THIS RESOLVES the Demurrer to Evidence dated June 23, 2016, filed

by the accused, through counsel, on the ground that the prosecution's

evidence is weak and insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.

Records show that in two (2) separate Informations, (Crim. Case No. 16-
03-8879) accused Russel Dave Arnigo Lat, on one hand, and (Crim.
Case No. 16-03-8880) accused Paul John Lat Macatangay, on the other
hand, were separately charged for violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 arising from the alleged illegal sale of two heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride
otherwise known as “shabu”, both weighing 0.06 grams.

When arraigned, both accused, assisted by Atty. Mae Belle Dimaano,

entered their plea of not guilty. Thereafter and believing that the
evidence of guilt against them, a non bailable offense, is not strong, the
accused through counsel de parte, Atty. Rene Q. Pahulayan, filed a
petition for bail. Accordingly, a hearing for a petition was set to give the
prosecution the opportrunity to prove that kits evidence is strong to
warrant the denial of the accused right to bail.

The evidence adduced during the bail hearing was automatically

adopted as evidence on the main case and the fact that the prosecution
has common witnesses, a joint trial in these cases ensued.

During the hearing, the prosecution called to the witness stand,

PO1 Lloyd Kevin B. Silva. To expedite the proceedings, the prosecution,
without objection on the part of the defense, adopted the judicial
affidavit/sworn statement of PO1 Silva (Exhibit “A”) as his direct
testimony. On the basis thereof, and some additional direct, PO1 Silva
was cross examined by the defense.

It appears from the testimony of PO1 Silva that on March 12,

2016, the Tanauan City Police Station received reliable information from
a concerned citizen informing proliferation of illegal drugs at Brgy.
Darasa, Tanauan City, Batangas. At around 1:45 in the afternoon of
same date, the intelligence operatives of the Tanauan Police Station
together with one (1) civilian asset and upon proper coordination with
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), conducted a buy-bust
operation against Russel Dave Arnigo Lat (Russel) and Paul John Lat
Macatangay (Paul John) in Ramonita County Homes Subdivision, Brgy.
Darasa Tanauan City.

PO1 Silva testified was designated as the poseur-buyer and

together with the six (6) other policemen namely: PO3 Fernando Flores,
PO1 Jayson Carandang Medrana, PO1 Jovila Julan Llanes, PO1
Emmanuel J. Ilagan, PO3 Ruel Austria and PO1 Randy Manaog went to
the area subject of the buy-bust operation, riding a private vehicle.
They meet the asset along the highway of Brgy. Darasa road. Before
reaching the gate of the subdivision, PO1 Silva and the civilian asset
alighted from the vehicle and walked. Meanwhile, the other members of
the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves nearby the target
area.

On their way inside the subdivision, PO1 Silva and the asset
approached a color maroon Toyota Corolla vehicle with Plate No. TJF
146 (Exhibit “M-9”) parked along the road of the subdivision. The asset
knocked the window on the side of the driver and it was opened by
Russel. The asset introduced PO1 Silva to Russel and thereafter, they
went inside the vehicle and negotiated with the accused that he will buy
five hundred (Php 500) worth of shabu, but Russel said that only two
hundred fifty (Php 250) worth of shabu was available. Nevertheless, PO1
Silva said that he is willing to buy it. He gave Russel the marked money
five hundred peso bill (Php 500) with serial number RZ948459 (Exhibit
“N”) and the latter handed him a small heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing white crystaline substance which he placed at the left
side pocket of his short. Russel said that he has no money for his
change so instead of giving him change, Paul John who was also a
passenger of the car handed him a small heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet also containing white crystaline substance for his change. PO1
Silva accepted it and placed the same to his right pocket. When the sale
was consummated, PO1 Silva introduced himself as a policeman and
arrested the accused. The rest of the buy-bust team immediately went to
his aid. After the arrest of the accused, PO1 Silva alighted from the
vehicle and brought out the items from his pockets. He said that the
plastic sachets which was bought from Russel was placed in the left
portion of his right palm and the item handed to him by Paul John was
placed at the right portion of his right palm to verify if indeed the items
seized were illegal drugs. PO1 Silva informed the accused of the law they
violated and their constitutional rights. The five hundred peso bill
marked money was found at the right pocket of Russel.
 Afterwards, the buy-bust team together with the accused went to
the police station to meet the investigator for the inventory. From the
place of arrest and on the way to the police station, PO1 Silva kept the
two plastic sachets in his right hand (TSN dtd. May 5, 2017, p. 8). Upon
arrival at the station, PO1 Silva handed these evidence to the
investigator. The inventory was conducted at the Barangay Hall, Darasa
Tanauan City.

