5..1, September 11, 2--., %42 S* ! $4-, $4.. +. . "o. 1.%%#4, 6ctober 1., 2--., %4$ S* ! 5/#, %-5. +. . "o. 1.2#%4, !pril 4-, 2--/.

+uidelines 6n &he *ustody !nd )isposition 6f Seized )angerous )rugs, *ontrolled <recursors !nd @ssential *hemicals, and Caboratory @Duipment pursuant to Section 21, !rticle 77 of the 7 of ! #1$% in relation to Section /11b2 !rticle 7N of ! #1$%.
/

!dopted and approved on 6ctober 1/, 2--2. )ecision, p. 22. 2d., p. 2-. Supra. note %, p. %-4. 7bid. Supra., note $. +. . "o. 1.-1/-, "ovember 24, 2--., %4/ S* ! $11, $2/-$2#. )ecision, p. 2.. People v. 3a9areno, supra. "ote 5.

1-

11

12

14

15

1%

1$

G.R. No. 179939 S)p1)74)r 29, 2008 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, !ppellee, vs. GERALDINE PADERON, !ppellant. AGAT !

"one of the statutory safeguards were observed. ! review of =urisprudence, even prior to the passage of the .!. "o. #1$%, shows that this *ourt did not hesitate to stri8e down convictions for failure to follow the proper procedure for the custody of confiscated dangerous drugs. <rior to .!. "o. #1$%, the *ourt applied the procedure reDuired by )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 4, Series of 1#.# amending 3oard egulation "o. ., Series of 1#.5 TINGA, J.: &wo separate informations1 for violations of Sections % and 11 of epublic !ct 1 .!.2 "o. #1$%, otherwise 8nown as the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2, were filed against appellant +eraldine 0agat y <aderon. She pleaded not guilty to both charges at the arraignment.2 &he prosecution presented <61 <hilip Santos 1<61 Santos2 who was assigned at the )rug @nforcement (nit of the 0eycauayan <olice Station and had acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation. &he testimony of forensic chemist </7nsp. "ellson *ruz Sta. 0aria was dispensed with in view of the defenseAs admission that if the chemist were placed on the witness stand he could identify the eDuest for Caboratory @Bamination4 and *hemistry eport "o. )5-4-2--4,5 with the Dualification that the chemist had no personal 8nowledge of the facts surrounding the arrest of appellant and the source of the specimen eBamined.% &he testimonies of <61 0anuel 0endoza 10endoza2 and 0ichael Sarangaya 1Sarangaya2, who were <61 SantosAs bac8up during the entrapment operation, were li8ewise dispensed with as the defense admitted that it would merely corroborate the testimony of <61 Santos.$ !ccording to the evidence for the prosecution, the facts are as follows; 6n . and / of >une 2--4 and in the morning of # >une 2--4, a buy-bust team composed of policemen conducted surveillance operations on appellant on account of a validated report from a concerned citizen that she was engaged in selling illegal drugs.. With <61 Santos to act as the poseur-buyer and two <1--.-- bills as buy-bust money, in the afternoon of # >une 2--4 at about 5;2- p.m. the policemen proceeded to the target place and reached appellantAs premises 4- minutes later. &hey saw appellant standing in front of her house. <61 Santos as8ed appellant 9'te, meron bang dalawang pisoM9 !fter loo8ing at him, appellant said 968ayX9 and then went inside her house. When appellant came bac8, she as8ed for money from him and so <61 Santos handed her the two mar8ed <1--.-- bills. 7n turn, appellant gave the plastic sachet of shabu to him. &hereafter, <61 Santos eBecuted the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head, prompting his companions to approach them. <61 Santos, introducing himself as a policeman, arrested appellant. ,e informed appellant that she was being arrested for violation of .!. "o. #1$%. &he policemen reDuested appellant to empty her poc8ets. !ppellant

compliedE her right poc8et yielded another sachet of shabu. &hey got bac8 the two mar8ed <1--.-- bills from appellantAs left hand./ &hey brought appellant to the police station where they boo8ed her. <61 Santos mar8ed the plastic sachets containing shabu with his initials 9<*S9 and the letters 9!9 and 939 for eBamination. &he plastic sachets were eBamined at the <"< *rime Caboratory 6fficeE the eBamination yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.# <61 Santos admitted during cross-eBamination that although it was confirmed that appellant was selling illegal drugs he did not secure a search warrant since their chiefAs instruction to them was to conduct a buy-bust operation.1- ,e also admitted that he did not coordinate the buy-bust operation with the barangay officials and did not verify whether appellant was a drug peddler.11 !ppellant denied the charges against her and testified that between 5;-- to %;-- p.m. on # >une 2--4, while she was ta8ing a bath, policemen <61 Santos, Sarangaya, and 0endoza barged into her house. ,earing the noise, she came out of the comfort room and proceeded upstairs where she saw the policemen already searching the place. !fter the search, they brought her to the 0eycauayan <olice Station and detained her for one day for alleged violations of the anti-drug law. !ppellant further testified that at the time the policemen arrested her, her children were playing about three meters away from her house and that no one saw her being brought to the police station.12 &o corroborate appellantAs testimony, &eresa 0anebo 10anebo2, her neighbor, testified that on # >une 2--4, at about 5;-- p.m., while she was at the artesian well inside appellantAs compound, a man in civilian clothes arrived and 8noc8ed at the door of the comfort room where appellant was ta8ing a bath. !ppellant informed the man to wait as she was dressing while 0anebo was loo8ing at them. !nother man arrived as appellant went out of the comfort room. &he men tal8ed to appellant for about 4- minutes. &hey as8ed her about the whereabouts of her husband. !fterwards, four other men arrived. !ppellant and the men went inside the house. When they came out, she saw appellant crying as the men too8 her away.14 6n cross-eBamination, 0anebo declared that the two persons who arrived came one after the other within a ten-minute interval. &hey tal8ed with appellant for about 4- minutes. She admitted that she did not hear the entire conversation. When the four other men arrived, they went upstairs, and stayed there for an hour.15 !t the time appellant was tal8ing with the two men, she was =ust two meters away from them. &he men as8ed appellant about her husbandAs whereabouts. She watched them for 4- minutes.1% 7n a )ecision1$ dated 21 ?ebruary 2--$, the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of the *ity of 0alolos, 3ulacan, 3ranch ./ found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections %1. and 111/ of .!. "o. #1$%. !ppellant filed a notice of appeal dated . 0arch 2--$ to the *ourt of !ppeals.1# &he *ourt of !ppeals affirmed the decision of the &* in a decision promulgated on . >une 2--..2- !ppellant filed a notice of appeal dated 2- >une 2--. with this *ourt.21

!ppellant raised before this *ourt and the *ourt of !ppeals the lone issue of whether the trial court erred in convicting her despite the prosecutionAs failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs, which constitute the corpus delicti of the offense. &he appeal is meritorious. 7n all prosecutions for violation of .!. "o. #1$%, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; 112 proof that the transaction too8 placeE and 122 presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.22 &he eBistence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine 0ua non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crimes.24 7n the case at bar, it is indisputable that the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs in Section 21 of .!. "o. #1$%25 were not complied with. <61 Santos admitted that he mar8ed the two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance in the police station.2% ,e did not mar8 the seized items immediately after he arrested appellant in the latterAs presence. ,e also did not ma8e an inventory and ta8e a photograph of the confiscated materials in the presence of appellant. 6ther than the three policemen, there were no other people who participated in the alleged buy-bust operation.2$ &here was no representative from the media and the )epartment of >ustice, or any elected public official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof. "one of the statutory safeguards were observed. ! review of =urisprudence, even prior to the passage of the .!. "o. #1$%, shows that this *ourt did not hesitate to stri8e down convictions for failure to follow the proper procedure for the custody of confiscated dangerous drugs. <rior to .!. "o. #1$%, the *ourt applied the procedure reDuired by )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 4, Series of 1#.# amending 3oard egulation "o. ., Series of 1#.5.2. 7n People v. (axa,2/ the policemen composing the buy-bust team failed to mar8 the confiscated mari=uana immediately after the alleged apprehension of the appellant. 6ne policeman even admitted that he mar8ed the seized items only after seeing them for the first time in the police headDuarters. &he *ourt held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produces doubts as to the origins of the mari=uana and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.2# Similarly, in People v. 7imura,4- the "arcom operatives failed to place mar8ings on the alleged seized mari=uana on the night the accused were arrested and to observe the procedure in the seizure and custody of the drug as embodied in the aforementioned )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 4, Series of 1#.#. *onseDuently, we held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. 7n 8aragga v. People,41 involving a violation of .!. "o. $52%, the police failed to place mar8ings on the alleged seized shabu immediately after the accused were apprehended. &he buybust team also failed to prepare an inventory of the seized drugs which accused had to sign, as reDuired by the same )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 4, Series of 1#.#. &he *ourt held

that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti.42 7n all the foregoing cited cases, the *ourt acDuitted the appellants due to the failure of law enforcers to observe the procedures prescribed in )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 4, Series of 1#.#, amending 3oard egulation "o. ., Series of 1#.5, which are similar to the procedures under Section 21 of .!. "o. #1$%. 0ar8ing of the seized drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough to comply with the clear and uneDuivocal procedures prescribed in Section 21 of .!. "o. #1$%. 7n the present case, although <61 Santos had written his initials on the two plastic sachets submitted to the <"< *rime Caboratory 6ffice for eBamination, it was not indubitably shown by the prosecution that <61 Santos immediately mar8ed the seized drugs in the presence of appellant after their alleged confiscation. &here is doubt as to whether the substances seized from appellant were the same ones sub=ected to laboratory eBamination and presented in court. ! uniDue characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they have to be sub=ected to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. *ongress deemed it wise to incorporate the =urisprudential safeguards in the present law in an uneDuivocal language to prevent any tampering, alteration or substitution, by accident or otherwise. &he *ourt, in upholding the right of the accused to be presumed innocent, can do no less than apply the present law which prescribes a more stringent standard in handling evidence than that applied to criminal cases involving ob=ects which are readily identifiable. .!. "o. #1$% had placed upon the law enforcers the duty to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti. &hru proper eBhibit handling, storage, labeling and recording, the identity of the seized drugs is insulated from doubt from their confiscation up to their presentation in court. ecently, in People v. Santos, %r.,44 which involved violation of Sections % and 11, !rticle 77 of .!. "o. #1$%, the *ourt agreed with the 6ffice of the Solicitor +eneralAs observation that the identity of the corpus delicti has not been sufficiently established since the confiscated plastic sachets of shabu have been mar8ed/initialed at the scene of the crime, according to proper procedure. *iting People v. (im,45 whichspecified that any apprehending team having initial control of illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia should, immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. &he failure of the agents to comply with such reDuirement raises doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory eBamination and presented in court is the same drug and/or paraphernalia as that actually recovered from the accused. While the seized drugs may be admitted in evidence, it does not necessarily follow that the same should be given evidentiary weight if the procedure in Section 21 of .!. "o. #1$% was not complied with. &he *ourt stressed that the admissibility of the seized dangerous drugs in evidence should not be eDuated with its probative value in proving the corpus delicti. &he

admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.4% &he presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty relied upon by the courts a 0uo cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.4$ !lthough the evidence for the defense is wea8, the prosecution must rely on the weight of its own evidence and cannot draw strength from the wea8ness of the defense.4. !ll told, the corpus delecti in this case is not legally eBtant. W,@ @?6 @, the )ecision dated 21 ?ebruary 2--$ of the egional &rial *ourt of 0alolos, 3ulacan, 3ranch ./ in *riminal *ase "os. 21%/-0-2--4 and 21%#-0-2--4 is @:@ S@) and S@& !S7)@. !ppellant +eraldine 0agat y <aderon is A$BAITTED of the crimes charged on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered immediately @C@!S@) from custody, unless she is being held for some other lawful cause. &he )irector of the 3ureau of *orrections is 6 )@ @) to implement this decision forthwith and to 7"?6 0 this *ourt, within five 1%2 days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually released from confinement. Cet a copy of this decision be forwarded to the <"< )irector and the )irector +eneral of the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency for proper guidance and implementation. "o costs. S6 6 )@ @). )!"&@ 6. &7"+! 'ssociate %ustice Foo12o1)+
1

ecord, pp. 2, %. $ri7i2-l $-+) No. 21?8% %2003 reads; &hat on or about the #th day of J>une 2--4 , in the municipality of 0eycauayan, province of 3ulacan, <hilippines and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the above named accused, without authority of law and legal =ustification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one 112 heatsealed transparent plastic sachet of J0Kethylamphetamine J,Kydrochloride weighing -.-#$ gram. *ontrary to law. $ri7i2-l $-+) No. 21?9% %2003 reads; &hat on or about the #th day of J>une 2--4K, in the municipality of 0eycauayan, province of 3ulacan, <hilippines and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable

*ourt, the above named accused, without authority of law and legal =ustification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession and control dangerous drug consisting of one 112 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of J0Kethylamphetamine J,Kydrochloride weighing -.-.# gram. *ontrary to law.
2

7d. at 1/-2-. 7d. at #. 7d. at 1-. &he pertinent portion reads; S<@*70@" S(307&&@); &wo 122 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having the following mar8ings and recorded net weights; ! 19! <*S92 U -.-#$ gram 3 193 <*S92 U -.-.# gram BBB BBB BBB <( <6S@ 6? C!36 !&6 G @N!07"!&76"; &o determine the presence of dangerous drug. BBB ?7")7"+S; Rualitative eBamination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave <6S7&7:@ result to the test for the presence of 0ethylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. BBB *6"*C(S76"; Specimens ! and 3 contain 0ethylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. BBB &70@ P )!&@ *60<C@&@); 1$1-, 1- >une 2--4

7d. at /2-/4. 7d. at %%-%$. 7d. at 15$-15/.

7d. at 14%-14#E 1%--1%2. 7d. at 14#-152. 7d. at 15/-15#. 7d. at 1%2. 7d. at 1%/-1%#E 1$4-1$.. 7d. at 1.4-1/4. 7d. at 1/$-1//. 7d. at 1/#-1#1.

1-

11

12

14

15

1%

1$

7d. at 2-%-212. &he decision was penned by >udge +regorio Sampaga, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows; <HEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this *ourt finds accused +eraldine 0agat y <aderon +(7C&G beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of JvKiolation of Sections % and 11, both under !rt. 77 of .!. J"o.K #1$%, otherwise 8nown as the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2 and hereby sentences hJerK; 1. 7n *riminal *ase "o. 21%/-0-2--4, to suffer the penalty of C7?@ 70< 7S6"0@"& !") ! ?7"@ 6? <%--,---.--E and 2. 7n *riminal *ase "o. 21%#-0-2--4, to suffer the penalty of &W@C:@ G@! S !") 6"@ 112 )!G &6 ?6( &@@" 1152 G@! S !") @7+,& 1/2 06"&,S 6? 70< 7S6"0@"& !") ! ?7"@ 6? <4--,---.--J.K 7n the service of her sentence, accused shall be credited with the entire period of her preventive imprisonment. &he drugs sub=ect matter of this case is hereby forfeited in favor of the government. &he 3ranch *ler8 of *ourt is hereby directed to turn over the same to the )angerous )rugs 3oard for proper disposal thereof. SO ORDERED. 17d. at 2122
1.

