RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases

Contents
PEOPLE v CARREON...........................................................................1
SISON v PEOPLE.................................................................................5
TANGAN v CA...................................................................................16
PEOPLE v ARNESTUZO......................................................................18
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ.......................................................................27
REYES v CA.......................................................................................34
ZAFRA v PEOPLE...............................................................................44
PEOPLE v LANGCUA.........................................................................50
PEOPLE v DAHIL...............................................................................58
MARTURILLAS v PEOPLE..................................................................71
JOSE v CA.........................................................................................97
PEOPLE v CARREON
DECISION
FRANCISCO, J.:
Appellant Erlinda P. Carreon was charged with and convicted of

violating Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, by the Regional Trial Court[1] and
meted the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of Twenty
Thousand Pesos, and to [pay] the cost.[2] Dissatisfied, appellant
interposed the present appeal anchored on an interrelated
EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 1

assignment of errors, jointly discussed in her brief, which dwell on items were all later turned over to the Provincial Command (TSN,
the alleged (1) insufficiency of evidence to prove her guilt; (2) supra, pp. 14-15). The accused were later taken to the PC
erroneous admission in evidence of the bundles of marijuana, and Headquarters in Lagawe where they were investigated and
(3) failure of the trial court to give any probative value on the subsequently detained (TSN, March 12, 1992, p. 12).
supposed affidavit of desistance of the apprehending officers and on
Upon investigation by the forensic chemist assigned at the Crime
her defense of denial.[3]
Laboratory at Camp Dangwa, the items seized from appellant were
The facts of the case, aptly narrated by the Office of the Solicitor confirmed to be marijuana (TSN, May 22, 1991, p. 4).
General and which we have verified to be duly supported by the
record, are as follows: The appellant, together with her companion Armina de
Monteverde, were subsequently charged with violation of R.A. 6425,
At around 2:00 oclock in the afternoon of July 30, 1990, a passenger as amended. On arraignment, both entered pleas of not guilty. After
jeepney in which herein appellant was riding was flagged down at a trial on the merits, the trial court found herein appellant guilty as
checkpoint manned by elements of the Philippine Constabulary in charged while Armina de Monterverde was acquitted [on the
Lamut, Ifugao Province. In accordance with orders from their ground that the prosecution failed to convincingly prove the
headquarters, a search was made on the jeepney as well as its existence of conspiracy between the two accused]. [4]
passenger. The search was conducted by C2C Melchor Rivera and
The appeal is not impressed with merit; hence we affirm the
C2C Samuel Bulahao, who was himself a passenger of the same
jeepney (TSN, supra, pp. 3-4). conviction.
Appellant harps on the failure of the prosecution to present as

At the time the search was being conducted, herein appellant and
her companion Armina de Monteverde were seated side by side evidence her handbag from where the marijuana leaves were taken
and assails C2C Riveras inconsistent testimony where on one part he
immediately behind the driver. The bags and personal belongings of
the passengers were individually searched by the constables.As a declared that the bag was turned over to Provincial Headquarters
while on another portion he said that appellant took it. The
result of said search, a small wrap of marijuana was found in the
handbag of herein appellant, while a larger bundle consisting of four argument is unpersuasive. Appellant seems to have lost sight of the
fact that her conviction was not premised on the presence or
wraps was found in a jute sack located beside her, approximately
one foot away from her feet (TSN, supra, pp. 4-7). absence of the bag, but on her apprehension in flagante delicto, i.e.,
while in the possession of and transporting the prohibited drugs.
As a result thereof, appellant and her companion were arrested and The non-presentation of the bag does not debilitate the case for the
their bags containing the marijuana were confiscated. The seized prosecution. The alleged inconsistency in the testimony of C2C

Rivera, on the other hand, is inconsequential. The testimony, we from the fact that retractions are exceedingly unreliable[8] and
note, is unmistakably clear that the bag was forwarded to the looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts,[9] the trial
Provincial Headquarters from where appellant took the same. In court rightly observed that the signatures appearing thereon were
addition, minor inconsistencies do not discredit but rather forgeries. Thus:
strengthen the testimony of a witness as they erase any suspicion of
"First, comparison on the real evidence or autoptic proference on
a rehearsed testimony.[5] The alleged insufficiency of evidence,
therefore, is more imagined than real. record consisting of signatures of the affiant witness Melchor E.
Rivera, appearing in the joint affidavit in support of the criminal
Anent appellants averment that the bundles of marijuana were complaint found on page 2 of the records, and the signature of said
erroneously admitted in evidence as C2C Rivera failed to witness marked as Exhibit 3-C appearing in Exhibit 3, Joint Affidavit
immediately submit the marijuana leaves for laboratory examination of Desistance found on page 5 of the records visibly show to the
and, in fact, it was not he who actually brought the specimen to the naked eye that the said two signatures are entirely different,
Crime Laboratory, suffice it to say that there is no rule requiring the revealing the fact that the alleged signature of the alleged affiant
apprehending officer to personally deliver the prohibited drug to the Melchor Rivera appearing in the contested document Exhibit 3 and
Crime Laboratory for testing. What is important is that the 3-A was written by a person other than the true and real Melchor E.
transmittal of the specimen, as in this case, was not vitiated by Rivera, the witness for the prosecution in the instant case. In other
irregularity or fraud to cast doubt on the authenticity and source of words, the signature marked as Exhibit 3-C appearing in Exhibit 3 is a
the subject specimen. Moreover, the subject marijuana leaves taken forgery.
from the appellant were duly identified by C2C Rivera, the
apprehending officer and Lt. Ong, the chemist assigned at Dangwa Second, it is quite surprising and lamentable to say the least, that an
L.L.B. Graduate, like the defense witness Revelino Antonio,
Crime Laboratory where the specimen was brought for testing. In
the absence of evidence to indicate that these witnesses were professing himself to be a Notary public since 1979 up to the
present to have been allegedly satisfied as to his identity of the
moved by improper motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith
and credit.[6] Besides, the presumption of regularity in the conduct alleged affiants by the mere presentation of military IDs of the
alleged affiants, for normally a Notary public should satisfy himself
of their duties accorded by law[7] was not at all overthrown by
contrary evidence. as to the true identity of any person or party to a document that he
notarized. His allegation that he did not require them to present
In an apparent attempt to discredit the prosecutions witnesses, their Residence Certificate because the alleged affiant told him that
appellant invites the courts attention to an affidavit of desistance they do not have, has to be taken with a grain of salt considering
purportedly executed by C2C Rivera and C2C Bulahao. We are not that a person like the witness who is capable of prevaricating on a
persuaded as the said affidavit appears to be an afterthought. Apart vital and delicate matter by testifying that the witness Melchor

Rivera appeared before him as Notary Public, claiming to be Further, appellants argument that her defense of denial and her
personally present when the alleged affiant affixed his signature in witnesses testimony should be given credence deserve scant
Exhibit 3, when in truth and in fact, the said signature is found out to consideration. Findings of fact of the trial court, especially its
be a forgery is not trustworthy, thereby rendering his entire assessment on the credibility of witnesses, are not disturbed on
testimony unworthy of credence. A witness who is capable of appeal except when the trial court has overlooked, ignored, or
testifying falsely on a forged signature of a person is likewise capable disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance
of committing falsehood on less important details. Consequently, which if considered would have altered the result,[10] an instance
the principle of law Falsus in unos-falsus in omnibussquarely jibes absent in this case.Besides, appellants denial does not inspire belief.
with the testimony of the defense witness, Revelino Antonio. With approval, we quote the following disquisition of the trial court:
xxxxxxxxx In summation, the Court is of the considered view, that the defense
of denial interposed by the accused is flimsy and preposterous
Thirdly, it would be unnatural for the alleged affiants in Exhibit 3 to which finding and conclusion of the Court finds its source and
have voluntarily goant to the residence of Notary Public Evelino strength from the very purpose advanced by accused Erlinda
Antonio and requested for the preparation and final execution of the Carreon in going to Hapao, Hungduan and later to O-ong, Banaue,
document, and later categorically denied to have executed any two places in the province of Ifugao noted and taken judicial notice
when confronted by the Court during the preliminary investigation, of by this Court to be great source of marijuana leaves. The accused
which only goes to show that it was fraudulently prepared, a fact Erlina Carreon as stated earlier, a total stranger allegedly went to
reinforced by the act of policeman Daniel Dominong who according Hapao, Hungduan, Ifugao a far flunged place to see one Fidel, her
to witness Revelino Antonio was the one who paid later the Notarial alleged companion who applied in going abroad. Such an allegation
Fee for no apparent reason at all, a circumstance showing that there is highly unbelievable for the accused does not even know and
was something fishy in the preparation of the document Exhibit 3, cannot tell the Court the family name of that Fidel.All the more, that
which confirmed the version of the alleged affiants that they did not belies her alleged purpose in going to those places is the fact that it
in truth and in fact appear before any notary public. runs counter to the ordinary course of things or event for normally,
More importantly, the veracity of the affidavit in question is now it would be this Fidel who would have taken interest in going to
academic since C2C Rivera himself appeared as a witness for the Metro Manila and verify for himself the status of his alleged
prosecution; hence, reliance on his alleged affidavit of desistance application for abroad, if there was indeed any, not the accused
which he disowned is wanting in merit. going to Hapao, Hungduan, Ifugao to look for Fidel whose
relationship to the accused was not even shown by evidence, as a
matter of fact, he does not even know the family name of this Fidel,

neither is there a showing that the accused is a legal recruiter of any weight that the positive testimony of the witness C2C Melchor
recruitment agency to create an apparent semblace of truth of her Rivera.[11]
alleged purpose in going to see the person Fidel.
Denial constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be
Anent the purpose of the accused Erlinda Carreon in going to O-ong accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declarations of the
Banaue, Ifugao as elsewhere stated herein earlier, is highly prosecution witnesses testifying on affirmative matters.[12]
incredible. A scrutiny of the testimony of the testimony of accused
Erlinda Carreon would seem to suggest that these Liza Antonio and Appellant in this case was convicted and meted the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of twenty thousand pesos under Rep. Act
Rosa Kindipan are intimately related to her. Assuming the
relationship to be such, it is strange that said persons would address No. 6425 for transporting more or less six (6) kilos of marijuana on
July 1990. Rep. Act No. 7659, which took effect on December 31,
and course their letter to the accused at O-ong, Banaue, Ifugao, a far
away place from her alleged residence at Miguilin, Sampaloc, 1993, amended the provisions of Rep. Act. No. 6425, increasing the
imposable penalty for the sale or transport of 750 grams or more of
Manila. At most, the logical and reasonable course of action to have
been taken by the said accused is for her to have given her city marijuana to reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. Such penalty is
address to them, which for purposes of convenience and
expediency, could be at the ideal place where to address and course not favorable to the appellant as it carries the accessory penalties
provided under the Revised Penal Code and has a higher amount of
their alleged intended and espected letter from the two informing
the accused Carreon of a possible job placement or employment fine which in accordance with Article 22 of the same Code should
not be given retroactive effect. The Court, therefore, finds and so
abroad. All the moren (sic) nugatory to accused Carreons alleged
purpose in going to Hapao and O-ong is the fact that to a reasonable holds that the penalty of life imprisonment and fine in the amount
of twenty thousand pesos correctly imposed by the trial court
mind, the prudent course of action for her to have done is to write
this Rita Antonio and Rosa Kindapan and /or go to the placement should be retained.
agency concerned, or to the Office of the POEA, to verify the status WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in
of her alleged application for abroad, if any, instead of going to two toto.
places.
SO ORDERED.
The foregoing facts and circumstances indubitably show that the
version of the accused Erlinda Carreoin (sic) is self-serving being the
product of a concoction so flimsy to deserve the slightest SISON v PEOPLE
consideration of this Court, and cannot be given greater evidentiary PUNO, J.:

The case before us occurred at a time of great political polarization The prosecution established that on July 27, 1986, a rally was
in the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA Revolution. This was the time scheduled to be held at the Luneta by the Marcos loyalists. Earlier,
when the newly-installed government of President Corazon C. they applied for a permit to hold the rally but their application was
Aquino was being openly challenged in rallies, demonstrations and denied by the authorities. Despite this setback, three thousand of
other public fora by "Marcos loyalists," supporters of deposed them gathered at the Rizal Monument of the Luneta at 2:30 in the
President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Tension and animosity between the afternoon of the scheduled day. Led by Oliver Lozano and Benjamin
two (2) groups sometimes broke into violence. On July 27, 1986, it Nuega, both members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a known "Coryista." loyalists started an impromptu singing contest, recited prayers and
delivered speeches in between. Colonel Edgar Dula Torres, then
From August to October 1986, several informations were filed in Deputy Superintendent of the Western Police District, arrived and
court against eleven persons identified as Marcos loyalists charging asked the leaders for their permit. No permit could be produced.
them with the murder of Salcedo. Criminal Case No. 86-47322 was Colonel Dula Torres thereupon gave them ten minutes to disperse.
filed against Raul Billosos y de Leon and Gerry Nery y Babazon; The loyalist leaders asked for thirty minutes but this was refused.
Criminal Case No. 86-47617 against Romeo Sison y Mejia, Nilo Atty. Lozano turned towards his group and said "Gulpihin ninyo ang
Pacadar y Abe and Joel Tan y Mostero; Criminal Case No. 86-47790 lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators." Atty. Nuega added "Sige, sige
against Richard de los Santos y Arambulo; Criminal Case No. 86- gulpihin ninyo!" The police then pushed the crowd, and used tear
48538 against Joselito Tamayo y Ortia; and Criminal Case No. 86- gas and truncheons to disperse them. The loyalists scampered away
48931 against Rolando Fernandez y Mandapat. Also filed were but some of them fought back and threw stones at the police.
Criminal Cases Nos. 86-49007 and 86-49008 against Oliver Lozano Eventually, the crowd fled towards Maria Orosa Street and the
and Benjamin Nuega as well as Annie Ferrer charging them as situation later stabilized.1
accomplices to the murder of Salcedo.
At about 4:00 p.m., a small group of loyalists converged at the
The cases were consolidated and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Chinese Garden, Phase III of the Luneta. There, they saw Annie
Branch XLIX, Manila. All of the accused pleaded not guilty to the Ferrer, a popular movie starlet and supporter of President Marcos,
charge and trial ensued accordingly. The prosecution presented jogging around the fountain. They approached her and informed her
twelve witnesses, including two eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and of their dispersal and Annie Ferrer angrily ordered them "Gulpihin
Renato Banculo, and the police officers who were at the Luneta at ninyo and mga Cory hecklers!" Then she continued jogging around
the time of the incident. In support of their testimonies, the the fountain chanting "Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si
prosecution likewise presented documentary evidence consisting of Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang mga nakadilaw!" The
newspaper accounts of the incident and various photographs taken loyalists replied "Bugbugin!" A few minutes later, Annie Ferrer was
during the mauling.