During the inventory which was allegedly done in the said

barangay hall, PO1 Silva marked with “LSB-1” (Exhibit “O-1”) the small
plastic sachet which was handed to him by Russel and “LSB-2” (Exhibit
“O-2”) the other small plastic sachet which was handed to him by Paul
John (TSN dtd. May 5, 2017, p. 3). The markings of this plastic sachets
were made in the presence of the accused and barangay officials Danilo
Cabatay, Vecente G. Bula and Renato Ganzona. After the markings of
the said evidence, photographs (Exhibit “M”, “M-1” to “M-9”) of the same
were taken by PO3 Rhaldie R. Mazanilla. He and PO1 Leycano also
prepared the Spot Report (Exhibit “D”), the Request for Laboratory
Examination (Exhibit “E”), and the Request for Drug Test (Exhibit “G”).

As stipulated by the defense, PO2 Rivera testified that at about

5:35 in the afternoon of March 12, 2016, he received documents from
the Tanauan City Police Station from PCI Christopher Caguimbal Guste
thru PO1 Silva together with the specimen consisting of two pieces of
heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance suspected to be “shabu” marked with “LBS1” and “LBS2” as
shown on the stamped receipt marked as Exhibit “E-2”. Thereafter, he
turned over the same to Forensic Chemist Camille Senior Inspector
Camille Ocfemia (Order dtd May 5, 2017).

The testimony of Forensic Chemist Rodrigowas also stipulated by

the defense. That pursuant to the said request for laboratory
examination received by her office, examination of the specimen was
conducted and the result of which was embodied in Chemistry Report
No. D-445-16 (Exhibit “F”) which gave positive result to the test for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). A drug test
examination was also requested and conducted on the respective urine
samples of the accused Russel Dave and Paul John. The result of which
was embodied in Chemistry Report No. CRIMDT-535-16 (Exhibit “H”)
which gave negative result for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride as to accused Russel Dave while gave positive result as to
accused Paul John.

Upon conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the prosecution

on the bail hearing, the public prosecutor intimated that she has no
more witness/evidence to present. Consequently and believing that the
prosecution's evidence is weak to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, the accused opted to withdraw the petition to bail and instead,
moved that he be allowed to file demurrer to evidence.

Movants argued that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt

beyond reasonable doubt in violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, grounded on the failure of the police officers to comply with
procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

The prosecution on the other hand disputed the allegation raised

by the defense. As stated in their Comment/Opposition to the Demurrer
to Evidence, the elements for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of
shabu were duly established through the testimony of PO1 Silva. It was
also stated that R.A 9165 and its IRR do not require strict compliance
with the chain of custody rule. In connection to this, the prosecution
also submit that PO1 Silva's testimony should be given credence
considering that he enjoys the presumption of regularity in the
performance of his duties being a police officer.

For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following

elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually
took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the
prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti (People vs. Lorui
Catalan, G.R. No. 189330, Nov. 28, 2012). It is essential that the
transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with
the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti, that is, the actual
commission by someone of the particular crime charged. (People vs.
Lagahit, G.R. No. 200877, November 12, 2014 citing People vs. Climaco,
G.R. No. 199403, June 13, 2012).

After considering the totality of evidence, the court finds the motion
unmeritorious. The elements for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs
was proved and the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was
not broken. The testimony of PO1 Silva shows that he was the one who
seized the two plastic sachets of shabu, together with the marked
money. He also testified that he was the one who personally brought the
request for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory and had the
plastic sachets examined there. During the trial of the case, he positively
identified the plastic sachets that he had recovered from the accused
which had markings of “LBS1” and “LBS2”. The pertinent portions of the
testimony of PO1 Silva are as follows:

xxx
FISCAL DIAZ:

Q. Police Officer Silva, last time you testified that you will
be able to identify the items you bought from the
accused and you also mentioned that you placed your
marking. What markings on the items that you
bought from the accused Russel Dave did you place?

A. “LBS-1”, ma'am.

Q. How about the items you bought from Paul John

Macatangay which is a transparent plastic of shabu?

A. “LBS-2”, ma'am.

xxx

Q. Inside this white half-size mailing envelope marked as

Exhibit “O” are two (2) transparent plastic sachets
with white crystalline substance with markings as
“LBS-1” and “LBS-2” marked as exhibit “O-1” and “O-2”
respectively.Police Officer Silva kindly take a look at
these two plastic sachets with white crystalline
substance and tell us what relation has there two plastic
sachets in connection with the items you bought from
the accused.

A. “LBS-1” is the specimen I confiscated from Russel

Dave and the other one is from Paul John, ma'am.

(Pp. 3 & 4, TSN, May 5, 2016)

It is likewise important to note that PO1 Silva testimony himself

brought the request for laboratory examination of the substance taken
from accused from the Brgy Hall to the PNP Crime Laboratory in
Calamba City, thereby ensuring that the integrity of the confiscated
items are preserved. Thus, the fact that the apprehending team did not
strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21(1), Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render appellants’ arrest illegal
or the items seized from them inadmissible in evidence.