Section %. Sale, )rading, 'dministration, !ispensation, !elivery, !istribution and )ransportation of !angerous !rugs and-or "ontrolled Precursors and .ssential "hemicals. Y &he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 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 Duantity and purity involved, or shall act as a bro8er in any of such transactions. BBBB
1/

Section 11. Possession of !angerous !rugs. Y &he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following Duantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof; BBBB 6therwise, if the Duantity involved is less than the foregoing Duantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows; B B B 142 7mprisonment of twelve 1122 years and one 112 day to twenty 12-2 years and a fine ranging from &hree hundred thousand pesos 1<4--,---.--2 to ?our hundred thousand pesos 1<5--,---.--2, if the Duantities of dangerous drugs are less than five 1%2 grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, mari=uana resin or mari=uana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or 9shabu,9 or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, 0)0! or 9ecstasy,9 <0!, &0!, CS), +,3, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the Duantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic reDuirementsE or less than three hundred 14--2 grams of mari=uana.
1#

ecord, pp. 21%-21$.

2-

/ollo, pp. 2-14. &he decision was penned by !ssociate >ustice >osefina +uevaraSalonga, and concurred in by !ssociate >ustices :icente oBas and amon +arcia. &he dispositive portion reads; <HEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is DENIED. "o costs. SO ORDERED. 17d. at 122
21

7d. at 15-1%. People v. >a:ili, 55. <hil. 2/4, 2#% 12--42.

22

24

People v. 'lmeida, 5$4 <hil. $4., $5/ 12--42, citing People v. Mendiola, 24% S* ! 11$ 11##52. See also People v. 7imura, +. . "o. 14-/-%, 2. !pril 2--5, 52/ S* ! %1, $1, citing People v. Mendiola, supraE People v. Macuto, 1.$ S* ! .$2 11#/#2E People v. $ocente, 1// S* ! 1-- 11##-2E and People v. Mariano, 1#1 S* ! 14$ 11##-2.

25

S)(. 21. "ustody and !isposition of "onfiscated, Sei9ed, and-or Surrendered !angerous !rugs, Plant Sources of !angerous !rugs, "ontrolled Precursors and .ssential "hemicals, 2nstruments-Paraphernalia and-or (aboratory .0uipment.?)he <)@! shall ta8e 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 eDuipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner; a2 &he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs +5-ll, i77)/i-1)l! -*1)r +)i96r) -2/ (o2*i+(-1io2, physically inventory and photograph the same i2 15) pr)+)2() o* 15) -((6+)/ or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, r)pr)+)21-1i0) *ro7 15) 7)/i- -2/ 15) D)p-r17)21 o* @6+1i() DDO@F, -2/ -2! )l)(1)/ p64li( o**i(i-l who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereofE B B B B. 1@mphasis supplied2
2%

ecord, pp. 14#-15-. 7d. at 1%-E 1%2.

2$

2.

3oard egulation "o. 4, S. 1#.# as amended by 3oard egulation "o. 2, S. 1##- cited in People v. 7imura, +. . "o. 14-/-%, 2. !pril 2--5, 52/ S* ! %1, $#, reads; Sub=ect; !mendment of 3oard egulation "o. ., series of 1#.5, prescribing the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles specially designed for the use thereof. BBBB S@*&76" 1. !ll prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses and articles specially designed for the use thereof when unlawfully used or found in the possession of any person not authorized to have control and disposition of the same, or when found secreted or abandoned, shall be seized or confiscated by any national, provincial or local law enforcement agency. !ny apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, +5o6l/ i77)/i-1)l! -*1)r +)i96r) or (o2*i+(-1io2, 5-0) 15) +-7) p5!+i(-ll! i20)21ori)/ -2/ p5o1o.r-p5)/ i2 15) pr)+)2() o* 15) -((6+)/, i* 15)r) 4) -2!, -2/Jor 5i+ r)pr)+)21-1i0), 35o +5-ll 4) r)=6ir)/ 1o +i.2 15) (opi)+ o* 15) i20)21or! -2/ 4) .i0)2 - (op! 15)r)o*. &hereafter the seized drugs and paraphernalia shall be immediately brought to a properly eDuipped government laboratory for a Dualitative and Duantitative eBamination. 1@mphasis supplied2 &he apprehending team shall; 1a2 within forty-eight 15/2 hours from the seizure inform the )angerous )rugs 3oard by telegram of said seizure, the nature and Duantity thereof, and who has present custody of the same, and 1b2 submit to the

3oard a copy of the mission investigation report within fifteen 11%2 days from completion of the investigation.
2/

515 <hil. 1%$ 12--12. 7d. at 1.--1.1. +. . "o. 14-/-%, 2. !pril 2--5, 52/ S* ! %1, $#-.-. +. . "o. 1$2-$5, 15 0arch 2--$, 5/5 S* ! $4#. 7d. at $5.-$%1. +. . "o. 1.%%#4, 1. 6ctober 2--., %4$ S* ! 5/#, %-5-%-%.

2#

4-

41

42

44

45

+. . "o. 151$##, . !ugust 2--2, 4/$ S* ! %/1, %#.-%#/, citing )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 4, Series of 1#.#, as amended by 3oard egulation "o. 2, S. 1##-.
4%

<eople v. &urco, 4#2 <hil. 5#/, %1$ 12---2. See also !yala Cand, 7nc. v. !S3 ealty *orporation and @. 0. amos and Sons, 7nc., +. . "o. 1%4$$., 11 !ugust 2--%, 5$$ S* ! %21, citing <ermanent Savings and Coan 3an8 v. :elarde, +. . "o. 15-$-/, 24 September 2--5, 54# S* ! 1E <"6* Shipping P &ransport *orp. v. *!, 4%/ <hil. 4/ 12---2E )e la &orre v. *!, 4%% <hil. $2/ 11##/2.
4$

People v. Sevilla, 4#5 <hil. 12%, 1%/ 12---2, citing People v. Pagaura, 2$. S* ! 1. 11##.2, and People v. !e los Santos, 415 S* ! 4-4 11###2.
4.

People v. Samson, 521 <hil. 1-5, 122 12--12.

NOVEMBER
G.R. No. 1?7870 No0)74)r 3, 2008 SO$IAL @ASTI$E SO$IET" DS@SF, petitioner vs. DANGEROAS DRAGS BOARD -2/ PHILIPPINE DRAG ENFOR$E ENT AGEN$" DPDEAF, respondents. G.R. No. 1?8E33 ATT". ANAEL @. LASERNA, @R., petitioner vs.DANGEROAS DRAGS BOARD -2/ PHILIPPINE DRAG ENFOR$E ENT AGEN$", respondents. G.R. No. 1E1E?8

ABAILINO B. PI ENTEL, @R., petitioner vs. $O respondents. DE$ISION >ELAS$O, @R., J.'

ISSION ON ELE$TIONS,

7n these 8indred petitions, the constitutionality of Section 4$ of epublic !ct "o. 1 !2 #1$%, otherwise 8nown as the "omprehensive !angerous !rugs 'ct of *++*, insofar as it reDuires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutorLs office with certain offenses, among other personalities, is put in issue. !s far as pertinent, the challenged section reads as follows; S@*. 4$. 'uthori9ed !rug )esting. - !uthorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the )6, to safeguard the Duality of the test results. B B B &he drug testing shall employ, among others, two 122 testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. B B B &he following shall be sub=ected to undergo drug testing; BBBB 1c2 Students of secondary and tertiary schools. - Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained in the schoolLs student handboo8 and with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug testing B B BE 1d2 6fficers and employees of public and private offices. - 6fficers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be sub=ected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the companyLs wor8 rules and regulations, B B B for purposes of reducing the ris8 in the wor8place. !ny officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, sub=ect to the provisions of !rticle 2/2 of the Cabor *ode and pertinent provisions of the *ivil Service CawE BBBB 1f2 !ll persons charged before the prosecutorLs office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than siB 1$2 years and one 112 day shall undergo a mandatory drug testE 1g2 !ll candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.

7n addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be sub=ect to the provisions of Section 1% of this !ct. G.R. No. 1E1E?8 1'0uilino #. Pimentel, %r. v. "ommission on .lections2 6n )ecember 24, 2--4, the *ommission on @lections 1*60@C@*2 issued esolution "o. $5/$, prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the 0ay 1-, 2--5 synchronized national and local elections. &he pertinent portions of the said resolution read as follows; W,@ @!S, Section 4$ 1g2 of epublic !ct "o. #1$% provides; S@*. 4$. 'uthori9ed !rug )esting. - B B B BBBB 1g2 !ll candidates for public office B B B both in the national or local government +5-ll 62/)r.o - 7-2/-1or! /r6. 1)+1. W,@ @!S, Section 1, !rticle N7 of the 1#/. *onstitution provides that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiencyE W,@ @!S, by reDuiring candidates to undergo mandatory drug test, the public will 8now the Duality of candidates they are electing and they will be assured that only those who can serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency would be elected B B B. "6W &,@ @?6 @, &he J*60@C@*K, pursuant to the authority vested in it under the *onstitution, 3atas <ambansa 3lg. //1 16mnibus @lection *ode2, J !K #1$% and other election laws, @S6C:@) to promulgate, as it hereby promulgates, the following rules and regulations on the conduct of mandatory drug testing to candidates for public officeJ;K S@*&76" 1. "overage. - All (-2/i/-1)+ *or p64li( o**i(), 4o15 2-1io2-l -2/ lo(-l, i2 15) -! 10, 2004 S!2(5ro2i9)/ N-1io2-l -2/ Lo(-l El)(1io2+ shall undergo mandatory drug test in government forensic laboratories or any drug testing laboratories monitored and accredited by the )epartment of ,ealth. S@*. 4. B B B 6n 0arch 2%, 2--5, in addition to the drug certificates filed with their respective offices, the *omelec 6ffices and employees concerned shall submit to the Caw )epartment two 122 separate lists of candidates. &he first list shall consist of those candidates who complied with the mandatory drug test while the second list shall consist of those candidates who failed to comply B B B.

S@*. 5. Preparation and publication of names of candidates. - 3efore the start of the campaign period, the J*60@C@*K shall prepare two separate lists of candidates. &he first list shall consist of those candidates who complied with the mandatory drug test while the second list shall consist of those candidates who failed to comply with said drug test. B B B S@*. %. .ffect of failure to undergo mandatory drug test and file drug test certificate. "o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test and filed with the offices enumerated under Section 2 hereof the drug test certificate herein reDuired. 1@mphasis supplied.2 <etitioner !Duilino R. <imentel, >r., a senator of the epublic and a candidate for re - election in the 0ay 1-, 2--5 elections,1 filed a <etition for *ertiorari and <rohibition under ule $%. 7n it, he see8s 112 to nullify Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$% and *60@C@* esolution "o. $5/$ dated )ecember 24, 2--4 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a Dualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1#/. *onstitutionE and 122 to en=oin the *60@C@* from implementing esolution "o. $5/$. <imentel invo8es as legal basis for his petition Sec. 4, !rticle :7 of the *onstitution, which states; S@*&76" 4. "o person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural - born citizen of the <hilippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty - five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the <hilippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. !ccording to <imentel, the *onstitution only prescribes a maBimum of five 1%2 Dualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate. ,e says that both the *ongress and *60@C@*, by reDuiring, via ! #1$% and esolution "o. $5/$, a senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a mandatory drug test, create an additional Dualification that all candidates for senator must first be certified as drug free. ,e adds that there is no provision in the *onstitution authorizing the *ongress or *60@C@* to eBpand the Dualification reDuirements of candidates for senator. G.R. No. 1?7870 1Social %ustice Society v. !angerous !rugs Board and Philippine !rug .nforcement 'gency2 7n its <etition for <rohibition under ule $%, petitioner Social >ustice Society 1S>S2, a registered political party, see8s to prohibit the )angerous )rugs 3oard 1))32 and the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency 1<)@!2 from enforcing paragraphs 1c2, 1d2, 1f2, and 1g2 of Sec. 4$ of ! #1$% on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm. ?or one, the provisions constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. ?or another, the provisions trench in the eDual protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to harass a student or an employee deemed undesirable. !nd for a third, a personLs constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said provisions.

G.R. No. 1?8E33 1'tty. Manuel %. (aserna, %r. v. !angerous !rugs Board and Philippine !rug .nforcement 'gency2 <etitioner !tty. 0anuel >. Caserna, >r., as citizen and taBpayer, also see8s in his <etition for *ertiorari and <rohibition under ule $% that Sec. 4$1c2, 1d2, 1f2, and 1g2 of ! #1$% be struc8 down as unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against self - incrimination, and for being contrary to the due process and eDual protection guarantees. T5) I++6) o2 Locus Standi ?irst off, we shall address the =usticiability of the cases at bench and the matter of the standing of petitioners S>S and Caserna to sue. !s respondents ))3 and <)@! assert, S>S and Caserna failed to allege any incident amounting to a violation of the constitutional rights mentioned in their separate petitions.2 7t is basic that the power of =udicial review can only be eBercised in connection with a bona fide controversy which involves the statute sought to be reviewed.4 3ut even with the presence of an actual case or controversy, the *ourt may refuse to eBercise =udicial review unless the constitutional Duestion is brought before it by a party having the reDuisite standing to challenge it.5 &o have standing, one must establish that he or she has suffered some actual or threatened in=ury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the governmentE the in=ury is fairly traceable to the challenged actionE and the in=ury is li8ely to be redressed by a favorable action.% &he rule on standing, however, is a matter of procedureE hence, it can be relaBed for non traditional plaintiffs, li8e ordinary citizens, taBpayers, and legislators when the public interest so reDuires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overarching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.$ &here is no doubt that <imentel, as senator of the <hilippines and candidate for the 0ay 1-, 2--5 elections, possesses the reDuisite standing since he has substantial interests in the sub=ect matter of the petition, among other preliminary considerations. egarding S>S and Caserna, this *ourt is wont to relaB the rule on locus standi owing primarily to the transcendental importance and the paramount public interest involved in the enforcement of Sec. 4$ of ! #1$%. T5) $o2+oli/-1)/ I++6)+ &he principal issues before us are as follows; 112 )o Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$% and *60@C@* esolution "o. $5/$ impose an additional Dualification for candidates for senatorM *orollarily, can *ongress enact a law prescribing Dualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the *onstitutionM and 122 !re paragraphs 1c2, 1d2, 1f2, and 1g2 of Sec. 4$, ! #1$% unconstitutionalM Specifically, do these paragraphs violate the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and the eDual protection clauseM 6r do they constitute undue delegation of legislative powerM