arrested by the police. Somebody then shouted "Kailangang Salcedo somehow managed to get away from his attackers and wipe
gumanti, tayo ngayon!" A commotion ensued and Renato Banculo, a off the blood from his face. He sat on some cement steps8 and then
cigarette vendor, saw the loyalists attacking persons in yellow, the tried to flee towards Roxas boulevard to the sanctuary of the Rizal
color of the "Coryistas." Renato took off his yellow shirt.2 He then Monument but accused Joel Tan and Nilo Pacadar pursued him,
saw a man wearing a yellow t-shirt being chased by a group of mauling Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life
persons shouting "Iyan, habulin iyan. Cory iyan!" The man in the exclaiming "Maawa na kayo sa akin. Tulungan ninyo ako." He cried:
yellow t-shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers appeared to be Marcos "Pulis, pulis. Wala bang pulis?"9
loyalists. They caught Salcedo and boxed and kicked and mauled
him. Salcedo tried to extricate himself from the group but they again The mauling resumed at the Rizal Monument and continued along
Roxas Boulevard until Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness.
pounced on him and pummelled him with fist blows and kicks
hitting him on various parts of his body. Banculo saw Ranulfo Sumilang flagged down a van and with the help of a traffic officer,
brought Salcedo to the Medical Center Manila but he was refused
Sumilang, an electrician at the Luneta, rush to Salcedo's aid.
Sumilang tried to pacify the maulers so he could extricate Salcedo admission. So they took him to the Philippine General Hospital
where he died upon arrival.
from them. But the maulers pursued Salcedo unrelentingly, boxing
him with stones in their fists. Somebody gave Sumilang a loyalist tag Salcedo died of "hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic." He sustained
which Sumilang showed to Salcedo's attackers. They backed off for a various contusions, abrasions, lacerated wounds and skull fractures
while and Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from them. But as revealed in the following post-mortem findings:
accused Raul Billosos emerged from behind Sumilang as another
man boxed Salcedo on the head. Accused Richard de los Santos also Cyanosis, lips, and nailbeds.
boxed Salcedo twice on the head and kicked him even as he was
Contused-abrasions: 6.0 x 2.5 cm., and 3.0 x 2.4 cm., frontal region,
already fallen.3Salcedo tried to stand but accused Joel Tan boxed
right side; 6.8 x 4.2 cm., frontal region, left side; 5.0 x 4.0 cm., right
him on the left side of his head and ear.4 Accused Nilo Pacadar
cheek; 5.0 x 3.5 cm., face, left side; 3.5 x 2.0 cm., nose; 4.0 x 2.1 cm.,
punched Salcedo on his nape, shouting: "Iyan, Cory Iyan. Patayin!"5
left ear, pinna; 5.0 x 4.0 cm. left suprascapular region; 6.0 x 2.8 cm.,
Sumilang tried to pacify Pacadar but the latter lunged at the victim
right elbow.
again. Accused Joselito Tamayo boxed Salcedo on the left jaw and
kicked him as he once more fell. Banculo saw accused Romeo Sison Abrasions: 4.0 x 2.0 cm., left elbow; 2.0 x 1.5 cm., right knee.
trip Salcedo and kick him on the head, and when he tried to stand,
Sison repeatedly boxed him.6 Sumilang saw accused Gerry Neri Lacerated wounds: 2.2 cm., over the left eyebrow; 1.0 cm., upper
approach the victim but did not notice what he did.7 lip.

Hematoma, scalp; frontal region, both sides; left parietal region; incident. 14 Romeo Sison, a commercial photographer, was allegedly
right temporal region; occipital region, right side. at his office near the Luneta waiting for some pictures to be
developed at that time. 15 He claimed to be afflicted with hernia
Fractures, skull; occipital bone, right side; right posterior cranial impairing his mobility; he cannot run normally nor do things
fossa; right anterior cranial fossa. forcefully. 16 Richard de los Santos admits he was at the Luneta at
Hemorrhage, subdural, extensive. the time of the mauling but denies hitting Salcedo. 17 He said that
he merely watched the mauling which explains why his face
Other visceral organs, congested. appeared in some of the photographs. 18 Unlike the other accused,
Nilo Pacadar admits that he is a Marcos loyalist and a member of the
Stomach, about 1/2 filled with grayish brown food materials and
Ako'y Pilipino Movement and that he attended the rally on that
fluid.10
fateful day. According to him, he saw Salcedo being mauled and like
The mauling of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several Richard de los Santos, merely viewed the incident. 19 His face was in
press people, both local and foreign. The press took pictures and a the pictures because he shouted to the maulers to stop hitting
video of the event which became front-page news the following day, Salcedo. 20 Joel Tan also testified that he tried to pacify the maulers
capturing national and international attention. This prompted because he pitied Salcedo. The maulers however ignored him. 21
President Aquino to order the Capital Regional Command and the
The other accused, specifically Attys. Lozano and Nuega and Annie
Western Police District to investigate the incident. A reward of ten
Ferrer opted not to testify in their defense.
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) was put up by Brigadier General
Alfredo Lim, then Police Chief, for persons who could give On December 16, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision finding
information leading to the arrest of the killers.11Several persons, Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los Santos and
including Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, cooperated with Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the crime of murder qualified
the police, and on the basis of their identification, several persons, by treachery and sentenced them to 14 years 10 months and 20
including the accused, were apprehended and investigated. days of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum. Annie Ferrer was likewise convicted as an
For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in
accomplice. The court, however, found that the prosecution failed to
the mauling of the victim and offered their respective alibis. Accused
prove the guilt of the other accused and thus acquitted Raul
Joselito Tamayo testified that he was not in any of the photographs
Billosos, Gerry Nery, Rolando Fernandez, Oliver Lozano and
presented by the prosecution12 because on July 27, 1986, he was in
Benjamin Nuega. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as
his house in Quezon City.13 Gerry Neri claimed that he was at the
follows:
Luneta Theater at the time of the

WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered in the aforementioned principal, for the crime of "Murder" defined in Article 248 of the
cases as follows: Revised Penal Code and hereby imposes on him an indeterminate
penalty of from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and
1. In "People versus Raul Billosos and Gerry Nery," Criminal Case No. TWENTY (20) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as Minimum, to TWENTY
86-47322, the Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the (20) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum;
guilt of the two (2) Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
charged and hereby acquits them of said charge; 5. In "People versus Rolando Fernandez," Criminal Case No. 86-
4893l, the Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt
2. In "People versus Romeo Sison, et al.," Criminal Case No. 86- of the Accused for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and
47617, the Court finds the Accused Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar and hereby acquits him of said charge;
Joel Tan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals for the crime
of Murder, defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and, 6. In "People versus Oliver Lozano, et al.," Criminal Case No. 86-
there being no other mitigating or aggravating circumstances, 49007, the Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt
hereby imposes on each of them an indeterminate penalty of from of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged and
FOURTEEN (14)YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS, of hereby acquits them of said charge;
Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) DAYS, of
Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of 7. In "People versus Annie Ferrer," Criminal Case No. 86-49008, the
Court finds the said Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as
Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum;
accomplice to the crime of Murder under Article 18 in relation to
3. In "People versus Richard de los Santos," Criminal Case No. 86- Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby imposes on her an
47790, the Court finds the Accused Richard de los Santos guilty indeterminate penalty of NINE (9) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of
beyond reasonable doubt as principal for the crime of Murder Prision Mayor, as Minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS
defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum.
other extenuating circumstances, the Court hereby imposes on him
The Accused Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Richard de los Santos, Joel
an indeterminate penalty of from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10)
MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as Tan, Joselito Tamayo and Annie Ferrer are hereby ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, to the heirs of Stephen Salcedo the total
Minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as
Maximum; amount of P74,000.00 as actual damages and the amount of
P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, and one-half (1/2) of
4. In "People versus Joselito Tamayo," Criminal Case No. 86-48538 the costs of suit.
the Court finds the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as

The period during which the Accused Nilo Pacadar, Romeo Sison, beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and are each hereby sentenced
Joel Tan, Richard de los Santos and Joselito Tamayo had been under to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua;
detention during the pendency of these cases shall be credited to
2. Accused-appellant Joselito Tamayo y Oria is hereby found GUILTY
them provided that they agreed in writing to abide by and comply
strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail. beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide with the generic
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and, as a
The Warden of the City Jail of Manila is hereby ordered to release consequence, an indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS of
the Accused Gerry Nery, Raul Billosos and Rolando Fernandez from prision mayor as Minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion
the City Jail unless they are being detained for another cause or temporal as Maximum is hereby imposed upon him;
charge.
3. Accused-appellant Annie Ferrer is hereby ACQUITTED of being an
The Petition for Bail of the Accused Rolando Fernandez has become accomplice to the crime of Murder.
moot and academic. The Petition for Bail of the Accused Joel Tan,
CONSIDERING that the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua has been
Romeo Sison and Joselito Tamayo is denied for lack of merit.
imposed in the instant consolidated cases, the said cases are now
The bail bonds posted by the Accused Oliver Lozano and Benjamin hereby certified to the Honorable Supreme Court for review. 24
Nuega are hereby cancelled. 22
Petitioners filed G.R. Nos. 108280-83 under Rule 45 of the Revised
On appeal, the Court of Appeals 23 on December 28, 1992, modified Rules of Court inasmuch as Joselito Tamayo was not sentenced to
the decision of the trial court by acquitting Annie Ferrer but reclusion perpetua. G.R. Nos. 114931-33 was certified to us for
increasing the penalty of the rest of the accused, except for Joselito automatic review of the decision of the Court of Appeals against the
Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua. The appellate court found them four accused-appellants sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, but
Before this court, accused-appellants assign the following errors:
convicted Joselito Tamayo of homicide because the information
against him did not allege the said qualifying circumstance. The I
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby NOTED THAT THE ACCUSED FAILED TO CITE ANYTHING ON RECORD
MODIFIED as follows: TO SUPPORT THEIR AVERMENT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES
1. Accused-appellants Romeo Sison y Mejia, Nilo Pacadar y Abe, Joel WHO HAVE COME FORWARD TO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF STEPHEN SALCEDO.
Tan y Mostero and Richard de los Santos are hereby found GUILTY

II THE TRIAL COURT, TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF THE VERY SAME
JUDGMENT, ALL CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE UNRELIABLE, DOUBTFUL, SUSPICIOUS AND II
INCONCLUSIVE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESS RANULFO
SUMILANG. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ADMITTING
EXHIBITS "D", "G", "O", "P", "V", TO "V-48", "W" TO "W-13", ALL OF
III WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY IDENTIFIED.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN FINDING III