The testimony of PO1 Silva on this point was corroborated by the

Chain of Custody Form (Exhibit “C”) wherein the items in question
where turned over by PO1 Silva to PO3 Glenn L. Rivera. The portion of
the chain of Custody so far pertinent is quoted as follows:

“xxx xxx

(sgd.)
TURNED OVER BY : PO1 Lloyd Kevin B. Silva
(Name and Designation)
AGENCY/ADDRESS : Tanauan City Police Station
Time and Date : 5:35pm / March 12, 2016
Remarks : TURNED OVER
(Exhibit “C-1”)

(sgd.)
RECEIVED BY : PO2 Glen L. Rivera
(Name and Designation)
AGENCY/ADDRESS : RCLO, 4-A CVL
Time and Date : 5:35pm / March 12, 2016
Remarks : RECEIVED
Remarks : TURNED OVER
(Exhibit “C-2”)

xxx x x x”

Likewise, as stated in the Affidavit of Investigators (Exhibit “L”) is

quoted as follows:

“xxx xxx

That the pieces of drug related evidence recovered by

the seizing officer PO1 Lloyd Kevin B. Silva has been in his custody all
throughout the Investigation and documentation;

That, we made the Spot Report; Request for Drug Test

and Laboratory Examination and the Preparation of case folder to be filed in
the Office of the City Prosecutors, Tanauan City.
 That on March 12, 2016 at about 4:45 PM, the
arresting officer and seizing officer PO1 Lloyd Kevin B. Silva turned over the
drug related evidence to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4A,
Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City, Laguna for Examination and was
received by PO2 Rivera.

That the arrested suspects were turned over by the arresting officers to
the undersigned for investigation. Suspects were also brought to Laurel
District Hospital for Medical and Physical Examination.

xxx x x x”

At this juncture, the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity

of the subject drugs and that the prosecution was able to present the
required unbroken chain in the custody of the subject drug, viz: a.)
starting from the apprehension of the accused by the police operatives
and the recovery of the subject illegal drugs during the buy-bust
operation; b.) upon seizure of subject drugs by PO1 Silva, the same
remained in his possession until the same were turned over to PO3
Manzanilla, the police investigator, with the markings “LBS-1” and
“LBS-2”, initials of PO1 Silva, respectively; c.) upon receipt of the subject
drugs, the Spot Report (Exhibit “D”), the Request for Laboratory
Examination(Exhibit “E”), the Request for Drug Test (Exhibit “G”) was
then prepared addressed to the Chief of the Regional Crime Laboratory
Service Office of Camp General Vicente Lim, Calamba City, Laguna
requesting the Forensic Chemist to examine the illegal drugs confiscated
and conduct the necessary drug test upon the accused; d.) the subject
specimens were received by PO2 Rivera, the receiving clerk on duty at
the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4-A Camp Vicente Lim,
Calamba City from PO1 Silva ; e.) the said specimens were examined by
Forensic Chemist PSI Camille Ocfemia who found the specimens to be
positive for shabu; f.) the two (2) plastic sachets confiscated and the
Chemistry Report CRIMDT-535-16 were turned over to the custody of
the trial prosecutor Fiscal Sheila Teodora Velasco Diaz, who presented
the same as prosecution evidence during the direct examination of PO1
Silva on May 5, 2016 marking them as Exhibits “O-1” and “O-2”,
respectively.

From the admitted testimony of the police officers and the

documentary records of the case, the prosecution clearly and
convincingly established that they had custody of the illegal drugs
seized from the accused from the moment they were arrested, during the
time they were transported from the place of arrest to the police station
and to the Brgy. Hall of Darasa, and up to the time the drugs were
submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. PO1 Silva also
identified the seized drugs with certainty when these were presented in
court. With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there are no
conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt
on the integrity of the evidence presented and scrutinized in court. The
testimonies show without a doubt that the evidence seized from the
accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested,
introduced, and testified to in court.

Fundamentally, non-compliance of the procedure provided for by

law does not automatically exonerate the accused of his criminal liability
for the offense committed. Republic Act 9165 and its subsequent
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict
compliance as to the chain of custody rule. The arrest of an accused will
not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible
on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA
9165. What is essential 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. Mere
procedural lapses in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso
facto fatal to the prosecutions cause, so long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.

Accordingly, each and every link in the custody of the items seized
was sufficiently accounted for by the prosecution and any lapse in the
chain of custody was justifyably explained by the prosecution;
otherwise, the chain of custody will be held to be broken and insufficient
to support a conviction of the accused.

In light of the foregoing, the court finds that there was substantial
compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 because the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved. The quantum of
evidence necessary to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt had been
sufficiently met.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the demurrer to evidence is

hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
City of Tanauan, Province of Batangas, August__, 2017

ARCADIO I. MANIGBAS
Judge