Pi7)21)l P)1i1io2 D$o2+1i161io2-li1! o* S)(. 3EG.H o* RA 91E? -2/ $O ELE$ R)+ol61io2 No. E48EF 7n essence, <imentel claims that Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$% and *60@C@* esolution "o. $5/$ illegally impose an additional Dualification on candidates for senator. ,e points out that, sub=ect to the provisions on nuisance candidates, a candidate for senator needs only to meet the Dualifications laid down in Sec. 4, !rt. :7 of the *onstitution, to wit; 112 citizenship, 122 voter registration, 142 literacy, 152 age, and 1%2 residency. 3eyond these stated Dualification reDuirements, candidates for senator need not possess any other Dualification to run for senator and be voted upon and elected as member of the Senate. &he *ongress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these Dualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or wea8en the force of a constitutional mandate,. or alter or enlarge the *onstitution. <imentelLs contention is well - ta8en. !ccordingly, Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$% should be, as it is hereby declared as, unconstitutional. 7t is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the *onstitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. &he *onstitution is the basic law to which all laws must conformE no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the *onstitution./ 7n the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the *onstitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed.# *ongressL inherent legislative powers, broad as they may be, are sub=ect to certain limitations. !s early as 1#2., in overnment v. Springer, the *ourt has defined, in the abstract, the limits on legislative power in the following wise; Someone has said that the powers of the legislative department of the +overnment, li8e the boundaries of the ocean, are unlimited. 7n constitutional governments, however, as well as governments acting under delegated authority, the powers of each of the departments B B B are limited and confined within the four walls of the constitution or the charter, and each department can only eBercise such powers as are necessarily implied from the given powers. &he *onstitution is the shore of legislative authority against which the waves of legislative enactment may dash, but over which it cannot leap.1&hus, legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is sub=ect to substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe both the eBercise of the power itself and the allowable sub=ects of legislation.11 &he substantive constitutional limitations are chiefly found in the 3ill of ights12 and other provisions, such as Sec. 4, !rt. :7 of the *onstitution prescribing the Dualifications of candidates for senators. 7n the same vein, the *60@C@* cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 4$1g2, validly impose Dualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the *onstitution prescribes. 7f *ongress cannot reDuire a candidate for senator to meet such additional Dualification, the *60@C@*, to be sure, is also without such power. &he right of a citizen in the democratic

process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of reDuirement not otherwise specified in the *onstitution.14 Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$%, as sought to be implemented by the assailed *60@C@* resolution, effectively enlarges the Dualification reDuirements enumerated in the Sec. 4, !rt. :7 of the *onstitution. !s couched, said Sec. 4$1g2 unmista8ably reDuires a candidate for senator to be certified illegal - drug clean, obviously as a pre - condition to the validity of a certificate of candidacy for senator or, with li8e effect, a condition sine 0ua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaimed as senator - elect. &he *60@C@* resolution completes the chain with the proviso that 9JnKo person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test.9 :iewed, therefore, in its proper conteBt, Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$% and the implementing *60@C@* esolution add another Dualification layer to what the 1#/. *onstitution, at the minimum, reDuires for membership in the Senate. Whether or not the drug - free bar set up under the challenged provision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of no moment, as getting elected would be of little value if one cannot assume office for non - compliance with the drug - testing reDuirement. 7t may of course be argued, in defense of the validity of Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$%, that the provision does not eBpressly state that non - compliance with the drug test imposition is a disDualifying factor or would wor8 to nullify a certificate of candidacy. &his argument may be accorded plausibility if the drug test reDuirement is optional. 3ut the particular section of the law, without eBception, made drug - testing on those covered mandatory, necessarily suggesting that the obstinate ones shall have to suffer the adverse conseDuences for not adhering to the statutory command. !nd since the provision deals with candidates for public office, it stands to reason that the adverse conseDuence adverted to can only refer to and revolve around the election and the assumption of public office of the candidates. !ny other construal would reduce the mandatory nature of Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$% into a pure =argon without meaning and effect whatsoever. While it is anti - climactic to state it at this =uncture, *60@C@* esolution "o. $5/$ is no longer enforceable, for by its terms, it was intended to cover only the 0ay 1-, 2--5 synchronized elections and the candidates running in that electoral event. "onetheless, to obviate repetition, the *ourt deems it appropriate to review and rule, as it hereby rules, on its validity as an implementing issuance. 7t ought to be made abundantly clear, however, that the unconstitutionality of Sec. 4$1g2 of ! #1$% is rooted on its having infringed the constitutional provision defining the Dualification or eligibility reDuirements for one aspiring to run for and serve as senator. S@S P)1i1io2 D$o2+1i161io2-li1! o* S)(. 3EG(H, G/H, G*H, -2/ G.H o* RA 91E?F &he drug test prescribed under Sec. 4$1c2, 1d2, and 1f2 of ! #1$% for secondary and tertiary level students and public and private employees, while mandatory, is a random and suspicionless arrangement. &he ob=ective is to stamp out illegal drug and safeguard in the process 9the well being of JtheK citizenry, particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs.9

&his statutory purpose, per the policy - declaration portion of the law, can be achieved via the pursuit by the state of 9an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the traffic8ing and use of dangerous drugs B B B through an integrated system of planning, implementation and enforcement of anti - drug abuse policies, programs and pro=ects.915 &he primary legislative intent is not criminal prosecution, as those found positive for illegal drug use as a result of this random testing are not necessarily treated as criminals. &hey may even be eBempt from criminal liability should the illegal drug user consent to undergo rehabilitation. Secs. %5 and %% of ! #1$% are clear on this point; Sec. %5. $oluntary Submission of a !rug !ependent to "onfinement, )reatment and /ehabilitation. - ! drug dependent or any person who violates Section 1% of this !ct may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent, Jclose relativesK B B B apply to the 3oard B B B for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependency. (pon such application, the 3oard shall bring forth the matter to the *ourt which shall order that the applicant be eBamined for drug dependency. 7f the eBamination B B B results in the certification that the applicant is a drug dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the *ourt to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a *enter designated by the 3oard B B B. BBBB Sec. %%. .xemption from the "riminal (iability &nder the $oluntary Submission Program. - ! drug dependent under the voluntary submission program, who is finally discharged from confinement, shall be eBempt from the criminal liability under Section 1% of this !ct sub=ect to the following conditions; BBBB School children, the (S Supreme *ourt noted, are most vulnerable to the physical, psychological, and addictive effects of drugs. 0aturing nervous systems of the young are more critically impaired by intoBicants and are more inclined to drug dependency. &heir recovery is also at a depressingly low rate.1% &he right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this =urisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure1$ under Sec. 2, !rt. 7771. of the *onstitution. 3ut while the right to privacy has long come into its own, this case appears to be the first time that the validity of a state - decreed search or intrusion through the medium of mandatory random drug testing among students and employees is, in this =urisdiction, made the focal point. &hus, the issue tendered in these proceedings is veritably one of first impression. (S =urisprudence is, however, a rich source of persuasive =urisprudence. With respect to random drug testing among school children, we turn to the teachings of $ernonia School !istrict @A% v. 'cton B$ernoniaC and Board of .ducation of 2ndependent School !istrict 3o. 4* of Pottawatomie "ounty, et al. v. .arls, et al. BBoard of .ducationC,1/ both fairly pertinent (S Supreme *ourt - decided cases involving the constitutionality of governmental search.

7n $ernonia, school administrators in :ernonia, 6regon wanted to address the drug menace in their respective institutions following the discovery of freDuent drug use by school athletes. !fter consultation with the parents, they reDuired random urinalysis drug testing for the schoolLs athletes. >ames !cton, a high school student, was denied participation in the football program after he refused to underta8e the urinalysis drug testing. !cton forthwith sued, claiming that the schoolLs drug testing policy violated, inter alia, the ?ourth !mendment1# of the (S *onstitution. &he (S Supreme *ourt, in fashioning a solution to the issues raised in $ernonia, considered the following; 112 schools stand in loco parentis over their studentsE 122 school children, while not shedding their constitutional rights at the school gate, have less privacy rightsE 142 athletes have less privacy rights than non - athletes since the former observe communal undress before and after sports eventsE 152 by =oining the sports activity, the athletes voluntarily sub=ected themselves to a higher degree of school supervision and regulationE 1%2 reDuiring urine samples does not invade a studentLs privacy since a student need not undress for this 8ind of drug testingE and 1$2 there is need for the drug testing because of the dangerous effects of illegal drugs on the young. &he (S Supreme *ourt held that the policy constituted reasonable search under the ?ourth2- and 15th !mendments and declared the random drug - testing policy constitutional. 7n Board of .ducation, the 3oard of @ducation of a school in &ecumseh, 68lahoma reDuired a drug test for high school students desiring to =oin eBtra - curricular activities. Cindsay @arls, a member of the show choir, marching band, and academic team declined to undergo a drug test and averred that the drug - testing policy made to apply to non - athletes violated the ?ourth and 15th !mendments. !s @arls argued, unli8e athletes who routinely undergo physical eBaminations and undress before their peers in loc8er rooms, non - athletes are entitled to more privacy. &he (S Supreme *ourt, citing $ernonia, upheld the constitutionality of drug testing even among non - athletes on the basis of the schoolLs custodial responsibility and authority. 7n so ruling, said court made no distinction between a non - athlete and an athlete. 7t ratiocinated that schools and teachers act in place of the parents with a similar interest and duty of safeguarding the health of the students. !nd in holding that the school could implement its random drug - testing policy, the *ourt hinted that such a test was a 8ind of search in which even a reasonable parent might need to engage. 7n sum, what can reasonably be deduced from the above two cases and applied to this =urisdiction are; 112 schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their studentsE 122 minor students have conteBtually fewer rights than an adult, and are sub=ect to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and schoolsE 142 schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well - being of their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such dutyE and 152 schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair, =ust, and non-discriminatory. +uided by $ernonia and Board of .ducation, the *ourt is of the view and so holds that the provisions of ! #1$% reDuiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional. 7ndeed, it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to reDuire, as a condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies.

&o be sure, the right to enroll is not absoluteE it is sub=ect to fair, reasonable, and eDuitable reDuirements. &he *ourt can ta8e =udicial notice of the proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country that threatens the well - being of the people,21 particularly the youth and school children who usually end up as victims. !ccordingly, and until a more effective method is conceptualized and put in motion, a random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary schools is not only acceptable but may even be necessary if the safety and interest of the student population, doubtless a legitimate concern of the government, are to be promoted and protected. &o borrow from $ernonia, 9JdKeterring drug use by our "ationLs schoolchildren is as important as enhancing efficient enforcement of the "ationLs laws against the importation of drugs9E the necessity for the State to act is magnified by the fact that the effects of a drug - infested school are visited not =ust upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty.22 "eedless to stress, the random testing scheme provided under the law argues against the idea that the testing aims to incriminate unsuspecting individual students. >ust as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students, the mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. 4$ of ! #1$% for officers and employees of public and private offices is =ustifiable, albeit not eBactly for the same reason. &he *ourt notes in this regard that petitioner S>S, other than saying that 9sub=ecting almost everybody to drug testing, without probable cause, is unreasonable, an unwarranted intrusion of the individual right to privacy,924 has failed to show how the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing under Sec. 4$1c2 and 1d2 of ! #1$% violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful and/or unconsented search under !rt. 777, Secs. 1 and 2 of the *onstitution.25 <etitioner CasernaLs lament is =ust as simplistic, sweeping, and gratuitous and does not merit serious consideration. *onsider what he wrote without elaboration; &he (S Supreme *ourt and (S *ircuit *ourts of !ppeals have made various rulings on the constitutionality of mandatory drug tests in the school and the wor8places. &he (S courts have been consistent in their rulings that the mandatory drug tests violate a citizenLs constitutional right to privacy and right against unreasonable search and seizure. &hey are Duoted eBtensively hereinbelow.2% &he essence of privacy is the right to be left alone.2$ 7n conteBt, the right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted eBploitation of oneLs person or from intrusion into oneLs private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a personLs ordinary sensibilities. 2. !nd while there has been general agreement as to the basic function of the guarantee against unwarranted search, 9translation of the abstract prohibition against Vunreasonable searches and seizuresL into wor8able broad guidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult tas8,9 to borrow from ". "amara v. Municipal "ourt.2/ !uthorities are agreed though that the right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the stateLs eBercise of police power.2# !s the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, !rt 777 of the *onstitution is couched and as has been held, 9reasonableness9 is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion.4- !nd whether a search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is =udged by the balancing of the government - mandated intrusion on the individualLs privacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest.41 7n the criminal conteBt, reasonableness reDuires showing of

probable cause to be personally determined by a =udge. +iven that the drug - testing policy for employees--and students for that matter--under ! #1$% is in the nature of administrative search needing what was referred to in $ernonia as 9swift and informal disciplinary procedures,9 the probable - cause standard is not reDuired or even practicable. 3e that as it may, the review should focus on the reasonableness of the challenged administrative search in Duestion. &he first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of the privacy interest upon which the drug testing, which effects a search within the meaning of Sec. 2, !rt. 777 of the *onstitution, intrudes. 7n this case, the office or wor8place serves as the bac8drop for the analysis of the privacy eBpectation of the employees and the reasonableness of drug testing reDuirement. &he employeesL privacy interest in an office is to a large eBtent circumscribed by the companyLs wor8 policies, the collective bargaining agreement, if any, entered into by management and the bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the wor8place. &heir privacy eBpectation in a regulated office environment is, in fine, reducedE and a degree of impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. >ust as defining as the first factor is the character of the intrusion authorized by the challenged law. educed to a Duestion form, is the scope of the search or intrusion clearly set forth, or, as formulated in Dple v. )orres, is the enabling law authorizing a search 9narrowly drawn9 or 9narrowly focused9M42 &he poser should be answered in the affirmative. ?or one, Sec. 4$ of ! #1$% and its implementing rules and regulations 17 2, as couched, contain provisions specifically directed towards preventing a situation that would unduly embarrass the employees or place them under a humiliating eBperience. While every officer and employee in a private establishment is under the law deemed forewarned that he or she may be a possible sub=ect of a drug test, nobody is really singled out in advance for drug testing. &he goal is to discourage drug use by not telling in advance anyone when and who is to be tested. !nd as may be observed, Sec. 4$1d2 of ! #1$% itself prescribes what, in Dple, is a narrowing ingredient by providing that the employees concerned shall be sub=ected to 9random drug test as contained in the companyLs wor8 rules and regulations B B B for purposes of reducing the ris8 in the wor8 place.9 ?or another, the random drug testing shall be underta8en under conditions calculated to protect as much as possible the employeeLs privacy and dignity. !s to the mechanics of the test, the law specifies that the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible the trustworthiness of the results. 3ut the more important consideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals in access - controlled laboratories monitored by the )epartment of ,ealth 1)6,2 to safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an accurate chain of custody.44 7n addition, the 7 issued by the )6, provides that access to the drug results shall be on the 9need to 8now9 basisE45 that the 9drug test result and the records shall be J8eptK confidential sub=ect to the usual accepted practices to protect the confidentiality of the test results.94% "otably, ! #1$% does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting agencies any information or evidence relating to the violation of the "omprehensive !angerous !rugs 'ct received as a result of the operation of the drug testing. !ll told, therefore, the intrusion into the employeesL

privacy, under ! #1$%, is accompanied by proper safeguards, particularly against embarrassing lea8ages of test results, and is relatively minimal. &o reiterate, ! #1$% was enacted as a measure to stamp out illegal drug in the country and thus protect the well - being of the citizens, especially the youth, from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs. &he law intends to achieve this through the medium, among others, of promoting and resolutely pursuing a national drug abuse policy in the wor8place via a mandatory random drug test.4$ &o the *ourt, the need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individualLs privacy interest under the premises. &he *ourt can consider that the illegal drug menace cuts across gender, age group, and social - economic lines. !nd it may not be amiss to state that the sale, manufacture, or traffic8ing of illegal drugs, with their ready mar8et, would be an investorLs dream were it not for the illegal and immoral components of any of such activities. &he drug problem has hardly abated since the martial law public eBecution of a notorious drug traffic8er. &he state can no longer assume a laid bac8 stance with respect to this modern - day scourge. )rug enforcement agencies perceive a mandatory random drug test to be an effective way of preventing and deterring drug use among employees in private offices, the threat of detection by random testing being higher than other modes. &he *ourt holds that the chosen method is a reasonable and enough means to lic8 the problem. &a8ing into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced eBpectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the compelling state concern li8ely to be met by the search, and the well - defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we hold that the challenged drug test reDuirement is, under the limited conteBt of the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional. Ci8e their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the *ivil Service law and other laws on public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service.4. !nd if ! #1$% passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional command, are reDuired to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.4/ <etitioner S>SL neBt posture that Sec. 4$ of ! #1$% is ob=ectionable on the ground of undue delegation of power hardly commends itself for concurrence. *ontrary to its position, the provision in Duestion is not so eBtensively drawn as to give unbridled options to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. Sec. 4$ eBpressly provides how drug testing for students of secondary and tertiary schools and officers/employees of public/private offices should be conducted. 7t enumerates the persons who shall undergo drug testing. 7n the case of students, the testing shall be in accordance with the school rules as contained in the student handboo8 and with notice to parents. 6n the part of officers/employees, the testing shall ta8e into account the companyLs wor8 rules. 7n either case, the random procedure shall be observed, meaning that the persons to be sub=ected to drug test shall be pic8ed by chance or in an unplanned way. !nd in all cases, safeguards against misusing and compromising the confidentiality of the test results are established.