THE ACCUSED GUILTY WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE
THAT ANY OF THE ACCUSED CARRIED A HARD AND BLUNT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONCLUDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED IN THE CASE AT BAR
INSTRUMENT, THE ADMITTED CAUSE OF THE HEMORRHAGE
RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED. DISREGARDING ALTOGETHER THE SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE
MATTER.
IV
IV
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING
THAT THERE EXISTS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE PRINCIPAL ACCUSED.
THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED WAS MURDER, NOT DEATH
V (HOMICIDE) IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY SIDESTEPPING IN THE
PROCESS THE FACTUAL GROUNDS SURROUNDING THE INCIDENT. 26
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED IS MURDER AND NOT DEATH Appellants mainly claim that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining
(HOMICIDE) CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY. 25 the testimonies of the two in prosecution eyewitnesses, Ranulfo
Sumilang and Renato Banculo, because they are unreliable, doubtful
In their additional brief, appellants contend that: and do not deserve any credence. According to them, the
I testimonies of these two witnesses are suspect because they
surfaced only after a reward was announced by General Lim. Renato
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REACHING Banculo even submitted three sworn statements to the police
A CONCLUSION OF FACT UTILIZING SPECULATIONS, SURMISES, NON- geared at providing a new or improved version of the incident. On
SEQUITUR CONCLUSIONS, AND EVEN THE DISPUTED DECISION OF the witness stand, he mistakenly identified a detention prisoner in

another case as accused Rolando Fernandez. 27 Ranulfo Sumilang Banculo's mistake in identifying another person as one of the
was evasive and unresponsive prompting the trial court to accused does not make him an entirely untrustworthy witness. 33 It
reprimand him several times. 28 does not make his whole testimony a falsity. An honest mistake is
not inconsistent with a truthful testimony. Perfect testimonies
There is no proof that Banculo or Sumilang testified because of the cannot be expected from persons with imperfect senses. In the
reward announced by General Lim, much less that both or either of court's discretion, therefore, the testimony of a witness can be
them ever received such reward from the government. On the believed as to some facts but disbelieved with respect to the others.
contrary, the evidence shows that Sumilang reported the incident to 34
the police and submitted his sworn statement immediately two
hours after the mauling, even before announcement of any reward. We sustain the appellate and trial courts' findings that the
29 He informed the police that he would cooperate with them and witnesses' testimonies corroborate each other on all important and
identify Salcedo's assailants if he saw them again. 30 relevant details of the principal occurrence. Their positive
identification of all petitioners jibe with each other and their
The fact that Banculo executed three sworn statements does not narration of the events are supported by the medical and
make them and his testimony incredible. The sworn statements documentary evidence on record.
were made to identify more suspects who were apprehended during
the investigation of Salcedo's death. 31 Dr. Roberto Garcia, the medico-legal officer of the National Bureau
of Investigation, testified that the victim had various wounds on his
The records show that Sumilang was admonished several times by body which could have been inflicted by pressure from more than
the trial court on the witness stand for being argumentative and one hard object. 35 The contusions and abrasions found could have
evasive. 32 This is not enough reason to reject Sumilang's testimony been caused by punches, kicks and blows from rough stones. 36 The
for he did not exhibit this undesirable conduct all throughout his fatal injury of intracranial hemorrhage was a result of fractures in
testimony. On the whole, his testimony was correctly given credence Salcedo's skull which may have been caused by contact with a hard
by the trial court despite his evasiveness at some instances. Except and blunt object such as fistblows, kicks and a blunt wooden
for compelling reasons, we cannot disturb the way trial courts instrument. 37
calibrate the credence of witnesses considering their visual view of
the demeanor of witnesses when on the witness stand. As trial Appellants do not deny that Salcedo was mauled, kicked and
courts, they can best appreciate the verbal and non-verbal punched. Sumilang in fact testified that Salcedo was pummeled by
dimensions of a witness' testimony. his assailants with stones in their hands. 38

Appellants also contend that although the appellate court correctly the time of the crime. 50 The photographer, however, is not the only
disregarded Exhibits "D," "G," and "P," it erroneously gave witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. 51 The
evidentiary weight to Exhibits "O," "V," "V-1" to "V-48," "W," "W-1" correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the
to "W-13." 39 Exhibit "O" is the Joint Affidavit of Pat. Flores and Pat. object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony
Bautista, the police intelligence-operatives who witnessed the rally of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after
and subsequent dispersal operation. Pat. Flores properly identified which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its
Exhibit "O" as his sworn statement and in fact gave testimony accuracy. 52Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the
corroborating the contents thereof. 40 Besides, the Joint Affidavit photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to
merely reiterates what the other prosecution witnesses testified to. its exactness and accuracy. 53
Identification by Pat. Bautista is a surplusage. If appellants wanted to
impeach the said affidavit, they should have placed Pat. Flores on This court notes that when the prosecution offered the photographs
as part of its evidence, appellants, through counsel Atty. Alfredo
the witness stand.
Lazaro, Jr. objected to their admissibility for lack of proper
Exhibits "V," "V-1" to "V-48" are photographs taken of the victim as identification. 54 However, when the accused presented their
he was being mauled at the Luneta — starting from a grassy portion evidence, Atty. Winlove Dumayas, counsel for accused Joselito
to the pavement at the Rizal Monument and along Roxas Boulevard, Tamayo and Gerry Neri used Exhibits "V", "V-1" to "V-48" to prove
41 — as he was being chased by his assailants 42 and as he sat that his clients were not in any of the pictures and therefore could
pleading with his assailants. 43 Exhibits "W", "W-1" to "W-13" are not have participated in the mauling of the victim. 55 The
photographs of Salcedo and the mauling published in local photographs were adopted by appellant Joselito Tamayo and
newspapers and magazines such as the Philippine Star, 44 Mr. and accused Gerry Neri as part of the defense exhibits. And at this
Ms. Magazine, 45 Philippine Daily Inquirer, 46 and the Malaya. 47 hearing, Atty. Dumayas represented all the other accused per
The admissibility of these photographs is being questioned by understanding with their respective counsels, including Atty. Lazaro,
appellants for lack of proper identification by the person or persons who were absent. At subsequent hearings, the prosecution used the
who took the same. photographs to cross-examine all the accused who took the witness
stand. 56 No objection was made by counsel for any of the accused,
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in not until Atty. Lazaro appeared at the third hearing and interposed a
evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its continuing objection to their admissibility. 57
production and testified as to the circumstances under which they
were produced. 48 The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being The objection of Atty. Lazaro to the admissibility of the photographs
a correct representation or reproduction of the original, 49 and its is anchored on the fact that the person who took the same was not
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at presented to identify them. We rule that the use of these

photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non- Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. — When, while
participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and several persons, not composing groups organized for the common
accuracy thereof. That the photographs are faithful representations purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel
of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants Richard de los and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in
Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified themselves therein and the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be
gave reasons for their presence thereat. 58 ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or
persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such
An analysis of the photographs vis-a-vis the accused's testimonies person or persons shall be punished by prison mayor.
reveal that only three of the appellants, namely, Richard de los
Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan could be readily seen in various If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries
belligerent poses lunging or hovering behind or over the victim. 59 on the deceased, the penalty ofprision correccional in its medium
Appellant Romeo Sison appears only once and he, although afflicted and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall
with hernia is shown merely running after the have used violence upon the person of the victim.
victim. 60Appellant Joselito Tamayo was not identified in any of the For this article to apply, it must be established that: (1) there be
pictures. The absence of the two appellants in the photographs does several persons; (2) that they did not compose groups organized for
not exculpate them. The photographs did not capture the entire the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
sequence of the killing of Salcedo but only segments thereof. While reciprocally; (3) these several persons quarrelled and assaulted one
the pictures did not record Sison and Tamayo hitting Salcedo, they another in a confused and tumultuous manner; (4) someone was
were unequivocally identified by Sumilang and killed in the course of the affray; (5) it cannot be ascertained who
actually killed the deceased; and (6) that the person or persons who
Banculo61Appellants' denials and alibis cannot overcome their inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be
eyeball identification. identified.62
Appellants claim that the lower courts erred in finding the existence A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between
of conspiracy among the principal accused and in convicting them of several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous
murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, not death in affray, in the course of which some person is killed or wounded and
tumultuous affray. the author thereof cannot be ascertained.63
Death in a tumultuous affray is defined in Article 251 of the Revised The quarrel in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel, was
Penal code as follows: between one distinct group and one individual. Confusion may have

occurred because of the police dispersal of the rallyists, but this of the fact that he was wearing a yellow t-shirt or because he
confusion subsided eventually after the loyalists fled to Maria Orosa allegedly flashed the "Laban" sign against the rallyists, taunting
Street. It was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct them into mauling him. As the appellate court well found, Salcedo
group identified as loyalists picked on one defenseless individual and had the opportunity to sense the temper of the rallyists and run
attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches, kicks and away from them but he, unfortunately, was overtaken by them. The
blows on him. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without
affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked.
incident.64 66
As the lower courts found, the victim's assailants were numerous by The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was alleged in
as much as fifty in number65 and were armed with stones with the information against Joselito Tamayo. Evident premeditation
which they hit the victim. They took advantage of their superior cannot be appreciated in this case because the attack against
strength and excessive force and frustrated any attempt by Salcedo Salcedo was sudden and spontaneous, spurred by the raging
to escape and free himself. They followed Salcedo from the Chinese animosity against the so-called "Coryistas." It was not preceded by
Garden to the Rizal Monument several meters away and hit him cool thought and reflection.
mercilessly even when he was already fallen on the ground. There
We find however the existence of a conspiracy among appellants. At
was a time when Salcedo was able to get up, prop himself against
the pavement and wipe off the blood from his face. But his attackers the time they were committing the crime, their actions impliedly
showed a unity of purpose among them, a concerted effort to bring
continued to pursue him relentlessly. Salcedo could not defend
himself nor could he find means to defend himself. Sumilang tried to about the death of Salcedo. Where a conspiracy existed and is
proved, a showing as to who among the conspirators inflicted the
save him from his assailants but they continued beating him, hitting
Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for mercy but they ignored fatal wound is not required to sustain a conviction. 67 Each of the
conspirators is liable for all acts of the others regardless of the intent
his pleas until he finally lost consciousness. The deliberate and
prolonged use of superior strength on a defenseless victim qualifies and character of their participation, because the act of one is the act
of all. 68
the killing to murder.
Treachery as a qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated in the The trial court awarded the heirs of Salcedo P74,000.00 as actual
damages, P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, and one
instant case. There is no proof that the attack on Salcedo was
deliberately and consciously chosen to ensure the assailants' safety half of the costs of the suit. At the time he died on July 27, 1986,
Salcedo was twenty three years old and was set to leave on August
from any defense the victim could have made. True, the attack on
Salcedo was sudden and unexpected but it was apparently because 4, 1986 for employment in Saudi Arabia. 69 The reckless disregard

for such a young person's life and the anguish wrought on his widow TANGAN v CA
and three small children, 70 warrant an increase in moral damages RESOLUTION
from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00. The indemnity of P50,000.00 must
also be awarded for the death of the victim.71 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed On February 23, 2001, this Court rendered a Decision as follows:
and modified as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 103613 is DISMISSED. The
1. Accused-appellants Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan and appealed decision subject of G.R. No. 105830 is AFFIRMED with the
Richard de los Santos are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of following MODIFICATIONS:
Murder without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance and are
(1) Tangan is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6)
each hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
2. Accused-appellant Joselito Tamayo is found GUILTY beyond (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide with the generic maximum, with all the accessory penalties.
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and, as a
(2) Tangan is ordered to pay the victims heirs P50,000.00 as civil
consequence, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
indemnity, P42,000.00 as funeral and burial expenses, P5,000.00 as
TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor as minimum to TWENTY (20)
attorneys fees, and P50,000.00 as moral damages,
YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum;
SO ORDERED.
3. All accused-appellants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and
severally the heirs of Stephen Salcedo the following amounts: Petitioner Eladio C. Tangan filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
invoking the rule that factual findings of the trial court and the Court
(a) P74,000.00 as actual damages;
of Appeals are binding on this Court. Thus, he argues that this Court
(b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and erred in disregarding the mitigating circumstances which were
appreciated by the lower courts and in raising the indeterminate
(c) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the victim. penalty imposed on him from a maximum of two years and four
months of prision correccional to a maximum of fourteen years,
Costs against accused-appellants.
eight months and one day of reclusion temporal. This, he claims,
SO ORDERED. exposed him to the horrifying reality of being re-incarcerated after
having been preventively confined for more than four years.[1]

It bears stressing that at no time during the trial of the case did were uncocked, then considerable pressure had to be applied on the
petitioner raise self-defense. Nevertheless, the trial court and the trigger to fire the revolver.[4]
Court of Appeals found the attendance of the mitigating
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and
circumstances of incomplete self-defense, sufficient provocation,
and passion and obfuscation. it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence.[5] For this
reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It speaks
When petitioner appealed the decision, he threw open the whole more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[6]
case for review. It became the duty of this Court to correct any error
The physical evidence is amply corroborated by the eyewitness
as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether it was made
the subject of assignment of errors or not.[2] accounts of Rosalia dela Cruz and Mary Ann Borromeo to the effect
that petitioner took a gun from his car and suddenly fired it at the
Thus, this Court reviewed the records of the case and found that the deceased.[7]
evidence fails to support or substantiate the lower courts findings
Likewise, this Court found that the mitigating circumstances
and conclusions. Clearly, therefore, this case falls within the
recognized exceptions to the rule that an appellate court will appreciated by the trial court are not present. Petitioner refutes this
and insists on his version of the facts. However, the testimony of his
generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on factual
matters considering that the latter, as a trier of fact, is in a better witness, on which he heavily relies, suffers from material
inconsistencies which render it unworthy of belief.
position to appreciate the same.[3]
First of all, the physical evidence belies petitioners version of the It was shown that defense witness Nelson Pante was 10 meters
away when he saw the incident, and his line of vision was blocked by
incident. As we clearly explained in our assailed Decision:
petitioners car.[8] From that distance and vantage point, he could
The medical examiner testified that the distance between the not have heard anything or have had an unobstructed view of the
muzzle of the gun and the target was about 2 inches but definitely events. Sure enough, the details of his statement betray the falsity
not more than 3 inches. Based on the point of exit and trajectory thereof. He testified that petitioner was hit on the eyebrow, while
transit of the wound, the victim and the alleged assailant were petitioner said he was hit on the jaw.[9] Pante was also unable to
facing each other when the shot was made and the position of the identify Manuel Miranda, the person whom he supposedly saw
gun was almost perpendicular when fired. These findings disprove punch petitioner.[10]
Tangans claim of accidental shooting. A revolver is not prone to
All of these, and the incredibility of petitioners account when
accidental firing because of the nature of its mechanism, unless it
compared with the physical evidence, belie self-defense. From the
established facts, it can be plainly gleaned that there was no

unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. What merely an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
transpired before petitioners gun went off was a heated exchange of mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
words between the protagonists. This does not qualify as unlawful one (1) day of reclusion temporal, maximum.
aggression. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and
unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof. The person While his Motion for Reconsideration was pending, petitioner filed
with the Court an Omnibus Motion to Re-Raffle/Transfer and/or to
defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical
force or with actual use of weapon.[11] Recuse. He alleged, among others, that the ponente of the assailed
Decision is biased in favor of respondents and, therefore, must
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying recuse herself from this case. Petitioners accusation, however, is
circumstance of self-defense. There can be no self-defense, based on nothing more than this Courts own evaluation of the
complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an evidence and departure from the rule that findings of facts of lower
unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.[12] court are not to be disturbed.
By the same token, the evidence does not show the attendance of Petitioner should bear in mind that the Decision, although penned
the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of by a member of the Court, is a decision of the whole Court. Hence,
the offended party. As stated, the provocation must be sufficient to any attack on the integrity of the ponente, or any member of the
excite a person to commit a wrong and must accordingly be Court for that matter, is an attack on the entire Court. More
proportionate to its gravity. In this case, all that the deceased did importantly, petitioner fails to establish with concrete proof his
immediately before he was shot was shout expletives and slap imputations of bias. Such irresponsible and unfounded statements
petitioners hand when the latter pointed it to his face. These acts, will not be taken lightly by this Court. Hence, petitioner and his
while offensive, were grossly disproportionate to petitioners act of counsel should be admonished for making such baseless and
drawing and firing of a gun. unsubstantiated accusations of bias against the Court. Moreover, the
Omnibus Motion should be denied for lack of merit.
Furthermore, there was no sudden and unexpected occurrence that
could have naturally produced a powerful excitement in petitioners Petitioner faults the Court for increasing the penalty five times such
mind causing him to lose his reason and self-control. As shown by that, despite having served the penalty imposed by the trial court,
the facts, no passion and obfuscation could have clouded his mind. he now faces the intolerable specter of reincarceration.[13] It should
be recalled that petitioner, by consciously and deliberately firing his
On the whole, therefore, this Court correctly imposed on petitioner gun, snuffed the life out of a 29-year old optometrist. Suffice it to
the proper penalty for Homicide, without the attendance of any state that petitioner should bear the consequences of his felonious
mitigating or aggravating circumstance, and sentenced him to suffer act.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for City and robbed the said premises of valuables in the total amount
Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. The Omnibus Motion to of P728,000.00. In the course of the robbery, two members of the
Re-Raffle/Transfer and/or to Recuse is likewise DENIED. This denial is gang raped Maria Fe Catanyag and Estrella Rolago, niece and
FINAL. employee, respectively of complainant Lacsamana.
SO ORDERED. On February 27, 1991, accused-appellant Albino Bagas, Valeriano

Amestuzo, Federico Ampatin, Dioscoro Vias and four other accused,
whose identities are unknown and who are still at large up to the
PEOPLE v ARNESTUZO present, were charged with the complex crime of robbery in band
DECISION with double rape under the following information:
KAPUNAN, J.: That on or about the 22nd day of February 1991, in Kalookan City,
Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
One of the cardinal rules of criminal law is that the guilt of the
the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually
accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the
helping one another, all armed with guns, with intent of gain, and by
prosecution. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable
means of violence, threats and intimidation upon the person of
of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
Perlita delos Santos de Lacsamana, did then and there willfully,
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt,
unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away the following, to
then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
wit:
not sufficient to support a conviction.[1] In the present case, there
being a doubt as to the guilt of accused-appellant, the constitutional Cash money in the amount of -----------P128,000.00
presumption of innocence stands and he must be acquitted.
Jewelries worth ------------------------- 600,000.00
This is an appeal from the decision dated November 28, 1991 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 131, Kalookan City in Criminal Case No. Total ------------------------------- P728,000.00
36930 finding accused-appellant Albino Bagas guilty of the complex
all belonging to said complainant, to the damage and prejudice of
crime of robbery in band with double rape and sentencing him
the latter, in the aforesaid amount of P728,000.00; and on the
accordingly.
occasion thereof, said accused conspiring together and mutually
At about nine-thirty in the evening of February 22, 1991, a group of helping one another likewise by means of force and violence and
eight armed men wearing masks entered the house of complainant with the use of their weapons, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
Perlita delos Santos Lacsamana at Sacred Heart Village, Kalookan have sexual intercourse with Fe Catanyag y Cabaero and Estrella

Rolago y Madrid both residents of said house, against their will and against the floor but a minute later she was asked where the
without their consent. masters bedroom is and when she answered that it is on the ground
floor, she was again forcefully brought down. On her way down, she
Contrary to law.[2] saw, aside from the six (6) male persons who were inside her house,
On arraignment, all the accused including accused-appellant Albino two (2) other male persons (later identified as accused Ampatin and
Bagas pleaded Not Guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial ensued. Vias) outside the main house but within the compound (pp. 8-10,
TSN, July 2, 1991).
The facts as found by the trial court and as presented in the Solicitor
Generals Brief are as follows: Once they were already inside the masters bedroom, the six (6 )
armed male persons (two (2) of them were Amestuzo and Bagas)
The incident happened at the compound of Block 5, Road 32, Phase ransacked the same and took all her monies, jewelries, shoes,
II of the Sacred Heart Village in Kalookan City (pp. 6-7, TSN, July 2, jackets, colored television and imported wine. Likewise, aforesaid
1991). In the compound are the main house where Mrs. Perlita accused ate the foods found by them in their kitchen. (pp.10-11, 13,
Lacsamana resides and another house which serves as the office and TSN, July 2, 1991).
quarters for Lacsamanas employees. In between of these two
houses is about three (3) meter-wide area where the dirty kitchen After ransacking the room, two (2) of the accused, one (1) of them is
and the garage are found. In the first floor of the main house is the Amestuzo, brought Estrella Rolago inside her room and afterwhich
masters bedroom, and on the second floor is the guestroom (pp. 6- she was in turn brought to the guest room. Thereat she heard
8, TSN, July 2, 1991). Rolago pleading Maawa kayo, maawa kayo then after ten (10)
minutes, Rolago, with bloodstain on her shorts, was brought in back
While at the masters bedroom on that particular evening at about to the guest room (pp. 13-14, TSN, July 2, 1991). Rolago was raped
9:30 p.m., Lacsamana overheard her maid, cried aray, aray, aray. She by Amestuzo (pp. 17-20, TSN, July 3, 1991).
immediately went out but as soon as she opened the door of her
room, two (2) men (one of them is accused Amestuzo while the Almost simultaneously, Bagas likewise sexually assaulted and
other one remains unarrested) poked their guns on her. At gun ravished Fe Catanyag (pp. 38-40, TSN, July 3, 1991; pp. 2-5, TSN, July
point, Lacsamana, Lea, Edwin, and Belen were forcibly brought to 4, 1991). Thereafter, Bagas shouted at her to stand up and although
the second floor of the main house. Thereat, Lacsamana saw four (4) she was experiencing pain on her private part which was bleeding at
other male persons ransacking her premises. The said male persons, that time, she stood up, dressed up and proceeded to the servants
armed with guns and knives, tied her including all her employees quarter (pp. 4-5, TSN, July 4, 1991).
and members of her household with the use of torn electric fan wire
and television wire. After that they were told to lie down with face

Thereafter, Mrs, Lacsamana shouted for help. Sensing that the which was based on a suggestive and irregular out-of-court
accused had already left, they locked the door. With the help of her identification, and (3) the trial courts improper rejection of his
employer and co-employees, more particularly Nanding, she and defense of alibi.
Rolago were brought the nearby Neopolitan Clinic and from there
they proceeded to the St. Lukes Hospital where Dr. Brion treated Accused-appellant maintains that from the time he was arrested
until he was presented to the complainants for identification, he was
Catanyag and Rolago (pp. 6-7, TSN, July 4, 1991; pp. 19-20, TSN, July
3, 1991).[3] deprived of the benefit of counsel. He narrates the circumstances
surrounding his arrest and investigation as follows:
On November 28, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment
convicting all the accused. The dispositive portion of the trial courts On February 26, 1991, four days after the alleged incident, a group
of policemen together with accused Federico Ampatin, who was
decision reads as follows:
then a suspect, went to the handicrafts factory in NIA Road, Pasay
WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment CONVICTING accused City where accused-appellant was working as a stay-in shell cutter.
VALERIANO AMESTUZO y VIAS, FEDERICO AMPATIN y SABUSAB, They were looking for a certain Mario and searched the first and
ALBINO BAGAS y DALUHATAN, DIOSCORO VINAS y ODAL of the second floors of the building. Failing to find said Mario, the police hit
complex crime of ROBBERY IN BAND WITH DOUBLE RAPE and Ampatin at the back of his neck with a gun and uttered, Niloloko
sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment of DOUBLE lang yata tayo ng taong ito and Magturo ka ng tao kahit sino. It was
RECLUSION PERPETUA and orders them to jointly and severally at this juncture that Ampatin pointed to accused-appellant Bagas as
indemnify to complainant Perlita delos Santos de Lacsamana the he was the first person Ampatin chanced to look upon.
amount of P800,000.00 representing the value of monies and
properties taken forcibly away by the accused and to indemnify, Thereafter, he was arrested and made to board the police vehicle
together with accused Ampatin. While on board the jeep, accused
jointly and severally, Ma. Fe Catanyag and Estrella Rolago the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS each. Ampatin told him that he (Ampatin) committed an error in pointing
him out to the police, namumukaan lang niya ako, napagkamalian
SO ORDERED.[4] lang niya ako. They were brought to the Urduja Police Station in
Kalookan City and placed under detention together with the other
From the judgment of conviction by the trial court, only herein two accused, Amestuzo and Vias. When the complainants arrived,
accused-appellant Bagas appealed to this Court. His appeal is based accused-appellant was brought out, instructed to turn to the left
mainly on (1) the alleged deprivation of his constitutional right to be and then to the right and he was asked to talk. Complainant
represented by counsel during his identification, (2) the trial courts Lacsamana asked him if he knew accused Amestuzo and Vias.
error in giving due weight to the open court identification of him Accused-appellant answered in the negative. The policemen told the

complainants that accused-appellant was one of the suspects. This investigatory to the accusatory[11] and it is usually the witness or
incited complainants to an emotional frenzy, kicking and hitting him. the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in
They only stopped when one of the policemen intervened.[5] the course of the line-up.[12]
Accused-appellant alleges that the trial court committed a serious Hence, herein accused-appellant could not yet invoke his right to
error when it deprived him of his constitutional right to be counsel when he was presented for identification by the
represented by a lawyer during his investigation. His singular complainants because the same was not yet part of the investigation
presentation to the complainants for identification without the process. Moreover, there was no showing that during his
benefit of counsel, accused-appellant avers, is a flagrant violation of identification by the complainants, the police investigators sought to
the constitutional prerogative to be assisted by counsel to which he elicit any admission or confession from accused-appellant. In fact,
was entitled from the moment he was arrested by the police and records show that the police did not at all talk to accused-appellant
placed on detention. He maintains that the identification was a when he was presented before the complainants. The alleged
critical stage of prosecution at which he was as much entitled to the infringement of the constitutional rights of the accused while under
aid of counsel as during the trial proper. custodial investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which
an extra-judicial admission or confession extracted from the accused
The contention is not meritorious. The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. becomes the basis of his conviction.[13] In the present case, there is
III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be no such confession or extra-judicial admission.
invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation.[6]
Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no Accused-appellant also makes much ado about the manner in which
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to he was presented to the complainants for identification. It is alleged
focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who that the identification was irregular as he was not placed in a police
starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to line-up and instead, made to stand before the complainants alone.
elicit incriminating statements.[7] Police line-up is not part of the
Again, the contention has no merit. As aptly pointed out by the
custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by
the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage.[8] This was Solicitor General, there is no law requiring a police line-up as
essential to a proper identification.[14] The fact that he was brought
settled in the case of People vs. Lamsing[9] and in the more recent
case of People vs. Salvatierra.[10] The right to be assisted by counsel out of the detention cell alone and was made to stand before the
accused by himself and unaccompanied by any other suspects or
attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed
by the accused during identification in a police line-up because it is persons does not detract from the validity of the identification
process.
not part of the custodial investigation process. This is because
during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the

However, we agree that complainants out-of-court identification of Q: And how were you identified or recognized by the complaining
accused-appellant was seriously flawed as to preclude its witnesses?
admissibility. In resolving the admissibility and reliability of out-of-
A: Because upon arrival at the Urduja police station, the policemen
court identifications, we have applied the totality of circumstances
test enunciated in the case of People vs. Teehankee[15] which lists announced that I am one of the suspects in this case and thereafter,
the complainants started kicking me, sir.
the following factors:
xxx (1) the witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of Q: So that the announcement of the policemen that you were one
of the suspects came first then they started kicking you?
the crime; (2) the witness degree of attention at that time; (3) the
accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level A: Yes, sir.[16]
of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5)
the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) It is, thus, clear that the identification was practically suggested by
the suggestiveness of the identification process. the police themselves when they announced to the complainants
that accused-appellant was the person pointed to by Ampatin. The
The out-of-court identification of herein accused-appellant by fact that this information came to the knowledge of the
complainants in the police station appears to have been improperly complainants prior to their identification based on their own recall
suggestive. Even before complainants had the opportunity to view of the incident detracts from the spontaneity of their subsequent
accused-appellant face-to-face when he was brought our of the identification and therefore, its objectivity.
detention cell to be presented to them for identification, the police
made an announcement that he was one of the suspects in the In a similar case, People vs. Cruz,[17] accused Cruz, a suspected co-
crime and that he was the one pointed to by accused Ampatin as conspirator in a case of robbery with homicide, was presented to
one of culprits. According to accused-appellant - the witnesses alone and made to walk and turn around in their
presence. Then the police pointed out to the accused and several
Q: When the complaining witnesses arrived at the Urduja precinct at others as the persons suspected by the police as the perpetrators of
that time you mentioned, were you immediately kicked by them? the robbery committed in Goso-on. The Court, in rejecting the
A: No, sir. subsequent identification made by the witnesses, reasoned that:
The manner by which (witnesses) were made to identify the accused

Q: How long a time from the time they arrived at the Urduja
precinct to the time that you were kicked by them? at the police station was pointedly suggestive, generated confidence
where there was none, activated visual imagination, and all told,
A: Around 10 minutes, sir. subverted their reliability as eyewitnesses.

In Tuason vs. Court of Appeals,[18] an NBI agent first pointed the accused-appellant. Upon finishing work, they went to sleep in their
accused to the witnesses after which the latter identified the quarters on the second floor of the building because they were stay-
accused. The Court held that such identification was doubtful as the in employees of the factory.[21] Another co-worker of accused-
same was not spontaneous and independent as there was improper appellant, Clemente Gahelan, was similarly offered as a witness to
suggestion coming from the NBI agent. We ruled that a show-up or corroborate Rosales testimony and his testimony was duly admitted
the presentation of a single suspect to a witness for purposes of by the prosecution.[22]
identification is seriously flawed as it constitutes the most grossly
The employer of accused-appellant Rolando Ocasla, likewise
suggestive identification procedure now or ever used by the police.
testified that on the night of the incident, accused-appellant worked
Likewise in People vs. Meneses,[19] where the accused was overtime in his factory until 10 p.m. After 10 p.m., he personally
presented to the lone witness as the suspect in the crime inside the locked the door of the premises which was the only means of
police investigators office, the Court pronounced that although the ingress and engress, as he always does because it was his means of
police officer did not literally point to the accused as in the Tuason preventing any pilferage of materials. He was the only one who had
case, the confrontation and the identification proceeding therefrom keys to said door. Around five a.m. of the following day, he woke up
was objectionable. accused-appellant and told him to drink his coffee. He also declared
that there was nothing unusual about accused-appellants behavior
The Court also finds that the trial court erroneously rejected either, before, during or after the date of the alleged crime.[23]
accused-appellants alibi.
The defense of alibi or denial assumes significance or strength when
Accused-appellant clearly and positively testified that at the time of it is amply corroborated by a credible witness.[24] And to be given
the crime, February 22, 1991, he was working as a shell cutter in a weight, accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else
factory in Pasay City where he was a stay-in employee. He rendered when the crime was committed but that he was so far away that it
overtime work until ten oclock in the evening that night because was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene
they had to rush work. After ten p.m., he, together with his stay-in or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. [25]
co-workers, went to sleep. Four days later, he was arrested when
accused Ampatin randomly pointed him out to the police.[20] In this case, we find accused-appellants alibi sufficiently
corroborated by the testimonies of his co-workers and his employer
This testimony of accused-appellant was materially corroborated by who categorically stated that they were with accused-appellant on
two of his co-employees who were with him on the night of the the night of the crime. There was no evidence that these witnesses
incident. Rodolfo Rosales, his co-worker, testified that he worked were related to accused-appellant; neither was it shown that they
overtime until 10 p.m. in the Pasay City factory together with had any personal interest nor motive in the case. As impartial

credible witnesses, their testimonies cannot be doubted absent a witnesses and by evidence of physical impossibility of accused-
clear showing of undue bias or prejudice, or convincing proof of the appellants presence at the scene of the crime. Alibi, therefore,
impropriety of their motives to testify for the accused.[26] should have been properly appreciated in accused-apellants favor.
Accused-appellant vehemently argues that it was physically Another significant evidence which the trial court failed to consider
impossible for him to have been present at the scene of the crime or is the voluntary confession of accused Federico Ampatin absolving
its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. First, the crime accused-appellant Bagas of the crime. Ampatins testimony was clear
was committed around 9:30 in the evening of February 22, 1991. and categorical:
Accused-appellant, as well as two other witnesses, testified that he
worked in the factory until 10 p.m. that night and went to sleep Q: When you reached that house where Bagas was working what
happened?
after. Second, there was only one door in the factory which was the
only means of entrance and exit and this door was kept locked by A: All the persons were ordered to lie down, sir.
witness Ocasla after ten p.m. that night. Ocasla was the only person
who had a key to this door. Third, the windows on the first floor of xxx
the building consisted of hollow blocks with small holes which do
Q: And what did they do to you?
not allow passage. The second and third floor windows were 14 and
21 feet high, respectively. There was no possible means of exit A: Immediately I was instructed to follow the policemen who went
through these windows without accused-appellant getting hurt or upstairs, sir.
injured. Lastly, the crime took place in Kalookan City around 9:30
p.m. while accused-appellants place of work was in Pasay City. Q: Why did that policemen go upstairs?
Assuming for the sake of argument that he was able to leave the
A: He was looking for Mario, sir.
premises after 10 p.m. that night, by the time he reaches Kalookan,
the crime would have already been completed. xxx
The Court has held that where an accused sets up alibi as a defense, Q: Upon reaching the second floor, what happened there?
the courts should not be too readily disposed to dismiss the same,
for, taken in the light of all the evidence on record, it may be A: They did not see any person there, sir.
sufficient to reverse the outcome of the case as found by the trial
Q: What followed next?
court and thereby rightly set the accused free.[27] Though
inherently weak as a defense, alibi in the present case has been A: P/O Melmida pistol-whipped me, sir.
sufficiently established by corroborative testimonies of credible

Q: Where were you hit? Court: You did not bother to look at his face?
A: On the left portion of my neck, sir. A: No more Your Honor because I was in a hurry to point to
somebody because I was afraid that I will be hurt again, Your Honor.
Q: Did Melmida utter any remark while hitting you?
xxx
xxx
Court: You mean to say at the time you pointed to Albino Bagas you
A: He told me to point to somebody else, sir, saying these words, did not know him?
Magturo ka ng tao kahit sino.
A: No I dont know him, Your Honor.[28]
xxx
Ampatin and accused-appellant were charged as co-conspirators in
Q: So what did you do when you were ordered to point to anyone? the crime of robbery with rape. As a co-accused, it would have been
A: Because at that time I cannot yet stand up he forced me to go more consistent with human nature for Ampatin to implicate
downstairs, sir. accused-appellant if indeed he was one of the gang. In fact, the
Court has recognized that as is usual with human nature, a culprit,
xxx confessing a crime is likely to put the blame as far as possible on
others rather than himself.[29] The fact that he testified to the
Q: Were you able to reached (sic) the ground floor?
innocence of a co-accused, an act which resulted in no advantage or
A: Yes, sir. benefit to him and which might in fact implicate him more, should
have been received by the trial court as an indicum of the truth of
Q: And what happened there? Ampatins testimony and the innocence of herein accused-appellant.
Ampatins testimony, therefore, should have been given weight by
A: I pointed to Albino Bagas, sir, because he was the only first person
the trial court. More so, the same was substantially corroborated by
I saw there at the ground floor while his companions were on the
another witness, Rodolfo Rosales, accused-appellants co-worker and
other side because I dont want to get hurt anymore, Your Honor.
who was present when accused-appellant was arrested. Rosales
Court: When you see (sic) Bagas was lying face down at the tme you testified as follows:
pointed to him?
Q: Now, do you know when was Albino Bagas arrested in connection
A: Yes, your Honor. with this case?

A: Last February 25, that was Monday, sir. A: We were the first group of persons seen by the policemen and
Albino and I were beside each other, sir.
Q: And where were you when he was arrested?
Q: And you want to impressed (sic) upon this Honorable Court that
A: I was there at that time. at first at the ground floor, Albino Bagas was not identified by this
xxx Ampatin before going to the second floor?
Q: xxx what was the reaction of Albino Bagas when he was being A: The guide was not able to identify the person of Albino Bagas and
pointed to and arrested by the arresting officers? that was the reason why they still made searches at the second
floor, sir.
A: The situation goes like this, sir, the policemen arrived there and
they were holding the persons of Ampatin and they were looking for Q: How was Federico Ampatin able to identify Albino Bagas when he
a person named Mario that was what I heard, sir, and then the was accompanied by the policemen went downstairs?
policemen forced us to be identified or to be seen by the guide. A: I noticed from the reaction of Federico Ampatin that he was
Ampatin at first at the ground floor but since there was nobody afraid after hearing the shout of the policemen, sir.
there by the name of Mario they proceeded to the second floor and
upon looking one of the policemen shouted, Wala rito, niloloko lang xxx[30]
tayo ng taong ito.
The testimony of witness Rosales corroborates Ampatins declaration
Court: Then what happened next? in court that he does not know herein accused-appellant and merely
pointed to him out of fear of the police. These testimonies remain
Witness: And I noticed that the reaction of Federico Ampatin that he unrebutted by the prosecution as the arresting officers were not
was afraid, so, because of fear he was able to point on the person of presented to refute or deny the same. The foregoing testimonies
Albino Bagas but when asked he does not know the name of Albino exculpating accused-appellant have sufficiently cast at least a
Bagas, Your Honor. shadow of doubt as to his guilt.
Atty. Pacis: Before going to the second floor, because according to WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting accused-
you the arresting officers and the guide went to the second floor, appellant Albino Bagas of the crime of robbery with multiple rape is
was Albino Bagas at the ground floor seen by the guide and the hereby REVERSED and he is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. His
policemen? immediate release is hereby ordered unless he is held for some
other valid charges.

SO ORDERED. EUGENE C. AMOYO, who posed as buyer, two (2) pcs. of small
transparent plastic sachets containing 0.08 gram, total weight of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) for [t]wo (2) pcs of One
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ Hundred Peso Bill with SN DF950395 and KY384741 knowing the
DECISION same to be a dangerous drug.
TINGA, J.: CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Subject of this appeal is the 12 September 2007 decision[1] of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02534, affirming the 24
August 2006 judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch Appellant entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment. During the
120 of Caloocan City, finding appellant Mark Dela Cruz y Batac guilty pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that P/Insp. Ericson L.
of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. Calabocal conducted a qualitative examination on two (2) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets evidenced by Physical Science
Report No. D-845-03 dated 17 July 2003. It was further stipulated
that said witness had no personal knowledge as to the facts and
circumstances surrounding the arrest of appellant, as well as the
source of the subject specimens.[4]
Appellant was charged with illegal sale of shabu in an Information

dated 18 July 2003, committed as follows:
Trial ensued. Witnesses for the prosecution narrated that in the
evening of 16 July 2003, a male informant came to the office of the
Northern Police District on Tanigue Street, Kaunlaran Village,
That on or about the 16th day of July 2003 in Caloocan City, M.M. Caloocan City. In the presence of PO3 Gilbert Velasco (PO3 Velasco)
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- and PO2 Eugene Amoyo (PO2 Amoyo), the informant complained
named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one about the rampant selling of shabu by a certain Mac-Mac. Said
another, without having been authorized by law, did then and there information was relayed to P/Chief Inspector Rafael Santiago who
wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to one PO2

immediately instructed PO3 Velasco to form a buy-bust team. The and an unidentified companion but the latter was able to escape
team was composed of PO3 Velasco, PO2 Amoyo, PO3 Joel Borda unscathed. PO2 Amoyo kept the two (2) plastic sachets in his pocket.
(PO3 Borda), PO2 Loreto Lagmay, PO1 Renato Ameng, PO1 Allan
Reyes and PO1 Joel Cosme. PO2 Amoyo was the designated poseur-
buyer. Two (2) pieces of P100.00 bills were prepared as boodle A spot investigation was conducted on appellant. It was revealed
money. The initials ECA were placed on the bills. that the two (2) male companions were identified as Amay and
Tabo. Appellant was then brought to the police headquarters. PO2
Amoyo placed his markings ECA-BB-1 and ECA-BB-2 on the plastic
The buy-bust team underwent a briefing and then proceeded to the sachets before turning them over, together with the buy-bust
target area on board two (2) separate vehicles. They arrived at a money, to SPO4 Jorge Tabayag. PO2 Amoyo also prepared a request
parking lot along Hipon Liit in Dagat-dagatan at 7:30 p.m. PO2 for laboratory examination addressed to the Philippine National
Amoyo, PO3 Velasco and PO3 Borda, along with the informant, Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.
waited beside a coconut tree for Mac-Mac.
The two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance

After two hours, appellant arrived with two male companions. The were found positive for shabu. Said finding was indicated in Physical
informant approached appellant and introduced PO2 Amoyo to him Science Report No. D-845-03[5] prepared by Forensic Chemist and
as a buyer of P200.00 worth of shabu. Appellant left for a while to Police Inspector Erickson L. Calabocal of the PNP Crime Laboratory
get the shabufrom his companions, who were standing 7 meters Group.
away from the group. He returned ten (10) minutes later and
handed two (2) plastic sachets to PO2 Amoyo, who, in exchange,
handed over the boodle money. Appellant presented a different version of the facts. He testified that
at 8:30 p.m. on 16 July 2003, he was sitting in the plaza located on
Hipon Liit St., Dagat-dagatan, Caloocan City. He was waiting for his
After the exchange, PO2 Amoyo raised his left hand to signal the brother to deliver his boots when the policemen arrived and were
other members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had looking for an alias Amay. Appellant then heard a gunshot and saw
already been concluded. PO3 Velasco and PO3 Borda immediately Amay firing the shot. Appellant ran towards his house. Later, the
arrested appellant while PO2 Amoyo ran after appellants policemen went to his house and handcuffed him. When appellant
companions. There was an exchange of gunfire between PO2 Amoyo asked why he was being arrested, the policemen claimed that

appellant knew Amay. Appellant denied selling shabu and asserted favor of the government to be turned over to the Philippine Drug
that the case was filed against him when he refused to give Enforcement Agency (PEDEA) [sic] for proper disposition.
information about Amay.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Appellants testimony was corroborated by his brother, Balweg Dela
la Cruz, who stated in court that appellant instructed him to get his
boots and bring them to the plaza at around 8:30 p.m.[6] As he was
about to leave the house, Balweg saw his brother being arrested by
two policemen. He heard from other people that the policemen
were asking appellant if he knew of a man named Amay.[7]
On 15 September 2006, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals

In finding appellant guilty, the trial court ruled that there was a via a notice of appeal.[9]
meeting of minds between the poseur-buyer and appellant as to the
delivery of shabu in exchange for P200.00. The dispositive portion of
said judgment reads: On 12 September 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment
affirming the RTC's decision in Criminal Case No. 68601.[10] The
appellate court gave weight to the testimony of the poseur-buyer as
Premises considered, this Court finds accused MARK DELA CRUZ Y well as to the Physical Science Report in concluding that the illegal
BATAC GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Sec. 5, sale of shabu was perpetrated by appellant. The appellate court
Article II of [R.A. No.] 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive rejected appellants defense of frame-up for failure to substantiate
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon him the penalty of such allegation and in light of the presumption of regularity
Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand accorded to police officers in the performance of their official duties.
(P500,000.00) Pesos. Anent the alleged failure of the police officers to observe the
procedure laid down under Section 21 of R. A. No. 9165, the
appellate court held that such failure is not fatal as the
circumstances in the instant case show that the integrity pertaining
The two (2) plastic sachets containing 0.04 gram each of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride is hereby ordered confiscated in to the custody of the seized shabu was not compromised

notwithstanding that the same were marked only during the presumption of regularity for it cannot by itself support a judgment
investigation held at the police station.[11] of conviction.[15]
After obtaining an unfavorable decision, appellant filed a notice of In its appellees brief,[16] the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG)
appeal before this Court.[12] supports the conviction of appellant. It argues that appellant was
caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu in a legitimate buy-bust
operation. It claims that the elements necessary in the prosecution
On 9 April 2008, this Court required the parties to simultaneously of the illegal sale of drugs were duly established by the prosecution,
file their supplemental briefs.[13] namely: the appellant, as seller of the shabu, and the poseur-buyer
were identified; and the shabuconfiscated from appellant and the
money used to buy it were also presented in court. The OSG
emphasizes that the sachets of shabu presented in court were the
In two separate manifestations, both parties expressed their
same sachets confiscated from appellant and subjected to
intention not to file any supplemental brief since all the issues and
laboratory examination. It justifies the non-observance of Section 21
arguments have already been raised in their respective Briefs.[14]
(1) of R. A. No. 9165 since the corpus delicti of the illegal sale of
drugs was duly established during trial. It adds that after the
confiscation of the sachets of shabu from appellant, they were
Appellant maintains that the prosecution was not able to establish immediately submitted for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime
the moral certainty required by law to prove his guilt beyond Laboratory.[17]
reasonable doubt. He contends that his defenses of alibi and denial
were supported not only by his testimony but by that of other
witnesses. He questions the identity of the shabu allegedly
The appeal is meritorious.
confiscated from him as the marking was made only in the police
station in front of the investigating officer, contrary to the
requirement laid down in Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165. He also
assails the forensic laboratory examination result in that it was not The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs
covered by a certification in violation of Section 21 (3) of the same are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
law. He stresses that the prosecution must not simply rely on the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal

sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard
evidence of corpus delicti.[18] likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration,
tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In
The common issue that crops out of a buy-bust operation, like in this other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility,
case, is whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and alteration or tamperingwithout regard to whether the same is
presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. The Court advertent or otherwise notdictates the level of strictness in the
is cognizant of the fact that an entrapment operation is open to application of the chain of custody rule.
possibilities of abuse. It is by this same thrust that the chain of
custody rule was adopted by the Court. In Lopez v. People,[19] we Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to
had the occasion to expound on the chain of custody rule, thus: an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has
physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule substances familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham v. State
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the later analyzed as heroinwas handled by two police officers prior to
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every examination who however did not testify in court on the condition
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who possessionwas excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition unless the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous
in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory
there had been no change in the condition of the item and no to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the laboratorys findings is inadmissible.
same.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to
because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot
of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility,
real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there

could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances The defense however failed to corroborate PO2 Amoyos claim.
from other casesby accident or otherwisein which similar evidence While SPO4 Tabayag was presented in court, he neglected to
was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory mention nor was he asked about the markings on the shabu. On the
testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more contrary, the sworn statement of PO2 Amoyo, which was formally
stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are offered in evidence, seemed to suggest that markings were made
readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that prior to the submission of the shabu to SPO4 Tabayag, to wit:
entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if
16 T: Maipapakita mo ba yong sinasabi mong pinaghihinalaang
only to render it improbable that the original item has either been
exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. Shabu na nabili mo dito kay Mark Dela Cruz, alyas Mac Mac?
S: Opo. Ito po. [Affiant presented two (2) pieces of small transparent
plastic sachets (heat-sealed) containing a crystalline substance
Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering believed to be Shabu] at ang plastic po nito ay aking minarkahan ng
exactitude.[20] aking inisyal na ECA-BB1 at ECA-BB2].[22]
This Court believes that the prosecution failed to clearly establish Verily, PO2 Amoyos testimony suggests that he already placed his
the chain of custody of the seized plastic sachets containing shabu markings prior to being questioned by SPO4 Tabayag.
from the time they were first allegedly received until they were
brought to the police investigator. Moreover, no other witness was presented to testify or to fill the
gap from the time SPO4 Tabayag received the sachets of shabu from
PO2 Amoyo testified that he failed to place any marking on the PO2 Amoyo up to the time they were delivered to the PNP Crime
sachets of shabu immediately after the apprehension of appellant. Laboratory.
In fact, PO3 Amoyo admitted that he only placed his markings upon
being ordered by SPO4 Tabayag.[21]
Furthermore, nothing on record shows that the procedural

requirements of Section 21, Paragraph 1 of Article II of R. A. No.
9165[23] with respect to custody and disposition of confiscated
drugs were complied with.There was no physical inventory and

photograph of the items allegedly confiscated from appellant. the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and
Neither did the police officers offer any explanation for their failure it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
to observe the rule. The prosecution merely sought refuge in its [34] The presumption of regularity is merely just thata mere
belief that a stringent application of the rule may be dispensed with presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when
if the corpus delicti has been duly established. challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.[35]
In People v. Orteza,[24] the Court citing People v. Laxa,[25] People v. In fine, the failure to establish the corpus delicti is detrimental to the
Kimura[26] and Zarraga v. People,[27] reiterated the ruling that the cause of the prosecution. The Court is thus constrained to acquit
failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of appellant on reasonable doubt.
the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins.[28]
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 12
September 2007 affirming the judgment of conviction of the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120 is REVERSED and
In People v. Nazareno,[29] the poseur-buyer failed to immediately SET ASIDE. Appellant MARK DELA CRUZ y BATAC is ACQUITTED on
place his markings on the seized drugs before turning them over to reasonable doubt and is accordingly ordered immediately released
the police investigators. The police officer who placed his markings from custody unless he is being lawfully held for another offense.
was not presented to testify on what actually transpired after the
drugs were turned over to him. The Court equated these The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement
circumstances as failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the this decision forthwith and to INFORM this Court, within five (5)
existence of the corpus delicti.[30] days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually released
from confinement.
As stated by the Court in People v. Santos, Jr.,[31] failure to observe
the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to the PNP Director and the
of regularity accorded to police officers.[32] As a general rule, the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is proper guidance and implementation. No costs.
usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption
that they have performed their duties regularly.[33] However, when SO ORDERED.
the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such
presumption is effectively destroyed.
REYES v CA
While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the DECISION
performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over

Criminal Case No. 05234564
BERSAMIN, J:
That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines,

the said accused, not being been (sic) authorized by law to sell,
The burden rests in the Prosecution to see to it that the evidence of trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then
guilt satisfies the standard of moral certainty demanded in all and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell One (1) heat sealed
criminal prosecutions. The standard demands that all the essential transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero two two
elements of the offense are established as to leave no room for any (0.022) gram, of white crystalline substance known as SHABU
doubt about the guilt of the accused. The courts should unfailingly containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous
impose the standard in order to prevent injustice from being drug.
perpetrated against the accused.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Under review is the decision promulgated on September 28, 2007 by
the Court of Appeals (CA),[1] whereby the CA affirmed the
conviction of petitioner by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2,
in Manila[2] for violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of Criminal Case No. 05234565
2002).
Antecedents
That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused, not being then authorized by law to possess any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
On February 23, 2005, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila
filed two informations charging petitioner with illegal sale of shabu knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control
One (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point
and illegal possession of shabu defined and punished, respectively,
by Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165,[3] to wit: zero two four (0.024) gram of white crystalline substance known as
SHABU containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.

other individuals, later identified as Conchita Carlos and Jeonilo
Flores, were also waiting for petitioner.[14]
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
Upon getting back, petitioner asked PO2 Payumo for the payment,
After petitioner pled not guilty, trial ensued. The summary of the [15] and the latter complied and handed the marked money
evidence of the parties adduced at trial follows. consisting of three P50.00 bills all bearing the initials TF.[16]
Petitioner then went into a room and returned with a plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance that he gave to PO2 Payumo.
In the morning of January 20, 2005, a lady confidential informant Receiving the plastic sachet, PO2 Payumo placed a missed call to
went to the Police Station 8 of the Western Police District to report PO1 Miguelito Gil, a member of the buy-bust team, thereby giving
on the drug-dealing activities of a certain alias Boy (later identified the pre-arranged signal showing that the transaction was
as petitioner) on M. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila.[6] A buy-bust completed. PO2 Payumo then arrested petitioner after identifying
team of ten members,[7] including PO2 Erwin Payumo as designated himself as an officer. PO2 Payumo recovered another sachet
poseur-buyer,[8] was formed. PO2 Payumo then prepared the containing white crystalline substance from petitioners right hand,
necessary documents prior to the operation.[9] and the marked money from petitioners right front pocket.[17] The
rest of the buy-bust team meanwhile came around and recovered
two sachets also containing white crystalline substance from the
From the police station, the lady confidential informant called sofa where Conchita and Jeonilo were sitting. The buy-bust team
petitioner by phone. The latter instructed her to wait on M. Mapa thus also arrested Conchita and Jeonilo.[18]
Street.[10] Thus, the buy-bust team proceeded to that area and
arrived at around 4:20 p.m. of January 20, 2005.[11] PO2 Payumo
and the lady confidential informant arrived together to wait for Back at the police station, PO2 Payumo placed on the plastic sachet
petitioner. The rest of the buy-bust team, who had gone to the area that petitioner had handed him the marking RRS-1 and on the other
on board an L300 van,[12] took positions nearby. Petitioner came by sachet recovered from petitioners right hand the marking RRS-2.[19]
five minutes later,[13] and, after asking the lady confidential The seized items were thereafter turned over to the Western Police
informant whether PO2 Payumo was the buyer, instructed Payumo District Crime Laboratory for examination by P/Insp. Judycel
to follow him to his house where he told PO2 Payumo to wait. Two Macapagal, who found the items positive for methampethamine
hydrochloride or shabu.[20]