Cest it be overloo8ed, Sec. #5 of ! #1$% charges the ))3 to issue, in consultation with the )6,, )epartment of the 7nterior and Cocal +overnment, )epartment of @ducation, and )epartment of Cabor and @mployment, among other agencies, the 7 necessary to enforce the law. 7n net effect then, the participation of schools and offices in the drug testing scheme shall always be sub=ect to the 7 of ! #1$%. 7t is, therefore, incorrect to say that schools and employers have unchec8ed discretion to determine how often, under what conditions, and where the drug tests shall be conducted. &he validity of delegating legislative power is now a Duiet area in the constitutional landscape.4# 7n the face of the increasing compleBity of the tas8 of the government and the increasing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many problems demanding its attention, resort to delegation of power, or entrusting to administrative agencies the power of subordinate legislation, has become imperative, as here. L-+)r2- P)1i1io2 D$o2+1i161io2-li1! o* S)(. 3EG(H, G/H, G*H, -2/ G.H o* RA 91E?F (nli8e the situation covered by Sec. 4$1c2 and 1d2 of ! #1$%, the *ourt finds no valid =ustification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes. 7n the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they see8 entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. 7n the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and reDuirement. We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutorLs office with criminal offenses punishable with siB 1$2 years and one 112 day imprisonment. &he operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are 9randomness9 and 9suspicionless.9 7n the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutorLs office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. &he ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. &hey are not randomly pic8edE neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. &he persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutorLs office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy.5- &o impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated ob=ectives of ! #1$%. )rug testing in this case would violate a personsL right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, !rt. 777 of the *onstitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves. <HEREFORE, the *ourt resolves to GRANT the petition in +. . "o. 1$1$%/ and declares S)(. 3ED.F of RA 91E? and $O ELE$ R)+ol61io2 No. E48E as AN$ONSTITATIONALE and to PARTIALL" GRANT the petition in +. . "os. 1%./.- and 1%/$44 by declaring S)(. 3ED(F and D/F of RA 91E? $ONSTITATIONAL, but declaring its Sec. 4$1f2

("*6"S&7&(&76"!C. !ll concerned agencies are, accordingly, permanently en=oined from implementing S)(. 3ED*F and D.F of RA 91E?. "o costs. SO ORDERED. PRESBITERO @. >ELAS$O, @R. !ssociate >ustice ?oo12o1)+
1

e-elected as senator in the 2--5 elections. ollo 1+. . "o. 1%/$442, pp. 1/5-1/%. )umlao v. *60@C@*, "o. C-%225%, >anuary 22, 1#/-, #% S* ! 4#2, 5-1.

3ernas, &he 1#/. *onstitution of the epublic of the <hilippines; ! *ommentary #4# 12--42.
%

+onzales v. "arvasa, +. . "o. 15-/4%, !ugust 15, 2---, 44. S* ! .44, .5-.

&atad v. Secretary of the )epartment of @nergy, +. . "os. 1254$- P 12./$., "ovember %, 1##., 2/1 S* ! 44-, 45#E )e +uia v. *60@C@*, +. . "o. 1-5.12, 0ay $, 1##2, 2-/ S* ! 52-, 522.
.

<almer v. 3oard of @ducation, 2.$ "G 222 11 "@ 2d //.. *ruz, *onstitutional Caw 5 12---2.

0utuc v. *ommission on @lections, "o. C-42.1., "ovember 2$, 1#.-, 4$ S* ! 22/, 245.
1-

%- <hil. 2%#, 4-# 11#2.2.

11

>. 3ernas, S.>., &he 1#/. *onstitution of the epublic of the <hilippines; ! *ommentary $-5 11##$2.
12

7d.

14

See concurring opinion in +o v. *ommision on @lections, +. . "o. 15..51, 0ay 1-, 2--1, 4%. S* ! .4#, .%4.
15

! #1$%, Sec. 2. :ernonia School )istrict 5.> v. !cton, %1% (.S. $5$ 11##%2, $$1.

1%

1$

6ple v. &orres, +. . "o. 12.$/%, >uly 24, 1##/, 2#4 S* ! 151, 1$#E citing 0orfe v. 0utuc, "o. C-2-4/., >anuary 41, 1#$/, 22 S* ! 525, 555-55%.
1.

Sec. 2. &he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue eBcept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the =udge after eBamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
1/

%4$ (.S. /22 12--22E cited in 2 3ernas, *onstitutional ights and Social )emands 22522. 12--52.
1#

&he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by 6ath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
2-

&he ?ourth !mendment is almost similar to Sec. 2, !rt. 777 of the *onstitution, eBcept that the latter limited the determination of probable cause to a =udge after an eBamination under oath of the complainant and his witnesses. ,ence, pronouncements of the (S ?ederal Supreme *ourt and State !ppellate *ourt may be considered doctrinal in this =urisdiction, unless they are manifestly contrary to our *onstitution. See ,errera, ,andboo8 on !rrest, Search and Seizure / 12--42.
21

&olentino v. !lconcel, "o. C-$45--, 0arch 1/, 1#/4, 121 S* ! #2, #%-#$. ollo 1+. . "o. 1%/$442, p. 2-5, respondentsL *onsolidated 0emorandum. ollo 1+. . "o. 1%./.-2, p. 1-.

22

24

25

Section 1. "o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the eDual protection of the laws. Sec. 2. &he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue eBcept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the =udge after eBamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
2%

ollo 1+. . "o. 1%/$442, p. #. 6ple, supra note 1$, at 1%4E citing *ooley on &orts, Sec. 14%, :ol. 1, 5th ed., J1#42K. $2 !m. >ur. 2d, <rivacy, Sec. 1.

2$

2.

2/

4/. (.S. %24E cited in 2 3ernas, supra note 1/, at 242. $2 !m. >ur. 2d, <rivacy, Sec. 1.. :ernonia P 3oard of @ducation, supra notes 1% P 1/.

2#

4-

41

S8inner v. ailway Cabor @Becutives !ssn., 5/# (.S. $-2, $1# 11#/#2E cited in :ernonia, supra.
42

Supra note 1$, at 1$$ P 1$#.

44

(nder Sec. . J4K of the )6, 7 +overning Cicensing and !ccreditation of )rug Caboratories, a laboratory is reDuired to use documented chain of custody procedures to maintain control and custody of specimens.
45

)6, 7 +overning Cicensing and !ccreditation of )rug Caboratories, Sec. . J1-.4K provides that the original copy of the test results form shall be given to the client/donor, copy furnished the )6, and the reDuesting agency.
4%

7d., Sec. . J1-.5K.

4$

Secs. 5. and 5/ of ! #1$% charge the )epartment of Cabor and @mployment with the duty to develop and promote a national drug prevention program and the necessary guidelines in the wor8 place, which shall include a mandatory drafting and adoption of policies to achieve a drug-free wor8place.
4.

*ode of *onduct and @thical Standards for <ublic 6fficers and @mployees, Sec. 2. *onstitution, !rt. N7, Sec. 1. &atad, supra note $, at 4%1.

4/

4#

5-

Ceona <asion :iuda de +arcia v. Cocsin, $% <hil. $/#, $#% 11#4/2E citing *ooley, *onst. Cim. $4- 1/th ed.2.

G.R No. 181441 No0)74)r 14, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LARR" LOPE&, appellant. DE$ISION

$ARPIO, J.' T5) $-+) &his is an appeal from the 2% September 2--. )ecision1 of the *ourt of !ppeals in *!-+. . * -,* "o. -2-41. &he *ourt of !ppeals affirmed the 21 )ecember 2--% >oint )ecision2 of the egional &rial *ourt, 3ranch #$, 3aler, !urora, in *riminal *ase "os. 41// and 41/# finding appellant Carry Copez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections % and 11, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$% 1 ! #1$%2, otherwise 8nown as the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2. T5) F-(1+ &he prosecution charged appellant with violation of Sections % and 11 of ! #1$% in two 7nformations which read; * 707"!C *!S@ "6. 41// &hat on or about 11;-% oLcloc8 in the morning of "ovember 1, 2--4 in 3aler, !urora and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the said accused, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully sell and convey unto a poseur buyer one plastic sachet containing -.-$ gram of shabu, a prohibited drug, for three 142 <1--.-- and one 112 <2--.-- mar8ed bills without any license or permit from the authorities. *6"& ! G &6 C!W. * 707"!C *!S@ "6. 41/# &hat on or about 11;-- oLcloc8 in the morning of "ovember 1, 2--4 in 3aler, !urora and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the said accused, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in his possession and control three 142 pieces of marlboro cigarettes pac8s, containing $.2- grams of mari=uana leaves and fruiting tops without any permit or license from the authorities. *6"& ! G &6 C!W.4 (pon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. &hereafter, trial ensued. &he prosecution established that on 1 "ovember 2--4, at around 1-;-- a.m., a certain barangay official went to the 3aler <olice Station reporting the peddling of illegal drugs by appellant. ! buy-bust operation was planned where <61 omeo 0iranda 1<61 0iranda2 was assigned as poseur-buyer. <61 0iranda accompanied a confidential agent in going to the residence of appellant to buy <%-- worth of shabu. !ppellant told them that he would deliver the shabu in front of )ithaLs ,ardware in half an hour. &he members of the buy-bust team strategically stationed themselves near the place of the transaction. !t around 11;-% a.m., the appellant, driving his tricycle, arrived and the confidential agent waved at him to stop. <61 0iranda and

the confidential agent approached appellant, they tal8ed for a moment, and the eBchange too8 place. &he agent handed the mar8ed money to appellant, who simultaneously handed the sachet of shabu. 7mmediately thereafter, the agent handed the shabu to <61 0iranda who then held the appellant. &he other members of the buy-bust team rushed to the crime scene and arrested appellant. !fter apprising appellant of the 0iranda ights, <61 Sonny +uzman 1<61 +uzman2 searched appellantLs body which yielded dried mari=uana leaves wrapped in two 0arlboro cigarette pac8s and one cigarette foil. !ppellant, on the other hand, denied the charges and insisted that he was framed-up. !ppellant claimed that at around 11;-% in the morning of 1 "ovember 2--4, he was driving his tricycle to bring his passengers, namely &eresita ?ernando and aymund <utol, to the cemetery. (pon reaching )ithaLs ,ardware, two men in civilian clothes bloc8ed their way and identified themselves as policemen. &hereafter, appellant was suddenly and forcibly pulled down from the tricycle and handcuffed. !fter the policemen fris8ed appellant, they eBclaimed 9<ositive9 showing a sachet. &hen, he was arrested and brought to the police station where he was interrogated and searched again. &he dispositive portion of the 21 )ecember 2--% >oint )ecision of the egional &rial *ourt, 3ranch #$, 3aler, !urora, reads; W,@ @?6 @, premises considered, the *ourt hereby renders =udgment as follows; 1. ?inding Carry Copez y <arinia +(7C&G beyond reasonable doubt of :iolation of Section %, !rticle 77 of .!. #1$% for the sale of -.-$ gram of shabu and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of C7?@ 70< 7S6"0@"& and a fine of ?ive ,undred &housand <esos 1<%--,---.--2E 2. ?inding Carry Copez y <arinia +(7C&G beyond reasonable doubt of :iolation of Section 11, !rticle 77 of .!. #1$% for possession of $.2- grams of dried mari=uana leaves and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of ?ourteen 1152 years and a fine of &hree ,undred &housand <esos 1<4--,---.--2. &he confiscated shabu and dried mari=uana leaves are hereby ordered to be turned over to the 6ffice of the <rovincial <rosecutor of !urora, which, in turn, shall coordinate with the proper government agency for the proper disposition and destruction of the same. S6 6 )@ @).5 6n appeal, appellant pointed out that there were inconsistencies on the following matters; 112 eBistence of a pre-arranged signalE and the 122 recollection by <61 0iranda of the mar8ings on the buy-bust money. !ppellant also argued that the subseDuent warrantless search and seizure was illegal because he was never caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. ,ence, the mari=uana recovered from him was inadmissible. T5) $o6r1 o* App)-l+K R6li2.

7n a )ecision dated 2% September 2--., the *ourt of !ppeals affirmed the trial courtLs decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. &he appellate court found that <61 0iranda satisfactorily eBplained his answer to the Duestion regarding the prearranged signal. &he appellate court also ruled that failure to recall the mar8ings on the buy-bust money was probably due to the length of time between the date of the incident and the date of <61 0irandaLs testimony. !t any rate, the mar8ings on the mar8ed money are immaterial because the presentation of the mar8ed money is not even necessary for the successful prosecution of the offenses charged. &he *ourt of !ppeals also re=ected appellantLs claim of frame-up considering that there was no evidence of any ulterior motive for the police officers to falsely charge appellant of the offenses. 7t appears that the frame-up theory was a mere afterthought. 6n the warrantless search and seizure, the *ourt of !ppeals held that it is valid having been made after a lawful warrantless arrest, citing Section 12, ule 12$ of the ules of *ourt.% ,ence, this appeal. T5) I++6) &he sole issue in this case is whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of 112 Section %, !rticle 77 of ! #1$% for the sale of -.-$ gram of shabuE and 122 Section 11, !rticle 77 of ! #1$% for the possession of $.2- grams of dried mari=uana leaves. T5) R6li2. o* 15) $o6r1 &he appeal lac8s merit. Sections % and 11, !rticle 77 of ! #1$% read; S@*. %. Sale, )rading, 'dministration, !ispensation, !elivery, !istribution and )ransportation of !angerous !rugs and-or "ontrolled Precursors and .ssential "hemicals. - &he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 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 Duantity and purity involved, or shall act as a bro8er in any of such transactions. S@*. 11. Possession of !angerous !rugs. - &he penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ?ive hundred thousand pesos 1<%--,---.--2 to &en million pesos 1<1-,---,---.--2 shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following Duantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof; BBBB

142 7mprisonment of twelve 1122 years and one 112 day to twenty 12-2 years and a fine ranging from &hree hundred thousand pesos 1<4--,---.--2 to ?our hundred thousand pesos 1<5--,---.--2, if the Duantities of dangerous drugs are less than five 1%2 grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, mari=uana resin or mari=uana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or 9shabu9, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, 0)0! or 9ecstasy9, <0!, &0!, CS), +,3, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the Duantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic reDuirementsE or less than three hundred 14--2 grams of mari=uana. &he *ourt sustains the finding of the lower courts that the prosecution sufficiently established appellantLs guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections % and 11, !rticle 77 of ! #1$%. &he prosecution proved that a consummated sale of shabu transpired between the buy-bust team which included the confidential agent, on one hand, and the appellant on the other. <61 afael )uaso, <61 +uzman, and <61 0iranda, who were members of the buy-bust team, testified that appellant sold shabu to the confidential agent, who simultaneously gave the mar8ed money to appellant.$ &he prosecution also established that the police officers recovered mari=uana after searching appellantLs body. &he sub=ect drugs were also proven to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride and mari=uana, as evidenced by ?ield &est eport "o. !<<6S6+-11-1-2--4--1 and the confirmatory tests subseDuently conducted by ?orensic *hemical 6fficer, </7nsp. )ivina )izon of the "ueva @ci=a *rime Caboratory, as evidenced by her *hemistry eport "o. )-2#/-2--4. +enerally, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the *ourt of !ppeals, are conclusive and binding on this *ourt.. 7n the present case, appellant gravely failed to show that the trial court overloo8ed or misapprehended any fact or circumstance of weight and substance to warrant a deviation from this rule. ?irst, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of <61 0iranda refer to trivial or minor matters, which do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecutionLs evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnessL honesty./ 7nconsistencies on the eBistence of a pre-arranged signal and the mar8ings on the buy-bust money pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual buybust operation itself - that crucial moment when the appellant was caught selling shabu - which might warrant a reversal of appellantLs conviction.# ?urther, the *ourt sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecutionLs witnesses because the trial court is in a better position to evaluate the witnessesL deportment during the trial.1- 3esides, the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lac8 of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation.11 !lso, the non-presentation of the buy-bust money is not fatal to the successful prosecution of a drug case.12 Second, appellant did not substantiate his defense of frame-up. ,e did not present evidence that the prosecution witnesses had motive to falsely charge him. "either did appellant prove that the police officers did not perform their duties regularly.14 !s the *ourt of !ppeals held, the frameup theory was a mere afterthought. &hird, Section 12 of ule 12$ eBpressly provides that 9JaK person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of

an offense, without a search warrant.9 7n this case, the arresting officers were =ustified in arresting appellant as he had =ust committed a crime when he sold shabu to the confidential agent. ! buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting drug offenders.15 *onsidering the legality of appellantLs warrantless arrest, the subseDuent warrantless search resulting in the recovery of mari=uana found in appellantLs body is also valid.1% *onsidering that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section %, !rticle 77 of ! #1$%, the *ourt of !ppeals correctly affirmed the trial courtLs imposition of life imprisonment and a fine of <%--,--- in *riminal *ase "o. 41// for the illegal sale of shabu. While appellant is also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, !rticle 77 of ! #1$%, the *ourt modifies the penalty imposed in *riminal *ase "o. 41/# for illegal possession of mari=uana. 7n People v. Mateo,1$ the *ourt held that the period of imprisonment imposed on the accused should not be a straight penalty, but should be an indeterminate penalty. &hus, the trial court erred in imposing the straight penalty of imprisonment of fourteen 1152 years. Section 1 of the 7ndeterminate Sentence Caw1. provides that when the offense is punished by a law other than the evised <enal *ode, 9the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maBimum term of which shall not eBceed the maBimum fiBed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.91/ !ccordingly, the penalty that should be imposed on appellant is imprisonment ranging from twelve 1122 years and one 112 day, as minimum, to twenty 12-2 years, as maBimum. &he *ourt affirms the <4--,--fine imposed by the trial court. <HEREFORE, the *ourt AFFIR S the 2% September 2--. )ecision of the *ourt of !ppeals in *!-+. . * -,* "o. -2-41 with the ODIFI$ATION that the penalty in *riminal *ase "o. 41/# shall be imprisonment for twelve 1122 years and one 112 day, as minimum, to twenty 12-2 years, as maBimum, and a fine of <4--,---. SO ORDERED.
S

ANTONIO T. $ARPIO !ssociate >ustice

Foo12o1)+
S

<er Special 6rder "o. %45. )esignated member per Special 6rder "o. %4%. )esignated member per Special 6rder "o. %4%.

SS

SSS

/ollo, pp. 2-24. <enned by !ssociate >ustice 0yrna )imaranan :idal, with !ssociate >ustices >ose *. eyes, >r. and >apar 3. )imaampao, concurring.

*! rollo, pp. 11- 1.. <enned by >udge *orazon ). Soluren. /ollo, p. 4. *! rollo, p. 1.. &he *ourt of !ppeals erroneously cited Section 14 of ule 12$. /ollo, pp. 1--1$.

People v. Mateo, +. . "o. 1.#5./, 2/ >uly 2--/E )eodosio v. "ourt of 'ppeals, +. . "o. 12545$, / >une 2--5, 541 S* ! 1#5E People v. (im, 54% <hil. $5- 12--22E People v. Pacis, 545 <hil. 15/ 12--22. See also People v. "abugatan, +. . "o. 1.2-1#, 12 ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! %4..
/

People v. Eernando, +. . "o. 1.-/4$, 5 !pril 2--., %2- S* ! $.%, $/4 citing <eople v. 0adriaga, +. . "o. /22#4, 24 >uly 1##2, 211 S* ! $#/, .-#-.12.
#

See People v. Eernando, +. . "o. 1.-/4$, 5 !pril 2--., %2- S* ! $.%, $/5 citing <eople v. *hang, 4/2 <hil. $$# 12---2.
1-

People v. !ilao, +. . "o. 1.-4%#, 2. >uly 2--., %2/ S* ! 52.E People v. "abugatan, +. . "o. 1.2-1#, 12 ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! %4.E People v. $illanueva, +. . "o. 1.211$, 4- 6ctober 2--$, %-$ S* ! 2/-.
11

People v. 3icolas, +. . "o. 1.-245, / ?ebruary 2--., %1% S* ! 1/..

12

People v. 'mbrosio, +. . "o. 14%4./, 15 !pril 2--5, 52. S* ! 412, 44- citing People v. .ugenio, 554 <hil. 511 12--42.
14

People v. 3icolas, supra. See also People v. "abugatan, supra. People v. Bohol, +. . "o. 1.1.2#, 2/ >uly 2--/. 7d.E People v. 3avarro, +. . "o. 1.4.#-, 11 6ctober 2--., %4% S* ! $55. +. . "o. 1.#-4$, 2/ >uly 2--/.

15

1%

1$

1.

!" !*& &6 < 6:7)@ ?6 !" 7")@&@ 07"!&@ S@"&@"*@ !") <! 6C@ ?6 !CC <@ S6"S *6":7*&@) 6? *@ &!7" * 70@S 3G &,@ *6( &S 6? &,@ <,7C7<<7"@ 7SC!")SE &6 * @!&@ ! 36! ) 6? 7")@&@ 07"!&@ S@"&@"*@ !") &6 < 6:7)@ ?(")S &,@ @?6 E !") ?6 6&,@ <( <6S@S, approved and effective on % )ecember 1#44 1!ct "o. 51-4, as amended2.
1/

People v. Bohol, supra note 15.

G.R. No. 182348 No0)74)r 20, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. $ARLOS DELA $RA&, accusedappellant. &he elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are; 112 the accused is in possession of an item or ob=ect which is identified to be a prohibited drugE 122 such possession is not authorized by lawE and 142 the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. &he prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant show that; he was inside the nipa hut at the time the buy-bust operation was ta8ing placeE he was tal8ing to 3oy 3icol inside the nipa hutE he was seen holding a shotgunE when <61 *alanoga, >r. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant, the latter dropped his shotgunE and when apprehended, he was in a room which had the seized shabu, digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines >ELAS$O, @R., J.' &his is an appeal from the "ovember 2#, 2--. )ecision of the *ourt of !ppeals 1*!2 in *!+. . * -,.*. "o. -22/$ entitled People of the Philippines v. "arlos !ela "ru9 which affirmed the September 1$, 2--% )ecision of the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2, 3ranch .. in San 0ateo, izal in *riminal *ase "os. $%1. 17llegal <ossession of ?irearm and !mmunition2 and $%1/ 1<ossession of )angerous )rug2. &he &* found accused- appellant *arlos )ela *ruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11122 of epublic !ct "o. 1 !2 #1$% or &he "omprehensive !angerous !rugs 'ct of *++*. T5) F-(1+ 6n "ovember 1%, 2--2, charges against accused-appellant were made before the &*. &he 7nformations read as follows; $ri7i2-l $-+) No. E?17 &hat, on or about the 2-th day of 6ctober 2--2, in the 0unicipality of San 0ateo, <rovince of izal, <hilippines and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the above-named accused, being then a private citizen, without any lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and 8nowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control 6ne 112 +auge Shotgun mar8ed ! 0S*6 with Serial "o. 11-/%44 loaded with four 152 live ammunition, which are high powered firearm and ammunition respectively, without first securing the necessary license to possess or permit to carry said firearm and ammunition from the proper authorities. $ri7i2-l $-+) No. E?18

&hat on or about the 2-th day of 6ctober 2--2, in the 0unicipality of San 0ateo, <rovince of izal, <hilippines and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and 8nowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control one 112 heatsealed transparent plastic bag weighing 5#./5 grams of white crystalline substance, which gave positive results for 0ethamphetamine ,ydrochloride, a dangerous drug.1 !ccused-appellant entered a not guilty plea and trial ensued. &he facts, according to the prosecution, showed that in the morning of 6ctober 2-, 2--2, an informant tipped off the )rug @nforcement (nit of the 0ari8ina <olice Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Coilo alias 93oy 3icol9 was at his nipa hut hideout in San 0ateo, izal. ! team was organized to arrest 3oy 3icol. 6nce there, they saw 3oy 3icol by a table tal8ing with accused-appellant. &hey shouted 9Boy Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of arrest ka. 1Surrender yourself 3oy 3icol you have a warrant of arrest.29 (pon hearing this, 3oy 3icol engaged them in a shootout and was fatally shot. !ccused-appellant was seen holding a shotgun through a window. ,e dropped his shotgun when a police officer pointed his firearm at him. &he team entered the nipa hut and apprehended accused-appellant. &hey saw a plastic bag of suspected shabu, a digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines lying on the table. <61 *alanoga, >r. put the mar8ings 9*:)*,9 the initials of accused-appellant, on the bag containing the seized drug. !ccused-appellant was subseDuently arrested. &he substance seized from the hideout was sent to the <hilippine "ational <olice crime laboratory for eBamination and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. ,e was thus separately indicted for violation of ! #1$% and for illegal possession of firearm. !ccording to the defense, accused-appellant was at 3oy 3icolLs house having been as8ed to do a welding =ob for 3oy 3icolLs motorcycle. While accused-appellant was there, persons who identified themselves as police officers approached the place, prompting accused-appellant to scamper away. ,e lied face down when gunshots rang. &he buy-bust team then helped him get up. ,e saw the police officers searching the premises and finding shabu and firearms, which were on top of a table or drawer.2 When he as8ed the reason for his apprehension, he was told that it was because he was a companion of 3oy 3icol. ,e denied under oath that the gun and drugs seized were found in his possession and testified that he was only invited by 3oy 3icol to get the motorcycle from his house.4 &he &* acDuitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs. &he dispositive portion of the &* )ecision reads; W,@ @?6 @, the *ourt based on insufficiency of evidence hereby !*R(7&S accused *! C6S )@C! * (H G :7*&6 7"6 in *riminal *ase "o. $%1. for violation of <.). 1/$$ as amended by ! /2#5.

7n *riminal *ase "o. $%1/ for <ossession of )angerous )rug under Section 11, 2nd paragraph of epublic !ct #1$%, the *ourt finds said accused *! C6S )@C! * (H G :7*&6 7"6, +(7C&G beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to Cife 7mprisonment and to <ay a ?ine of ?6( ,(") @) &,6(S!") <@S6S 1<5--,---.--2. S6 6 )@ @).5 6n )ecember ., 2--%, accused-appellant filed a "otice of !ppeal of the &* )ecision. 7n his appeal to the *!, accused-appellant claimed that; 112 the version of the prosecution should not have been given full credenceE 122 the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of possession of an illegal drugE 142 his arrest was patently illegalE and 152 the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the illegal drug allegedly in his possession. &he *! sustained accused-appellantLs conviction.% 7t pointed out that accused-appellant was positively identified by prosecution witnesses, rendering his uncorroborated denial and allegation of frame-up wea8. !s to accused-appellantLs alleged illegal arrest, the *! held that he is deemed to have waived his ob=ection when he entered his plea, applied for bail, and actively participated in the trial without Duestioning such arrest. 6n the supposedly bro8en chain of custody of the illegal drug, the appellate court held that accused-appellantLs claim is unpersuasive absent any evidence showing that the plastic sachet of shabu had been tampered or meddled with. 6n )ecember 2-, 2--., accused-appellant filed his "otice of !ppeal of the *! )ecision. 6n >une 2%, 2--/, this *ourt reDuired the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. &he parties later signified their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already with the *ourt. !ccused-appellant presents the following issues before us; 7 &,@ *6( & ! R(6 + !:@CG @ @) 7" +7:7"+ ?(CC * @)@"*@ &6 &,@ :@ S76" 6? &,@ < 6S@*(&76" 77 &,@ *6( & ! R(6 + !:@CG @ @) 7" ?7")7"+ &,@ !**(S@)!<<@CC!"& +(7C&G 6? :76C!&76" 6? S@*&76" 11, ! &7*C@ 77, ! #1$% )@S<7&@ &,@ ?!7C( @ 6? &,@ < 6S@*(&76" &6 < 6:@ &,@ *6007SS76" 6? &,@ 6??@"S@ *,! +@) 3@G6") @!S6"!3C@ )6(3& 777

&,@ *6( & ! R(6 + !:@CG @ @) 7" *6":7*&7"+ &,@ !**(S@)!<<@CC!"& 6? &,@ 6??@"S@ *,! +@) )@S<7&@ &,@ <!&@"& 7CC@+!C7&G 6? ,7S ! @S& 7: &,@ & 7!C *6( & + !:@CG @ @) 7" *6":7*&7"+ &,@ !**(S@)!<<@CC!"& 6? :76C!&76" 6? S@*&76" 11, ! &7*C@ 77, ! #1$% )@S<7&@ &,@ ?!7C( @ 6? &,@ < 6S@*(&76" &6 @S&!3C7S, &,@ *,!7" 6? *(S&6)G 6? &,@ 7CC@+!C ) (+ !CC@+@)CG ?6(") 7" ,7S <6SS@SS76" !ccused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of the offense of possession of dangerous drug was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since both actual and constructive possessions were not proved. ,e asserts that the shabu was not found in his actual possession, for which reason the prosecution was reDuired to establish that he had constructive possession over the shabu. ,e maintains that as he had no control and dominion over the drug or over the place where it was found, the prosecution li8ewise failed to prove constructive possession. T5) $o6r1K+ R6li2. &he appeal has merit. &he elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are; 112 the accused is in possession of an item or ob=ect which is identified to be a prohibited drugE 122 such possession is not authorized by lawE and 142 the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.$ 6n the third element, we have held that the possession must be with 8nowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi eBisted with the possession or control of said articles.. *onsidering that as to this 8nowledge, a personLs mental state of awareness of a fact is involved, we have ruled that; Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is necessary. 'nimus possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis by ta8ing into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. 7ts eBistence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular case./ &he prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant show that; he was inside the nipa hut at the time the buy-bust operation was ta8ing placeE he was tal8ing to 3oy 3icol inside the nipa hutE he was seen holding a shotgunE when <61 *alanoga, >r. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant, the latter dropped his shotgunE and when apprehended, he was in a room which had the seized shabu, digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines. !ccusedappellant later admitted that he 8new what the content of the seized plastic bag was.# +iven the circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed to establish possession of the shabu, whether in its actual or constructive sense, on the part of accused-appellant.