As stated, on May 23, 2006, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, to wit:
On the other hand, petitioner denied that there had been a buy-
bust operation, and claimed that he had been framed up.
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of

the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were
Petitioner testified that he was at his house entertaining his visitors not properly performing their duty, their testimonies with respect to
Conchita and Jeonilo in the afternoon of January 20, 2005;[21] that the operation deserve full faith and credit.
Conchita was selling to him a sofa bed for P800.00, while Jeonilo
was only contracted by Conchita to drive the jeepney carrying the
sofa bed;[22] that the three of them were surprised when a group of
However like alibi, we view the defense of frame up with disfavor as
armed men in civilian clothes barged into his house and conducted a
search, and arrested them; that he was also surprised to see a it can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a standard line
of defense in most prosecution arising from violations of the
plastic sachet when the armed men emptied his pocket; that the
plastic sachet did not belong to him;[23] that PO2 Payumo was not Dangerous Drugs Acts.
among those who entered and searched his house;[24] that the
three of them were made to board a van where PO1 Rudolf Mijares
demanded P30,000.00 for his release;[25] and that because he told Having established that a legitimate buy-bust operation occurred in
them he had no money to give to them, one of the men remarked: the case at bar, there can now be no question as to the guilt of the
Sige, tuluyan na yan; and that they were then brought to the police accused-appellant. Such operation has been considered as an
station.[26] effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with
due regard to the constitutional and legal safeguards, it deserves
judicial sanction. (People of the Philippines vs. Lowell Saludes, et al.,
Jeonilo corroborated petitioners story.[27] G.R. No. 144157, June 10, 2003)
Ruling of the RTC The accused failed to show any ill motive on the part of the
policeman to testify falsely against him. Indeed, the prosecution
showed that the police were at the place of the incident to do
exactly what they are supposed to doto conduct an operation. The

portrayal put forward by accused and his lone witness remained The positive identification of appellants by the prosecution witness
uncorroborated. Evidence to be believed must not only come from a should prevail over the formers denials of the commission of the
credible witness but must in itself be credible. crime for which they are charged, since greater weight is generally
accorded to the positive testimony of the prosecution witness than
the accuseds denial. Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense
The entrapment operation paved the way for the valid warrantless and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the
arrest of accused, Sec. 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. (People
provides thus: of the Philippines vs. Edwin Belibet, Manny Banoy and Ronnie
Rosero, G.R. No. 91260, July 25, 1991)[28]
A police officer or private person, without warrant, may arrest a

person: The dispositive portion of the decision of the RTC reads:
(a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense; xxx
1. In Criminal Case No. 05-234564, finding accused, Rogelio Reyes y
Samson, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he
It has been held that the testimonies of police officers involved in a is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay the fine of
buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. This and to pay the costs.
presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is
presented to prove either two things: (1) that they were not
properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any 2. In Criminal Case No. 05-234565, finding accused, Rogelio Reyes y
improper motive. (People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Remarata Samson, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he
et al., G.R. No. 147230, April 29, 2003) is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years
and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum; to

pay a fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case A fortiori, viewed in the light of the foregoing, We are strongly
of insolvency and to pay the costs. convinced that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the Appellant
for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.
The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the

Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED.
directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said The challenged Decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in
specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for toto.
proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.[31]
SO ORDERED.[29]
The CA gave more weight to the testimony of poseur buyer PO2

With his motion for reconsideration being denied by the RTC, Payumo, and believed the findings of the laboratory examination
petitioner filed his notice of appeal.[30] conducted by P/Insp. Macapagal. It recognized the validity of the
buy-bust operation.
Issue
Ruling of the CA
Petitioner is now before the Court seeking to reverse the decision of
the CA upon the sole error that:
On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC thuswise:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

ERROR IN NOT FINDING WORTHY OF CREDENCE PETITIONERS

WITNESS TESTIMONY CREATING DOUBT ON THE GUILT OF THE The buy-bust operation mounted against petitioner resulted from
PETITIONER OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION. the tip of an unnamed lady confidential informant. Such an
operation, according to People v. Garcia,[33] was susceptible to
police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
Petitioner wants the Court to give credence to his defense of frame- extortion, and the possibility of that abuse was great.[34] The
up, and to believe the testimony of Jeonilo Flores who had no susceptibility to abuse of the operation led to the institution of
reason to testify falsely against the arresting officers. several procedural safeguards by R.A. No. 9165, mainly to guide the
law enforcers. Thus, the State must show a faithful compliance with
such safeguards during the prosecution of every drug-related
offense.[35]
Ruling
The procedural safeguards start with the requirements prescribed

The appeal is meritorious.
by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 relating to the custody and
disposition of the confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous
drugs, plant sources of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
In this jurisdiction, we convict the accused only when his guilt is and essential chemicals, instruments and paraphernalia, and
established beyond reasonable doubt. Conformably with this laboratory equipment. The provision relevantly states:
standard, we are mandated as an appellate court to sift the records
and search for every error, though unassigned in the appeal, in order
to ensure that the conviction is warranted, and to correct every
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
error that the lower court has committed in finding guilt against the
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
accused.[32]
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. xxx:
Guided by the standard, we acquit petitioner.

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused

or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken. This has been the
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from reason for defining chain of custody under Section 1(b) of the
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, viz:
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof; xxx (Emphasis supplied)
(b) Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
This appeal involves two distinct drug-related offenses, namely: plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and illegal possession of dangerous stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
drugs. The successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
requires: (a) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (b) Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include
the presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, or the the identity and signature of the person who held temporary
dangerous drugs themselves. On the other hand, the prosecution of custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer or
illegal possession of dangerous drugs necessitates the following custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court
facts to be proved, namely: (a) the accused was in possession of as evidence, and the final disposition; (Emphasis supplied)
dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and
(c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of dangerous drugs.[36] For both offenses, it is crucial In Mallilin v. People,[37] the need to maintain an unbroken chain of
that the Prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous custody is emphasized:
drugs in a way that the integrity thereof has been well preserved
from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the
time of presentation as evidence in court. Nothing less than a
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
faithful compliance with this duty is demanded of all law enforcers
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
arresting drug pushers and drug possessors and confiscating and
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
seizing the dangerous drugs and substances from them.
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
This duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
substances is discharged only when the arresting law enforcer received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness

possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition photographed at the site of arrest upon seizure in the presence of
in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These petitioner, a representative of the media, a representative of the
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, was not
there had been no change in the condition of the item and no shown. As such, the arresting lawmen did not at all comply with the
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the further requirement to have the attending representative of the
same. media, representative of the DOJ, and elected public official sign the
inventory and be furnished a copy each of the inventory. Instead,
the records show that PO2 Payumo placed the markings of RRS-1 on
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard the sachet allegedly received from petitioner and RRS-2 on the two
because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain sachets allegedly seized from petitioners hand already at the police
of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of station with only petitioner present. Yet, the Prosecution did not
real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or also present any witness to establish that an inventory of the seized
when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a articles at least signed by petitioner at that point was prepared.
witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard
likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration,
tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In We clarified in People v. Sanchez[41] that in compliance with Section
other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, 21 of R.A. No. 9165, supra, the physical inventory and
alteration or tamperingwithout regard to whether the same is photographing of the seized articles should be conducted, if
advertent or otherwise notdictates the level of strictness in the practicable, at the place of seizure or confiscation in cases of
application of the chain of custody rule. warrantless seizure. But that was true only if there were indications
that petitioner tried to escape or resisted arrest, which might
provide the reason why the arresting team was not able to do the
Cogently, Mallilin v. People is reiterated in Catuiran v. People,[38] inventory or photographing at petitioners house; otherwise, the
People v. Garcia,[39] and People v. Villanueva,[40] among others. physical inventory and photographing must always be immediately
executed at the place of seizure or confiscation.
Here, the Prosecution failed to demonstrate a faithful compliance by

the arresting lawmen of the rule on chain of custody. To start with, In People v. Pringas,[42] the non-compliance by the buy-bust team
the fact that the dangerous drugs were inventoried and with Section 21, supra, was held not to be fatal for as long as there

was justifiable ground for it, and for as long as the integrity and the Payumo in view of the testimony of P/Insp. Macapagal to the effect
evidentiary value of the confiscated or seized articles were properly that the party requesting the laboratory examination had been a
preserved by the apprehending officer or team. The Court further certain Police Officer Alano,[43] whom the Prosecution did not at all
pronounced therein that such non-compliance would not render an particularly identify or present as its witness. In this regard,
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him Laboratory Report No. D-085-05,[44] the report prepared by P/Insp.
inadmissible, for what was of utmost importance was the Macapagal, also stated that the party requesting the conduct of the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized laboratory examination was the OIC-SAID-SOTU, PS-8, Western
or confiscated articles, considering that they were to be utilized in Police District. Also, the Prosecution did not show to whom the
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. seized articles had been turned over following the conduct of the
laboratory examination, and how the seized articles had been kept
in a manner that preserved their integrity until their final
However, the omissions noted herein indicated that the State did presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Such lapses
not establish the identity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized of the Prosecution were fatal to its proof of guilt because they
from petitioner with the same exacting certitude required for a demonstrated that the chain of custody did not stay unbroken,
finding of guilt. thereby raising doubt on the integrity and identity of the dangerous
drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti of the crimes charged.
To be sure, the buy-bust operation was infected by lapses. Although

PO2 Payumo declared that he was the one who had received the We are then not surprised to detect other grounds for skepticism
sachet of shabu (RRS-1) from petitioner and who had confiscated about the evidence of guilt.
the two sachets of shabu (RRS-2) from petitioner, all of which he had
then sealed, nothing more to support the fact that the evidence
thus seized had remained intact was adduced. In fact, the State did Firstly, PO2 Payumo testified that the lady confidential informant
not anymore establish to whom the seized articles had been had gone to Police Station 8 to report the alleged drug-selling
endorsed after PO2 Payumo had placed the markings at the station, activities of petitioner for the first time in the morning of January
and with whose custody or safekeeping the seized articles had 20, 2005. That report led to the forming of the buy-bust team,[45]
remained until their endorsement to P/Insp. Macapagal for the for purposes of which he prepared the pre-operation documents.
laboratory examination. Presently, we cannot justifiably presume His veracity was suspect, however, considering that his so-called Pre-
that the seized articles had remained in the possession of PO2 Operation/Coordination Sheet appeared to have been prepared on

the day before, as its date January 19, 2005 disclosed.[46] The date selectiveness that PO2 Payumo deliberately omitted the other target
of January 19, 2005 also appeared in the Certification of and zeroed in only on alias Boy (petitioner), which might suggest
Coordination issued by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in that PO2 Payumo was not as reliable as a poseur buyer-witness as
reference to the buy-bust operation against petitioner.[47] he presented himself to be.
Considering that the Prosecution did not explain the discrepancy,
the impression is unavoidable that the buy-bust operation was
already set in motion even before the lady informant actually made Conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecutions evidence,
her report against petitioner. Thereby, his defense of frame-up was not on the weakness of the defense the accused put up.[50]
bolstered. Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond
reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this
requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of
Secondly, the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet indicated that there his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course.
were ten members and three (3) others that comprised the buy-bust
team.[48] Yet, the Joint Affidavit submitted by the members of the
buy-bust team was executed and signed by only six officers WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision
(excluding even poseur buyer PO2 Payumo himself), namely: PO1 promulgated on September 28, 2007 by the Court of Appeals; and
Mijares, PO1 Mark Dave Vicente, PO1 Maurison Ablaza, PO1 Elmer ACQUITS accused ROGELIO S. REYES of the crimes charged in
Clemente and PO1 Gil.[49] The Prosecutions failure to explain why Criminal Case No. 05-234564 and Criminal Case No. 05-234565.
only six members of the buy-bust team actually executed and signed
the Joint Affidavit might indicate that the incrimination of petitioner
through the buy-bust operation was probably not reliable.
The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in
Muntinlupa City to release ROGELIO S. REYES from custody unless
he is
And, thirdly, both the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet and the
Certification of Coordination revealed that the confidential
information received involved two suspects of illegal drug trade in
detained thereat for another lawful cause; and to report on his
Bacood, Sta. Mesa known as alias Boy and alias Totoy Tinga. PO2
compliance herewith within five days from receipt.
Payumo recalled, however, that the lady confidential informant had
tipped the police off only about alias Boy. It seems from such

No pronouncements on costs of suit. without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession and
control dangerous drug consisting of two (2) heat-sealed transparent
SO ORDERED. plastic sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)
weighing 0.0614 gram, in conspiracy with one another.5
The prosecution’s lone witness, SPO46 Apolinario Mendoza (SPO4

ZAFRA v PEOPLE
Mendoza), Chief of the Investigation and Drug Enforcement Unit of
DECISION
the Philippine National Police of Balagtas, Bulacan, testified that on
PEREZ, J.: 12 January 2003, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, he conducted
surveillance in front of a sari-sari store at the corner of Miraflor
For review before this Court is the Decision of the Court of Appeals Subdivision and P. Castro Street in Balagtas, Bulacan, due to
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31713 dated 30 October 2009,1 affirming the reported drug trafficking in the area. SPO4 Mendoza found there the
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Malolos, group of Zafra, Marcelino, and a certain Marlon Daluz (Daluz)
Bulacan,2 which found petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa (Zafra) standing and facing each other.7 In that position, he saw Zafra and
and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes (Marcelino) guilty beyond reasonable Marcelino holding shabu, while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil
doubt of Possession of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 11, and a disposable lighter.8 Seeing this illegal activity, SPO4 Mendoza
Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive single-handedly apprehended them. He grabbed the shabu from the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and imposing on each of them the hands of Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the paraphernalia from Daluz. Then, he ordered the three to lie down;
minimum term, to thirteen (13) years as maximum, and of fine of he frisked them. Boarding a tricycle, he brought them to the
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00). Balagtas Police Station,9 where he personally marked the
confiscated two (2) sachets of shabu, one with VSD, the initials of
The Facts
Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and the other with EMR, the initials of Eroll
The prosecution charged Zafra and Marcelino with violation of Marcelino y Reyes.10
Section 11, Article II of RA No. 91653 before the RTC of Bulacan
On the following day, 13 June 2003, SPO4 Mendoza brought the
under the Information below:
accused and the items to the crime laboratory for urine sampling
That on or about the 12th day of June, 2003, in the municipality of and laboratory examination, respectively.11 The test of the items
Balagtas, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the resulted to positive presence of methylamphetamine
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, hydrochloride.12