&he two buy-bust team members corroborated each otherLs testimonies on how they saw 3oy 3icol tal8ing to accused-appellant by a table inside the nipa hut. &hat table, they testified, was the same table where they saw the shabu once inside the nipa hut. &his fact was used by the prosecution to show that accused-appellant eBercised dominion and control over the shabu on the table. We, however, find this too broad an application of the concept of constructive possession. 7n People v. )orres,1- we held there was constructive possession of prohibited drugs even when the accused was not home when the prohibited drugs were found in the masterLs bedroom of his house. 7n People v. )ira,11 we sustained the conviction of the accused husband and wife for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. &heir residence was searched and their bed was found to be concealing illegal drugs underneath. We held that the wife cannot feign ignorance of the drugsL eBistence as she had full access to the room, including the space under the bed. 7n 'buan v. People,12 we affirmed the finding that the accused was in constructive possession of prohibited drugs which had been found in the drawer located in her bedroom. 7n all these cases, the accused was held to be in constructive possession of illegal drugs since they were shown to en=oy dominion and control over the premises where these drugs were found. 7n the instant case, however, there is no Duestion that accused-appellant was not the owner of the nipa hut that was sub=ect of the buy-bust operation. ,e did not have dominion or control over the nipa hut. "either was accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa hut, a fact not disputed by the prosecution. &he target of the operation was 3oy 3icol. !ccused-appellant was merely a guest of 3oy 3icol. 3ut in spite of the lac8 of evidence pinning accused-appellant to illegal possession of drugs, the trial court declared the following; 7t cannot be denied that when the accused was tal8ing with 3oy 3icol he 8new that the shabu was on the table with other items that were confiscated by the police operatives. &he court JsurmisesK that the accused and boy 3icol were members of a gang hiding in that nipa hut where they were caught red-handed with prohibited items and dangerous JdrugsK.14 &he trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecutionLs evidence, that accused-appellant was part of a gang dealing in illegal activities. !part from his presence in 3oy 3icolLs nipa hut, the prosecution was not able to show his participation in any drug-dealing. ,e was not even in possession of drugs in his person. ,e was merely found inside a room with shabu, not as the roomLs owner or occupant but as a guest. While he allegedly pointed a firearm at the buy-bust team, the prosecution curiously failed to produce the firearm that accused-appellant supposedly used. &he prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements of the crime absent a showing of either actual or constructive possession by the accused-appellant.

Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in 3oy 3icolLs nipa hut, his subseDuent arrest was also invalid. ule 114 of the ules on *riminal <rocedure on warrantless arrest provides; Sec. %. 'rrest without warrant, when lawful.--! peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person; a2 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offenseE b2 When an offense has =ust been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal 8nowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed itE and c2 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final =udgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. &he warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under Sec. %1a2, arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. ?or this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two reDuisites must concur; 112 the person to be arrested must eBecute an overt act indicating that he has =ust committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crimeE and 122 such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.15 !ccused-appellantLs act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust team would have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante delictoE however, the prosecution was not able to adeDuately prove that accused-appellant was committing an offense. !lthough accused-appellant merely denied possessing the firearm, the prosecutionLs charge was wea8 absent the presentation of the alleged firearm. ,e was eventually acDuitted by the trial court because of this gaffe. ,is arrest, independent of the buy-bust operation targeting 3oy 3icol, was therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any offense. 7n sum, we find that there is insufficient evidence to show accused-appellantLs guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ,aving ruled on the lac8 of material or constructive possession by accusedappellant of the seized shabu and his succeeding illegal arrest, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the other issue raised. <HEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. &he *! )ecision dated "ovember 2#, 2--. in *!+. . * -,.*. "o. -22/$ is RE>ERSED and SET ASIDE. !ccused-appellant *arlos )ela *ruz is A$BAITTED of violation of Sec. 11122 of ! #1$% in *riminal *ase "o. $%1/ of the &*, 3ranch .. in San 0ateo, izal. SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO @. >ELAS$O, @R. !ssociate >ustice Foo12o1)+

1

ollo, p. 4. 7d. at %. *! rollo, p. 1.. 7d. at 2$. <enned by >udge ?rancisco *. odriguez, >r.

ollo, p. 1/. &he )ecision was penned by !ssociate >ustice SiBto *. 0arella, >r. and concurred in by !ssociate >ustices 0ario C. +uariZa 777 and >apar 3. )imaampao.
$

<eople v. "aDuita, +. . "o. 1/-%11, >uly 2/, 2--/.

<eople v. Cagata, +. . "o. 14%424, >une 2%, 2--4, 5-5 S* ! $.1, $.$E citing <eople v. &ee, +. . "os. 15-%5$-5., >anuary 2-, 2--4, 4#% S* ! 51#.
/

Cagata, supraE citing <eople v. 3urton, 44% <hil. 1--4, 1-25-1-2% 12---2. ollo, p. %-. +. . "o. 1.-/4., September 12, 2--$, %-1 S* ! %#1, $1--$11. +. . "o. 14#$1%, 0ay 2/, 2--5, 54- S* ! 145, 1%2-1%4. +. . "o. 1$/..4, 6ctober 2., 2--$, %-% S* ! .##, /1/-/1#. *! rollo, p. 2%. <eople v. Caguio, >r., +. . "o. 12/%/., 0arch 1$, 2--., %1/ S* ! 4#4, 522.

1-

11

12

14

15

DECEMBER
G.R. No. 173804 D)()74)r 10, 2008 ELPIDIO BONDAD, @R., " BARA$, appellant, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee. 7" ?7"@, as the failure to comply with the aforesaid reDuirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against appellant, his acDuittal is in order $ARPIO ORALES, J.'

@lpidio 3ondad, >r., y 3urac 1appellant2 was charged before the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of 0ari8ina *ity1 for violation of Section %, paragraph 2142, !rticle 77 of epublic !ct "o. #1$% 1 .!. "o. #1$%2 or the *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2, allegedly committed as follows;2 &hat on or about the 2#th day of >anuary 2--5, in the *ity of 0ari8ina, <hilippines and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and 8nowingly sell to poseur buyer -.-2 gram of 0ethamphetamine ,ydrochloride 1shabu2 contained in one 112 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, a dangerous drug, in violation of the abovecited law.4 1(nderscoring supplied2 ,e was li8ewise charged for violation of Section 11, par. 2142, !rticle 77 also of .!. "o. #1$%, allegedly committed as follows; &hat on or about the 2#th day of >anuary 2--5, in the *ity of 0ari8ina, <hilippines, and within the =urisdiction of this ,onorable *ourt, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession direct custody and control -.-5 gram of white crystalline substance contained in two 122 heat-sealed plastic sachets which gave positive result to the test for 0ethamphetamine ,ydrochloride 1shabu2, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.5 1(nderscoring supplied2 &he cases were lodged at 3ranch 2.2 of the &* of 0ari8ina. ?rom the evidence for the prosecution, particularly the testimony of its principal witness <62 @dwin )ano and its documentary evidence, the following version is culled; !t around .;-% p.m. of >anuary 2#, 2--5, while <62 ?erdinand 3rubio, <61 *hristopher !nos, and <61 oberto 0uega were at the Station !nti 7llegal )rug Special 6perations &as8 ?orce

1S!7)S6&?2, 6ffice of the 0ari8ina *ity <olice Station, <62 "elson !rribay arrived together with a confidential informant. &he confidential informant reported, among other things, about the rampant sale of shabu in a billiard hall along 3onifacio !venue, 3arang8a, 0ari8ina *ity and named a certain alias 9>un9 as the vendor. &he *hief of the S!7)S6&?, </Sr. 7nsp. amchrisen ,averia, >r., at once formed a buy-bust team composed of, among others, <62 amiel Soriano and <62 )ano who was designated as the poseur-buyer. <62 )ano was given a one hundred peso bill bearing Serial "o. R5/.#5% to be used as buy-bust money. 7t was agreed that <62 )anoAs removal of his cap would signal that the buy-bust was consummated. &he conduct of a buy-bust operation was recorded in the police blotter and was coordinated with the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency 1<)@!2 which gave it control number "6*--12#-52/. &he buy-bust team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to 4 *As billiard hall at the corner of 0. *ruz St. and 3onifacio !venue in 3arang8a, 0ari8ina *ity. 6n entering the hall, the confidential informant pointed to appellant who was then holding a cue stic8 beside the billiard table as the alias 9>un.9 &he confidential informant approached appellant and tal8ed to him. Within minutes, appellant approached <62 )ano and as8ed him if he wanted to buy shabu, to which <62 )ano answered 9piso lang.9 !ppellant at once too8 out a 9:ic8s9 container from his right front poc8et% which, when opened, yielded heat-sealed plastic sachets containing substances suspected to be shabu. ?rom the container, appellant drew out one sachet in eBchange for which <62 )ano gave the mar8ed one hundred peso bill. !t that instant, <62 )ano removed his cap. !s the bac8-up police officers were closing-in, <62 )ano grabbed appellantAs arm, identified himself, and apprised appellant of his constitutional rights. (pon <62 )anoAs order, appellant returned the buy-bust money, handed the 9:ic8s9 container, and gave his name as @lpidio 3urac 3ondad, >r. Still at the place of arrest, <62 )ano placed the mar8ings 9@33-@) 3(G3(S& -1/2#/-59 on the substance-filled sachet sold to him, and 9@33-@), <6S 1 and 2, -1/2#/-59 on the sachets that remained inside the 9:ic8s9 container. &he buy-bust team thereupon brought appellant and the seized items to the 0ari8ina *ity <olice Station where a memorandum dated >anuary 2#, 2--5$ was prepared by </Sr. 7nsp. *hief ,averia, >r., addressed to the *hief of the @astern <olice )istrict *rime Caboratory 6ffice, reDuesting for the conduct of laboratory eBamination on the seized items to determine the presence of dangerous drugs and their weight. <62 )ano also reDuested that appellant be sub=ected to a drug test.. &he following day or on >anuary 4-, 2--5, at 4;-- <.0., upon receipt of three sachets, a laboratory eBamination was conducted thereon by <olice Senior 7nspector !nnalee . ?orro, ?orensic *hemical 6fficer of the @astern <olice )istrict *rime Caboratory 6ffice, who, in

<hysical Science eport "o. )---#5--5@/, recorded, among other things, the specimen submitted, her findings and conclusion as follows; S<@*70@" S(307&&@); &hree 142 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with mar8ings mar8ed as ! through * respectively, each containing white crystalline substance with following recorded net weights and mar8ings; ! U -.-2 gram 9@33-@) 3(G3(S& -1/2#/-59 3 U -.-2 gram 9@33-@) <6SS 1 -1/2#/-59 * U -.-2 gram 9@33-@) <6SS 2 -1/2#/-59 B-B-B B-B-B B-B-B ? 7 " ) 7 " + S; B B B Rualitative eBamination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydroch oride, a dangerous drug. B-B-B B-B-B B-B-B * 6 " * C ( S 7 6 "; Specimens ! through * contain Methamphetamine Hydroch oride, a dangerous drug. # 17talics and emphasis in the original2 )enying the charges against him, appellant, a former police officer, claimed that he was framed up and gave the following version; 6n >anuary 2#, 2--5, while he was playing inside 4 *As billiard hall, <62 3rubio, whom he 8new was a policeman, entered the billiard hall. !fter greeting <62 3rubio in Bicolano, he continued playing but <62 3rubio suddenly handcuffed him and as8ed him 9Sumama ka muna.9 !nother person who was at his bac8 pushed him out of the billiard hall in the course of which he felt <62 3rubio reaching his 1appellantAs2 right front poc8et,1- drawing him to restrain the hand of <62 3rubio, telling him 9pera ko yanX9 !ware that his son was inside the billiard hall, appellant summoned and handed him his wallet containing <2,---. <62 3rubio, however, too8 the wallet from his son, telling him 9>uwag ka makialam dito.9 ,e was then made to board a car and ta8en to the 6ffice of the S!7)S6&? at the police station.

!ppellantAs defense was corroborated by his son *hristian >effrey *. 3ondad, and oberto (. 0ata who was a 9spotter9 1referee2 at the billiard hall at the time appellant was arrested. ?inding for the prosecution, the trial court convicted appellant in both charges, disposing as follows; W,@ @?6 @, foregoing premises considered, the *ourt finds the accused @C<7)76 36")!), > . y 3( !* guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of :iolation of Sec. 11 par. 2142, !rt. 77 of .!. #1$% and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of &W@C:@ 1122 G@! S and 6"@ 112 )!G and to pay the fine of &, @@ ,(") @) &,6(S!") <@S6S 1<h<4--,---.--2 as provided for in Sec. 11 par. 2142, !rt. 77 of ! #1$%. &he accused is li8ewise found guilty of the crime of :iolation of Sec. % !rt. 77 of ! #1$% and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of C7?@ 70< 7S6"0@"& and fine of ?7:@ ,(") @) &,6(S!") <@S6S 1<h<%--,--.--2 pursuant to Sec. %, !rt. 77 of ! #1$% the methamphetamine hydrochloride 1shabu2 is ordered confiscated in favor of the government for proper destruction by the proper agency. S6 6 )@ @).11 1(nderscoring supplied2 3y )ecision of ?ebruary /, 2--$,12 the *ourt of !ppeals affirmed the trial courtAs decision with modification, disposing as follows; W,@ @?6 @, in the light of the foregoing, the appeal is )7S07SS@) for lac8 of merit. &he assailed decision is !??7 0@) with the 06)7?7*!&76" that the accusedappellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve 1122 years and one 112 day, as minimum, to thirteen 1142 years, as maBimum and to pay a fine of &hree ,undred &housand <esos 1<4--,---.--2. S6 6 )@ @).14 1(nderscoring supplied2 Specifically with respect to the charge of possession of shabu, the appellate court held; &he evidence for the prosecution fully proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements necessary to successfully prosecute a case for illegal possession of a prohibited drug, namely, 1a2 the accused is in possession of an item or an ob=ect identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, 1b2 such possession is not authorized by law and 1c2 the accused freely and consciously possessed said drug. (nder Section 11, <ar. 2 J4K of .!. #1$%, the mere act of possessing any dangerous drug consummates the crime. &here is no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt since the accused-appellant 8nowingly possessed plastic sachets with white crystalline granules, without legal authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation. &he white crystalline granules found in his possession, upon laboratory eBamination, were positively identified as methamphetamine

hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.15 17talics in the original, underscoring supplied2 ,ence, the present <etition for eview on *ertiorari, appellant faulting the appellate court; 7. . . . 7" *6":7*&7"+ J,70K 6? &,@ * 70@JSK *,! +@) 6" &,@ 3!S7S 6? &,@ C6"@ &@S&706"G 6? &,@ <6S@( 3(G@ !S !+!7"S& &,@ *6 636 !&@) S&!&@0@"&S 6? &,@ !**(S@) !") ,7S W7&"@SS@SE 77. . . . 7" !)07&&7"+ &,@ @:7)@"*@ 6? &,@ < 6S@*(&76" )@S<7&@ $LEAR >IOLATION OF SE$TION 21 D1F OF R.A. 91E?; 777. . . . 7" *60<C@&@CG )7S @+! )7"+ &,@ *C@! @:7)@"*@ 6" &,@ @N7S&@"*@ 6? 7 @+(C! 7&G 7" &,@ <@ ?6 0!"*@ 6? 6??7*7!C ?("*&76"S 3G <6C7*@ 6??7*@ /S 7" &,@ *6")(*& 6? &,@ 3(G 3(S& 6<@ !&76"S.1% 1@mphasis and underscoring supplied2 !s the resolution of the second assignment of error is determinative of whether there is still necessity of segueing to the first and third assignments of error, it shall early on be passed upon. !ppellant claims that there was failure to follow the reDuirements of Sec. 21 of .!. "o. #1$%, hence, it compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized items. Sec. 21 of .!. "o #1$% provides; S)(1io2 21. "ustody and !isposition of "onfiscated, Sei9ed, and-or Surrendered !angerous !rugs, Plant Sources of !angerous !rugs, "ontrolled Precursors and .ssential "hemicals, 2nstruments-Paraphernalia and-or (aboratory .0uipment. ' &he <)@! shall ta8e charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory eDuipment so confiscated, seized and or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner; 112 &he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs +5-ll, i77)/i-1)l! -*1)r +)i96r) -2/ (o2*i+(-1io2, p5!+i(-ll! i20)21or! -2/ p5o1o.r-p5 15) +-7) in the presence of the accused or the persons/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official 35o +5-ll 4) r)=6ir)/ 1o +i.2 15) (opi)+ o* 15) i20)21or! -2/ 4) .i0)2 - (op! 15)r)o*E B B B 1@mphasis and underscoring supplied2 !ppellant claims that no physical inventory and photographing of the drugs too8 place. ! reading of the testimony of the poseur-buyer, <62 )ano indeed confirms appellantAs claim, viz; !tty. <uentebella;

When you brought him to the police, it was there that the items ta8en from him were inventoried, is it notM Witness; We did not ma8e inventory because we simply brought the evidence confiscated. BBBB !tty. <uentebella; Gou also did not ta8e photographs of the items ta8en from the accusedM Witness; Ges, sir. !tty. <uentebella; !nd you 8now for a fact that under the new drugs law, this is a reDuirement for the apprehending team to do, is it notM <ros. +apuzan; *ounsel is as8ing for a conclusion of law. 7 will ob=ect. *ourt; Witness may answer the Duestion. Witness; Ges, sir. BBBB !tty. <uentebella; So it is very clear now 0r. Witness that at the time you apprehended the accused, !o6 /i/ 2o1 7-8) -2 i20)21or! i2 15) pr)+)2() o* 15) -((6+)/ 2or !o6 /i/ 2o1 GsicH 7-8) - p5o1o.r-p5 of the items seized i2 15) pr)+)2() o* the accused, an elective official, a representative from the )epartment of >ustice, or the media, thatAs very clearM Witness;

Ges, sir. !tty. <uentebella; Since you did not ma8e any inventory, it follows that you did not reDuire them to sign your inventory as reDuired by lawM Witness; Ges, sir.1$ 1@mphasis and underscoring supplied2 *learly then, the apprehending police officers failed to comply with the above-Duoted provision of Section 21 of .!. "o. #1$%. People v. Pringas holds, however; "on-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is :6+1i*i-4l) .ro62/ therefor, and -+ lo2. -+ 15) i21).ri1! -2/ 15) )0i/)21i-r! 0-l6) o* 15) (o2*i+(-1)/J+)i9)/ i1)7+, -r) prop)rl! pr)+)r0)/ 4! 15) -ppr)5)2/i2. o**i()rJ1)-7. 7ts non-compliance will not render an accusedLs arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the pr)+)r0-1io2 o* 15) i21).ri1! -2/ 15) )0i/)21i-r! 0-l6) o* 15) +)i9)/ i1)7+, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.1. 1*itation omitted, emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied2 &he *ourtAs pronouncement in Pringas is based on the provision of Section 211a2 of the 7mplementing ules and egulations1/ of .!. "o. #1$%, viz; B B B <rovided, further, that non-compliance with these reDuirements under :6+1i*i-4l) .ro62/+, as long as the i21).ri1! -2/ )0i/)21i-r! 0-l6) o* 15) +)i9)/ i1)7+ -r) prop)rl! pr)+)r0)/ by the apprehending officer/team, +5-ll 2o1 r)2/)r 0oi/ -2/ i20-li/ +6(5 +)i96r)+ o* -2/ (6+1o/! o0)r +-i/ i1)7+E 1@mphasis and underscoring supplied2 7n the present case, by <62 )anoAs claim, he immediately mar8ed the seized items which were brought to the *rime Caboratory for eBamination. 3y his admission, however, he did not conduct an inventory of the items seized. Worse, no photograph of the items was ta8en. &here was thus failure to faithfully follow the reDuirements of the law. <arenthetically, unli8e in Pringas, the defense in the present case Duestioned early on, during the cross eBamination of <62 )ano, the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the inventory and photographing reDuirements of Section 21 of .!. "o. #1$%1#, despite <62 )anoAs awareness of such reDuirements. !nd the defense raised it again during the offer of evidence by the prosecution, thus; !tty. <uentebella;

BBBB @Bhibits 939 which is the brown envelope, 93-19, 93-29 and 93-49 are ob=ected to for being product of irregular functions of police and therefore fruit of poisonous thin8ing JsicK and they are not admissible and 15)! 3)r) 2o1 p5o1o.r-p5)/ i2 15) pr)+)2() o* 15) -((6+)/ -+ pro0i/)/ *or 4! S)(. 21, p-r.1, R.A. 91E?E2- 1emphasis supplied2 7" ?7"@, as the failure to comply with the aforesaid reDuirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against appellant,21 his acDuittal is in order. &his leaves it unnecessary to still dwell on the first and third assignments of error. <HEREFORE, the <etition is GRANTED. &he assailed decision is RE>ERSED -2/ SET ASIDE and appellant, @lpidio 3ondad >r., y 3urac, is A$BAITED of the crimes charged. Cet a copy of this )ecision be furnished the )irector of the 3ureau of *orrections, 0untinlupa *ity who is directed to cause the immediate release of appellant unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this *ourt of action ta8en within ten 11-2 days from notice hereof. SO ORDERED. $ON$HITA $ARPIO ORALES !ssociate >ustice Foo12o1)+
1

ollo, pp. .4-.5. ecords, p. 2. ecords, p. 2 - 7nformation dated ?ebruary 2, 2--5. 7d. at p. $. "o specification if it was a poc8et of the shirt or of the pants. 7d. at p. 1% &S", >une 1%, 2--5, p. 51 ecords, p. 1. @Bhibit 9*9, folder of eBhibits, p. 2

1-

&here is also no specification if it was a poc8et of the shirt or the pants *! rollo, p. 125.

11

12

<enned by >ustice !melita +. &olentino with the concurrence of >ustices <ortia !liZo ,ormachuelos and :icente S.@. :eloso, *! rollo, pp. 242-2%5.
14

ollo, p. $/. 7d. at p. $$ 1citations omitted2.. 7d at pp. 1/-1#. &S", >une 1%, 2--5, pp. /--/.. +. . "o. 1.%#2/. !ugust 41, 2--., %41 S* ! /2/, /52-/54 &oo8 effect on "ovember 2., 2--2. :ide &S", >une 1%, 2--5, pp. /1-/%. &S", !ugust 1-, 2--5, pp. $-..

15

1%

1$

1.

1/

1#

2-

21

<eople v. CaBa, 515 <hil. 1%$, 1.- 12--12 citing <eople v. igodon, 24/ S* ! 2. 11##52.

G.R. No. 181492 D)()74)r 1E, 2008 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SA AEL OB IRANIS ! ORETA, appellant. !ll these aforementioned flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from appellant, ta8en together with the failure of the 8ey persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the eBhibit before it was offered in evidence in court, militates against the prosecutionLs cause because it not only casts doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tends to discredit, if not totally negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operation TINGA, J.'

&his is an appeal filed by Samuel 6bmiranis y 6reta 1appellant2 who was charged with violation of Section % in relation to Section 2$ of epublic !ct 1 .!.2 "o. #1$%.1 ,e was allegedly caught in a buy-bust operation by elements of the 0anila Western <olice )istrict 10W<)2 while offering to sell methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug locally 8nown as shabu. &he criminal information filed with the egional &rial *ourt 1 &*2 of 0anila, 3ranch 22 accused him as follows; &hat on or about 0ay 1/, 2--5, in the *ity of 0anila, <hilippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and 8nowingly attempt to sell or offer for sale one 112 transparent plastic sachet containing &W6 <67"& @7+,& H@ 6 H@ 6 12./--2 grams of white crystalline substance 8nown as 9S>'B&9 containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. *ontrary to law.4 !t the pre-trial, both the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the Dualification of ?orensic *hemist @lisa eyes and, thus, both parties dispensed with her testimony. &he prosecution further admitted that the forensic chemist who analyzed the seized the confiscated substancewhich yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride content-did not have personal 8nowledge of the ultimate source of the drug.5 !ppellant was brought to trial after having entered a negative plea.% &he prosecution then proceeded to prove the charge against him through the lone testimony of police officer >erry :elasco 1:elasco2. :elasco was the alleged leader of the raiding team that apprehended appellant on 1/ 0ay 2--5 at the corner of +.&uazon and >hocson Streets in Sampaloc, 0anila.$ &he narrative woven by :elasco established the following facts; 6n 1. 0ay 2--5, <olice Superintendent 0arcelino <edrozo 1<edrozo2 of the 0W<) organized a buy-bust team on the information of a confidential informant that the latter was able to place an order for half a 9bulto9 of shabu with appellant. :elasco was designated as the team leader and the poseur-buyer, with <olice 6fficers Wilfredo *inco, @dgardo <alabay, oberto 3enitez and one.confidential informant as members./ <edrozo gave the team a mar8ed %---peso bill to be used as buy-bust money which was placed on top of a dec8 of boodle money. &he team informed the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency 1<)@!2 of the impending operation,# entered the same in the blotter1and proceeded to 3ambang in +.&uazon Street =ust before 12 a.m. of 1/ 0ay 2--5-the appointed time and date that the confidential informant and appellant had agreed to meet. &he informant =oined :elasco in his car, and they awaited the arrival of appellant at the corner of +.&uazon and >hocson Streets.11 !t around 12;4- a.m., appellant on board a car arrived at the scene and seeing the informant he approached the latter. &he informant introduced :elasco to appellant and said that :elasco would li8e to buy one-half 9bulto9 of shabu. :elasco negotiated with appellant to lower the price but the latter refused. :elasco then insisted that he must first see the merchandise. !ppellant went bac8 to his car, too8 the item and brought it to :elasco. :elasco readily recognized the item as a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. When appellant as8ed for payment, he seemed to have recognized :elascoLs co-officer because he

uttered the words, 9May pulis yata.9 !t that point, he was arrested =ust as he was trying to get bac8 to his car.12 !ccording to :elasco, he was the one who effected the arrest but it was *inco who seized the plastic sachet from appellant. ,e further stated that immediately after the arrest, he and his team brought the seized item to the police headDuarters and there, in his presence, *inco mar8ed the same with the initials 9S66.9 !t the trial, he identified the plastic sachet as that seized from appellant as well as the mar8ing made by *inco on it. ?urthermore, he admitted on crosseBamination that there was no evidence custodian designated and that he could not remember if the seized item had been inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accusedE that *inco put the item in his poc8et after the same was recovered and did not mar8 it on the spot and that the mar8ings made on the buy-bust money had not been entered in the blotter.14 &he chemistry report issued at the instance of <edrozo and signed by ?orensic *hemical 6fficer 0aritess 0ariano of the <"< *rime Caboratory revealed that the specimen supposedly seized from appellant yielded positive of methylamphetamine hydrochloride content.15 &a8ing the stand, appellant boldly asserted that he was merely framed up by the buy-bust team, and strongly denied having transacted the alleged sale of shabu with :elasco and the confidential informant. ,e claimed that he was ta8en by :elasco and his team not on 1/ 0ay 2--5 but rather on 1. 0ay 2--5 at .;-- p.m. along Santa &eresita Street, Sampaloc, 0anilaE1% that he was there to see his girlfriend who was residing in that areaE that when he was arrested by two men in civilian clothes, he was not committing any crimeE that he as8ed them why they were arresting him but neither of them gave an answer and instead one of them grabbed him by his shoulder and ushered him inside a police carE that once inside the car, one of the men pulled out a gun with which he hit his nec8, 8ic8ed him and uttered, 9Makulit ka ha, yukoF9E that he as8ed them why they were doing that to him when in fact he merely told them to par8 their car properly on the streetE that they cuffed his hands at the bac8 and the driver, :elasco, as8ed if he could give them <2--,---.--E that he answered he did not have that much moneyE that they drove the car around and told him that if he could not give them the money then he must =ust find for them someone who sells drugs in large-scale 19Magturo ka ng nagbebenta ng droga, iyong malakihan haF92E that because he said he did not 8now anyone who was into selling drugs, he was ta8en to the (.". !venue police headDuartersE that he was not detained at the headDuarters but rather, he was brought to the second floor where the two arresting officers demanded <%-,---.-- from himE that the demand was then reduced to <4-,---.-- in eBchange for the mitigation of his case.1$ 6livia 7smael, another defense witness who introduced herself as a friend of appellantLs girlfriend and who admitted having witnessed appellantLs arrest, corroborated the material points of appellantLs testimony.1. 7n its 24 ?ebruary 2--$ )ecision, the &* found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. ,e was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a <%--,---.-- fine without subsidiary imprisonment as well as the costs.1/ !ppellant interposed an appeal with the *ourt of !ppeals in which he reiterated that the prosecution was unable to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in view of the failure to establish the chain of custody of the illegal drugs and that it was li8ewise unable to establish the

consummation of the alleged sale of drugs.1# ?or its part, the <eople, through the 6ffice of the Solicitor +eneral 16S+2, posited that the fact that all the essential elements of a consummated sale of dangerous drug had not been completely shown was immaterial because the charge involved a mere attempt or offer to sell which had been duly established by the prosecution.2- 7t also maintained that the chain of custody of the seized shabu had been duly established because the reDuirements in ta8ing custody of seized narcotics provided for in )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 1, series of 2--221 admit of liberal interpretation.22 7n its 5 September 2--. )ecision,24 the *ourt of !ppeals affirmed in toto the trial courtLs decision. !ppellantLs "otice of !ppeal25 was approved, and the records of the case were elevated to this *ourt. &his *ourtLs 25 0arch 2--/ esolution2% allowed the parties to file their supplemental briefs, but only appellant compliedE the 6S+ manifested instead that there was no need for its part to file a supplemental brief as the merits of the case had already been eBtensively discussed in its brief before the appellate court.2$ &he appeal has to be granted. 7n criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the reDuirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only reDuisite to a finding of guilt. 7n prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its eBistence is vital to sustain a =udgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.2. 7t is therefore of prime importance that in these cases, the identity of the dangerous drug be li8ewise established beyond reasonable doubt.2/ 7n other words, it must be established with unwavering eBactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. &he chain of custody reDuirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.2# 3oard egulation "o. 1, series of 2--2 defines chain of custody as 9the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory eDuipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safe8eeping to presentation in court for destruction.9 !s a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule reDuires that the admission of the eBhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in Duestion is what the proponent claims it to be.4- 7t would thus include testimony about every lin8 in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the same would admit how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnessL possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the neBt lin8 in the chain. &he same witnesses would then describe the precautions ta8en 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.41 7t is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.

&he prosecution evidence in the case at bar, however, does not suffice to afford such assurance. 6f all the people who came into direct contact with the sachet of shabu purportedly seized from appellant, only :elasco was able to observe the uniDueness thereof in court. *inco, who, according to :elasco, too8 initial custody of the plastic sachet at the time of arrest and who allegedly mar8ed the same with the initials 9S669 at the police station, was not even presented in court to directly observe the uniDueness of the specimen and, more importantly, to ac8nowledge the mar8ing as his own. &he same is true with respect to the laboratory personnel who could have but nevertheless failed to testify on the circumstances under which he received the specimen at the laboratory for analysis and testing, as well as on the conduct of the eBamination which was administered on the specimen and what he did with it at the time it was in his possession and custody. !side from that, it was not reasonably eBplained why these same witnesses were not able to testify in court. While indeed the prosecution and the defense had stipulated on the Dualification of the forensic chemist, dispensed with his testimony and admitted that said forensic chemist had no personal 8nowledge of the ultimate source of the drug submitted for eBamination, nevertheless, these stipulations and admission pertain only to a certain @lisa +. eyes and not to ?orensic *hemical 6fficer 0aritess 0ariano who, based on the chemistry report, was the one who eBamined the contents of the plastic sachet at the crime laboratory. 7n view of these loopholes in the evidence adduced against appellant, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution was unable to establish the identity of the dangerous drug and in effect failed to obliterate the hypothesis of appellantLs guiltlessness. 3e that as it may, although testimony about a perfect chain does not always have to be the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbro8en chain of custody indeed becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is a narcotic substance. ! uniDue characteristic of narcotic substances such as shabu is that they are not distinctive and are not readily identifiable as in fact they are sub=ect to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature.42 !nd because they cannot be readily and properly distinguished visually from other substances of the same physical and/or chemical nature, they are susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination,44 substitution and eBchange-45 whether the alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution and eBchange be inadvertent or otherwise not.4% 7t is by reason of this distinctive Duality that the condition of the eBhibit at the time of testing and trial is critical.4$ ,ence, in authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to ob=ects which are readily identifiable must be applied-a more eBacting 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 eBchanged with another or contaminated or tampered with.4. &he *ourt certainly cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the possibility of substitution, alteration or contamination-whether intentional or unintentional-of narcotic substances at any of the lin8s in the chain of custody thereof especially because practically such possibility is great where the item of real evidence is small and is similar in form to other substances to which people are familiar in their daily lives.4/ raham v. State4# in fact ac8nowledged this danger. 7n that case, a substance later shown to be heroin was eBcluded from the prosecution evidence because prior to eBamination, it was handled by two police officers who, however, did not testify in court on the

condition and whereabouts of the eBhibit at the time it was in their possession. &he court in that case pointed out that the white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or ba8ing powder. 7t thus declared that the state must be able to show by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the eBhibit at least between the time it came into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition.5easonable safeguards are provided for in our drugs laws to protect the identity and integrity of narcotic substances and dangerous drugs seized and/or recovered from drug offenders. Section 2151 of .!. "o. #1$% materially reDuires the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs to, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the )epartment of >ustice, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. &he same reDuirements are also found in Section 252 of its implementing rules54 as well as in Section 255 of the )angerous )rugs 3oard egulation "o. 1, series of 2--2.5% &hese guidelines, however, were not shown to have been complied with by the members of the buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that they had eBtended reasonable efforts to comply with the statutory reDuirements in handling the evidence. :elasco, the leader of the raiding team, himself admitted that as soon as appellant was arrested, *inco had ta8en custody of the plastic sachet of shabu, placed it in his poc8et and brought the same together with appellant to the police station. 7t was at the police station-and not at the place where the item was seized from appellant-where according to him 1:elasco2, *inco had placed the initials 9S669 on the specimen. :elasco never even mentioned that the identifying mar8 on the specimen was placed in appellantLs presenceE he could not even remember whether or not the specimen had been properly inventoried and photographed at least in appellantLs presence. @ven more telling is the fact that, as elicited from :elasco himself during his cross-eBamination, no evidence custodian had been designated by the raiding team to safeguard the identity and integrity of the evidence supposedly seized from appellant.5$ !ll these aforementioned flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from appellant, ta8en together with the failure of the 8ey persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the eBhibit before it was offered in evidence in court, militates against the prosecutionLs cause because it not only casts doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tends to discredit, if not totally negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operation. What we can fairly assume is that the *ourt of !ppeals had overloo8ed the significance of these glaring details in the records of the case as it placed blind reliance right away on the credibility of :elascoLs testimony and on the presumption of regularity and thereby it failed to properly account for the missing substantial lin8s in the chain of custody of the evidence. 7n the same vein the liberality, suggested by the 6S+ relative to post-seizure custody of narcotics under paragraph 1 Section 2 of 3oard egulation "o. 1, can hardly be given merit precisely because the proviso in that section of the regulation reDuires that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the

evidence be properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team in order that non-compliance with the post-seizure custody reDuirements be eBcused on =ustifiable grounds.5. 7t needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the conteBt of an eBisting rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. &he presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. 6therwise, where the official act in Duestion is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.5/ &here is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives to ma8e false charges was successfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People v. !ulay5# and People v. anenas%- in fact both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely =ust that-a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.%1 7t must be emphasized at this =uncture that what can reasonably be presumed based on the records of this case is that :elasco is aware of his duties and responsibilities as an agent of the government in its anti-narcotics campaign. ! member of the anti-narcotics division of the police since 1##.,%2 :elasco can be reasonably presumed to be adept in and mindful of the proper procedure in apprehending drug offenders, securing and ta8ing custody of the evidence obtained in police operations such as this one and preserving the integrity of the evidence by protecting the chain of custody thereof.%4 ,owever, for reasons as obvious as intimated above, even this presumption is unworthy of credit. !ll told, in view of the deviation by the buy-bust team from the mandated conduct of ta8ing post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug in this case, there is no way to presume that the members thereof had performed their duties regularly. @ven granting that we must blindly rely on the credibility of :elascoLs testimony, still, the prosecution evidence would fall short of satisfying the Duantum of evidence reDuired to arrive at a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the evidence chain failed to solidly connect appellant with the seized drug in a way that would establish that the specimen is one and the same as that seized in the first place and offered in court as evidence. &he *ourt cannot indulge in the presumption of regularity of official duty if only to obliterate the obvious infirmity of the evidence advanced to support appellantLs conviction. 7n Mallillin v. People,%5 we categorically declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer in court the testimony of 8ey witnesses for the basic purpose of establishing a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before the same was finally offered in court, materially conflict with every proposition as to the culpability of the accused. ?or the same plain but conseDuential reason, we will not hesitate to reverse the =udgment of conviction in the present appeal.

6ne final word. 7n no uncertain terms must it be stressed that basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution which must draw strength from its own evidence and not from the wea8ness of the defense. &he rule, in a constitutional system li8e ours, is invariable regardless of the reputation of the accused because the law presumes his innocence until the contrary is shown. 2n dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acDuittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.%% <HEREFORE, the assailed )ecision of the *ourt of !ppeals in *!-+. . * .-,.*. "o. -21%/ affirming the =udgment of conviction rendered by the egional &rial *ourt of 0anila, 3ranch 2, is RE>ERSED and SET ASIDE. !ppellant Samuel 6bmiranis y 6reta is A$BAITTED on reasonable doubt and is thus accordingly ordered released immediately from confinement, unless he is lawfully confined for another offense. &he )irector of the 3ureau of *orrections is directed to implement this )ecision and to report to this *ourt his action hereon within five 1%2 days from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED. DANTE O. TINGA !ssociate >ustice Foo12o1)+
1

&he *omprehensive )angerous )rugs !ct of 2--2. <resided by >udge !le=andro +. 3i=asa. 7nformation, records, p. 1. 7d. at 1.. 7d. at 1$. &S", / September 2--5, pp. %-/.

&he 1. 0ay 2--5 <re-operation eport/*oordination Sheet submitted to the <hilippine )rug @nforcement !gency indicates that the team had two confidential informants. ecords, p. 1-.
/

&S", / September 2--5, pp. $-#. 7d. at #-1-. 7d. at 15.

1-

11

7d. at 15-1%. 7d. at 1$-21. 7d. at 21-22, 41-4#. ecords, p. .. &S", 4- >anuary 2--$, pp. %-$. 7d. at .-14. &S", 14 ?ebruary 2--$, pp. 4-.. ecords, p. /-. *! rollo, pp. 4/, 51. 7d. at $.-.-. 7ssued by the )angerous )rugs 3oard and approved on 22 "ovember 2--2. *! rollo, p. $..

12

14

15

1%

1$

1.

1/

1#

2-

21

22

24

7n *!-+. . * .-,.*. "o. -21%/. &he )ecision, rendered by the 1/th )ivision of the *ourt of !ppeals, was penned by !ssociate >ustice >ose C. Sabio, >r. and was concurred in by !ssociate >ustices >ose *. eyes, >r. and 0yrna )imaranan :idalE id. at .#-#$.
25

7d. at ##-1--. ollo, pp. 24-25. 7d. at 2%-2$.

2%

2$

2.

<eople v. Simbahon, +. . "o. 15/$$/, # !pril 2--4, 5-1 S* ! #5, 1--E <eople v. CaBa, +. . "o. 14/%-1, 2- >uly 2--1, 4$1 S* ! $22, $45.
2/

0allillin v. <eople, +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4- !pril 2--/E <eople v. Oimura, +. . "o. 14-/-%, 2. !pril 2--5, 52/ S* ! %1, .-E <eople v. Simbahon, +. . "o. 1424.1, # !pril 2--4, 5-1 S* ! #5, 1--.
2#

!n !nalytical !pproach to @vidence, onald >. !llen, ichard 3. Ouhns, by Cittle 3rown P *o., (.S.!, 1#/#, p. 1.5.
4-

0allillin v. <eople, +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4- !pril 2--/ citing (nited States v. ,oward!rias, $.# ?.2d 4$4, 4$$ and (nited States v. icco, %2 ?.4d %/.

41

@vidence of Caw, oger *. <ar8, )avid <. Ceonard, Steven ,. +oldberg, p. %-. 11##/2.
42

0allillin v. <eople, +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4- !pril 2--/. 2#! !m >ur. 2d @vidence Q#5$. See +raham v. State, 2%% ".@.2d, $%2. 0allillin v. <eople, +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4- !pril 2--/. @vidence Caw, oger *. <ar8, )avid <. Ceonard, Steven ,. +oldberg, p. %-. 11##/2. 0allillin v. <eople, +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4- !pril 2--/.

44

45

4%

4$

4.

4/

See +raham v. State, 2%% ".@.2d, $%2 and 0allillin v. <eople, +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4!pril 2--/.
4#

2%% ".@.2d, $%2. +raham v. State, 2%% ".@2d $%2, $%%.

5-

51

S@*. 21. *ustody and )isposition of *onfiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered )angerous )rugs, <lant Sources of )angerous )rugs, *ontrolled <recursors and @ssential *hemicals, 7nstruments, <araphernalia and/or Caboratory @Duipment.-&he <)@! shall ta8e 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 eDuipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner. 112 &he 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 )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereofE 122 Within twenty-four 1252 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 eDuipment, the same shall be submitted to the <)@! ?orensic Caboratory for a Dualitative and Duantitative eBaminationE 142 ! certification of the forensic laboratory eBamination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory eBaminer, shall be issued within

twenty-four 1252 hours after the receipt of the sub=ect item/s; <rovided, &hat when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory eBamination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the Duantities of dangerous drugs still to be eBamined by the forensic laboratory; <rovided, however, &hat a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory eBamination on the same within the neBt twenty-four 1252 hoursE 152 !fter the filing of the criminal case, the *ourt shall, within seventy-two 1.22 hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory eDuipment, and through the <)@! shall within twenty-four 1252 hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 )6>, civil society groups and any elected public official. &he 3oard shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offenderE <rovided, &hat those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the 3oard, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes; <rovided, further, &hat a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retainedE 1%2 &he 3oard shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the sub=ect item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the <)@!, shall be submitted to the court having =urisdiction over the case. 7n all instances, the representative sample/s shall be 8ept to a minimum Duantity as determined by the 3oardE 1$2 &he alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. 7n case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two 1.22 hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in Duestion, the Secretary of >ustice shall appoint a member of the public attorneyLs office to represent the formerE 1.2 !fter the promulgation and =udgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the 3oard of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall reDuest the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the <)@! for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four 1252 hours from receipt of the sameE and

1/2 &ransitory <rovision; a2 Within twenty-four 1252 hours from the effectivity of this !ct, dangerous drugs defined herein which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the *ourt, )6>, )epartment of ,ealth 1)6,2 and the accused and/or his/her counsel, and, b2 <ending the organization of the <)@!, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction of seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by the )6,.
52

S@*. 21. B B B 1a2 &he apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the )epartment of >ustice 1)6>2, and any elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereofE provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizuresE provided further, that non-compliance with these reDuirements under =ustifiable 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.
54

!pproved on 4- !ugust 2--2 and became effective upon its publication in three 142 newspapers of general circulation and registration with the 6ffice of the "ational !dministrative egister.
55

Section 2. Seizure or confiscation of drugs or controlled chemicals or laboratory eDuipment. a. &he apprehending team having initial custody and control of dangerous drugs or control chemical or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory eDuipment shall immediately, after the seizure and confiscation, physical inventory and photograph the same in the presence of; 1i2 the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized or his/her representative or counselE 1ii2 a representative from the mediaE 1iii2 a representative from the department of >usticeE and 1iv2 any elected public officialE who shall be reDuired to sign copies of the inventory report covering the drug/eDuipment and who shall be given a copy thereof. <rovided that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search was is servedE or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of a seizure without warrantE provided further that non-compliance with these reDuirement under =ustifiable

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 seizure of and custody over said items. b. &he drugs or controlled chemicals or laboratory eDuipment shall be properly mar8ed for identification, weighed when possible or counted, sealed, pac8ed and labeled by the apprehending officer/team BBB.
5%

!dopted and approved on 22 "ovember 2--2 and became effective fifteen 11%2 days after its publication in two 122 newspapers of general circulation and registration with the 6ffice of the "ational !dministrative egister.
5$

&S", / September 2--5, pp. 4--42. See note 55.

5.

5/

>ones on @vidence, p. #5, citing !r8ansas . *om. :. *hicago .C. P <. . *o., 2.5 (.S. %#., .1 C @d 1221, 1225.
5#

+. . "o. 1%-$25, 25 ?ebruary 2--5, 524 S* ! $%2, $$-. +. . "o. 1515--, $ September 2--1, 4$5 S* ! %/2, %#%.

%-

%1

0allillin v. <eople, +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4- !pril 2--/E <eople v. !mbrosio, +. . "o. 14%4./, 15 !pril 2--5, 52. S* ! 412, 41/ citing <eople v. &an, 4/2 S* ! 51# 12--22.
%2

&S", / September 2--5, p. 4#. See <eople v. <edronan, +. . "o. 15/$$/, 1. >une 2--4, 5-5 S* ! 1/4. +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4- !pril 2--/. 0allillin v. <eople, +. . "o. 1.2#%4, 4- !pril 2--/.

%4

%5

%%