The RTC, Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan, in a decision dated 11 June third, Section 21 of RA No. 9165 was not complied with; and, finally,
2008, convicted Zafra and Marcelino for the crime of possession of the prosecution failed to prove petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable
shabu: doubt.
WHEREFORE, finding guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt The Court’s Ruling
in Criminal Case No. 2297-M-2003, accused VALENTIN ZAFRA y
We resolve to ACQUIT petitioners Zafra and Marcelino on the
DECHOSA and accused EROLL MARCELINO y REYES are hereby
CONVICTED for possession of sachets of methylamphetamine following grounds:
hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, with a weight of 0.31 First, the prosecution’s lone witness, SPO4 Mendoza,16 testified
gram and 0.30 gram, respectively, which are classified as dangerous that, from a distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu by
drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, their bare hands, respectively, while Daluz was holding an aluminum
otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of foil and a disposable lighter.17Seeing this illegal activity, he single-
2002" and are each SENTENCED to suffer the IMPRISONMENT of, handedly apprehended them.18 He grabbed the shabu from the
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, TWELVE (12) YEARS AND hands of Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug
ONE DAY, AS THE MINIMUM TERM, TO THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, AS THE paraphernalia from Daluz.
MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (₱300,000.00).13 In his affidavit, however, SPO4 Mendoza stated, that:
Daluz, on the other hand, who was charged of possession of drug Na, nitong nakaraang Hunyo 12, 2003 ng 4:30 ng hapon humigit
paraphernalia in violation of Section 12 of RA No. 9165 pleaded kumulang, sa P. Casto St., Barangay Borol-1, Balagtas Bulacan,
guilty to the charge and was released after serving his sentence of habang ako ay nagsasagawa ng surveillance sa Suspected Drug
eight (8) months.14 Pusher sa nasabing lugar ay aking nakita ang tatlo (3) kalalakihan na
nakatalikod sa isang corner ng tindahan sa P. Castro St., na nakilala
Zafra and Marcelino appealed; but the CA affirmed in toto the RTC ko na sina Valentine D. Zafra @ Val, Eroll R. Marcelino @ Eroll, at
Decision: Marlon B. Daluz @ Marlon na pawang mga residente ng Borol-1,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for Balagtas, Bulacan.
lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed 11 June 2008 Decision of the Na, ako ay lumapit na naglalakad kina Valentine Zafra, Errol
Court a quo STANDS.15 Marcelino at Marlon Daluz at sa aking paglapit sa kanilang tatlo ay
aking nakita at naaktuhang inabot ni Valentine Zafra kay Eroll
Hence, this appeal on the following grounds: first, the arrest was
unlawful; second, the prohibited drugs are inadmissible in evidence; Marcelino ang isang (1) plastic sachet ng shabu may timbang na 0.30

grams, at isa pang plastic sachet ng shabu na si Marlon Daluz ay confiscated the shabu from both of them and the paraphernalia
hawak ang isang disposable lighter at 2 piraso ng aluminum foil na from Daluz. How he saw a 0.30 gram of shabu from a distance in a
inaayos na nilalagyan ng lupi at 7 piraso ng empty plastic sachet. busy street, baffles this Court. Asked, however, on cross
(Emphasis supplied)19 examination, who among the three were holding the shabu and
drug paraphernalia, SPO4 Mendoza failed to be consistent with his
xxxx earlier testimony and pointed to Daluz as the one holding shabu
On cross examination, SPO4 Mendoza testified that it was Zafra and with a handkerchief in his hand and Zafra as the one in possession of
not Daluz, who was holding the aluminum foil (contrary to his earlier drug paraphernalia. These inconsistencies are not minor ones, and,
testimony that Zafra was holding shabu);20 that Daluz (whom he certainly, not among those which strengthens the credibility of a
claimed during the direct examination to be holding the aluminum witness. Possession of drug paraphernalia vis-à-vis shabu, are two
foil) and Marcelino were holding handkerchiefs and on top of them different offenses under RA No. 9165. That Zafra was holding drug
were shabu;21 When the defense confronted SPO4 Mendoza about paraphernalia and not shabu is material to this case, to the
the inconsistency, he told the court that his version during his direct accusation against him, and to his defense.
testimony was the correct one.22 Second, a reading of the RTC decision on this matter reveals that the
While, it is hornbook doctrine that the evaluation of the trial court conviction was arrived at upon reliance on the presumption of
on the credibility of the witness and the testimony is entitled to regularity in the performance of Mendoza’s official duty.25
great weight and is generally not disturbed upon appeal,23 such It is noteworthy, however, that presumption of regularity in the
rule does not apply when the trial court has overlooked, performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome
misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of weight or substance.24 the constitutional presumption of innocence.26 Evidence of guilt
In the instant case, these circumstances are present, that, when beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the
properly appreciated, would warrant the acquittal of petitioners. hypothesis of guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by bestowing
Certainly, SPO4 Mendoza’s credibility has to be thoroughly looked distrust on the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all
into, being the only witness in this case. While in his affidavit, SPO4 doubts as to his culpability.27
Mendoza claimed that he saw the sachet of shabu (0.30 gram) Third, SPO4 Mendoza was the lone arresting officer, who brought
because Zafra was in the act of handing it to Marcelino, his the petitioners to the police station,28 who himself marked the
testimony during the direct examination reveals another version, confiscated pieces of evidence sans witnesses, photographs, media,
that is, from a distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu, and in the absence of the petitioners. His colleagues were
respectively, hence, he approached them from behind and nowhere.29 And, worse, he was the same person who took custody

of the same pieces of evidence, then, brought them on his own to (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
the crime laboratory for testing.30 No inventory was ever done;31 drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
no inventory was presented in court. inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the acts necessary for seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the prosecution of the offense is unexplained and puts the proof of the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
corpus delicti, which is the illegal object itself in serious doubt. No public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
definite answer can be established regarding the question as to who inventory and be given a copy thereof.
possessed what at the time of the alleged apprehension. More
significantly, we are left in doubt whether not the two sachets of Section 21(a) Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
shabu allegedly seized from the petitioners were the very same RA No. 9165 reads:
objects offered in court as the corpus delicti.
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
established with moral certainty.32 The dangerous drug itself accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.33 Essential therefore from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
established beyond doubt.34 Be that as it may, the mere fact of inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt.35 search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that
court as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.36 The chain as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
removed.37
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 reads: requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence

sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the delicti, still, the case at bar cannot pass the constitutional
proponent claims it to be.38 It would include testimony about every requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be
observed. In People v. Salonga,41 we acquitted the accused for the
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated
items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,42 for
in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.39 These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the
seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo43 also
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 resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was
ever made by the police.
same.40
The records readily raise significant doubts as to the identity of the We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v.
Capuno,44 People v. Lorena,45 and People v. Martinez.46
sachets of shabu allegedly seized from Zafra and Marcelino. SPO4
Mendoza’s claim that the two sachets of shabu presented in court The present petition is the sum total of all the violations committed
were the same ones confiscated from the petitioners, cannot be in the cases cited above.
taken at its face value, solely on the presumption of regularity of
one’s performance of duty. SPO4 Mendoza blatantly broke all the Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we reiterate that
rules established by law to safeguard the identity of a corpus delicti. non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does
There was even no mention about the details of the laboratory not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and
examination of the allegedly seized drugs. To allow this to happen is invalid; the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) there is a
to abandon everything that has been said about the necessity of justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and
proving an unbroken chain of custody. SPO4 Mendoza cannot alone evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been
satisfy the requirements in RA No. 9165 which is anchored on, properly preserved.47 These conditions, however, were not met in
expressly, the participation of several personalities and the the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer
execution of specified documents. any justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the
prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items.1âwphi1
And, while jurisprudence has refined the enumerated duties of an As we held in People v. De Guzman,48 the failure to follow the
apprehending officer in a drug case and has thus described the procedure mandated under RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules
equivalent requirements for a proper chain of custody of the corpus

and Regulations must be adequately explained. The justifiable PEOPLE v LANGCUA
ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court DECISION
cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.
PEREZ, J.:
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the
presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused For review through this appeal 1 is the decision2 dated 16 October
lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-1-I.C. No. 03462
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.49 The rule is which affirmed the conviction of herein accused-appellant SAIBEN
invariable whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the LANGCUA y DAI MLA (Langcua) of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in
law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is violation of Section 5, Article 113 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or
shown.50 In dubio pro reo.51 When moral certainty as to the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt
The factual rendition of the prosecution follows:
inevitably becomes a matter of right.52
The first witness presented by the prosecution was PO1 Jonie
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the
Domingo (PO1 Domingo). He testified that he has been a member of
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 October 2009 in CA-G.R.
the Philippine National Police since 16 December 2003 and assigned
CR No. 31713. Petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and Eroll
at the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations (PAID-SO) at
Marcelino y Reyes are hereby ACQUITTED for the failure of the
Camp Valentin Juan, Laoag City on the day of the busy-bust
prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are
operation on 4 October 2006.4
ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are
confined for another lawful cause. On the day of the buy-bust, at about 1:45 o’clock in the afternoon,
one of their police informants came to their office and reported to
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau
their team leader Police Inspector Teddy Rosqueta (P/I Rosqueta)
of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The
the selling of drugs by the accused Langcua. He was just beside P/I
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this
Rosqueta when the report was made.5 Thereupon, P/I Rosqueta
Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this
instructed the informant to contact Langcua and place an order for
Decision.
P11,000.00-worth of shabu.
SO ORDERED.
The informant did what he was told to do. Langcua agreed to deliver
the ordered shabu at Barangay 7-B, Laoag City near City
Employment Center.6

A team composed of P/I Rosqueta, PO3 Rousel Albano, PO3 Marlon substance. He then secured the plastic sachet and called the cellular
Nicolas (PO3 Nicolas), PO2 Jonathan Pasamonte, PO1 Alizer phone of P/I Rosqueta. After the call, he then grabbed the right arm
Cabotage, PO1 Rona Gaoiran, PO1 Domingo and the informant was of Langcua who was already starting to accelerate his motorcycle
formed to conduct a buy-bust operation with PO1 Domingo as the but was stopped by the other police officers acting as back-up.15
poseur-buyer, and the other members of the team as back-up
He also testified that one of the members of the buy-bust team, PO3
perimeter security. PO3 Nicolas recorded in the Police Blotter the
pre-operation activity, including the marking of the buy-bust money Nicolas conducted a body search and recovered the buy-bust
money, cellular phone and wallet from Langcua.16
and the circumstances leading to the report of the informant.7 The
buy-bust money was eight (8) pieces of P1,000.00 bills and six (6) In open court, PO1 Domingo identified the money recovered from
pieces of P500.00 bills8 all marked with letter "J" at the upper right Langcua as the same marked money used in the operation through
portion by PO1 Domingo.9 the markings letter "J" on the upper right portion of the paper bills
as well as their serial numbers recorded in the police blotter.17 He
PO1 Domingo and the informant proceeded to the agreed place of
the transaction on board a motorcycle, while the rest of the team also identified the white crystalline substance contained in the
plastic sachet handed over by Langcua to him in the sale and
followed on board an unmarked vehicle.10 PO1 Domingo and the
informant waited for Langcua11 at the agreed place. After a few pointed out the marking "JD" on one side and "SL" on the other
side.18
minutes, Langcua arrived on board a motorcycle and approached
them. He then asked the informant "SINO NAMAN YONG KASAMA Afterwards, PAID-SO made a letter request to the Provincial Crime
MO?"12 The informant replied, "HUWAG KANG MAG-ALALA, Laboratory for the examination of the confiscated white crystalline
KASAMA YAN." Langcua then asked, "YONG BALANCE MO PA, substance.19
KAILAN MO BABAYARAN?" to which the latter replied, "SA SUSUNOD
NALANG."13 PO3 Nicolas and P/I Rosqueta corroborated the direct testimony of
PO1 Domingo on materials points constituting the buy-bust
Langcua initiated the sale by asking, "SAAN NA YONG PERA NYO?" operation conducted by them.20
PO1 Domingo replied, "HETO," and handed the marked money to
Langcua. Langcua put the money in his pocket and thereafter The presentation of evidence on the authenticity, genuineness and
handed out to PO1 Domingo one (1) light blue colored folded paper due execution of the initial laboratory report issued by Police Senior
coming from the right portion of his pants.14 Inspector and Forensic Chemical Officer Mary Ann Cayabyab, (PSI
Cayabyab), with regard to the specimen subjected for examination,
Upon receipt, PO1 Domingo opened the folded paper and found one was dispensed with following the agreement of the prosecution and
(1) big heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline defense as evidenced by the Pre-Trial Order.21

On the other hand, the factual version of the defense follows: asked why he had such amount, he explained that he and his wife
owned a carinderia and were saving to go home to Mindanao. A
Langcua in his defense testified that on the date of the alleged sale male person then showed a plastic sachet of shabu and claimed that
of illegal drug on 4 October 2006, he just came from the mosque for it came from his motorcycle. He denied the allegation. The police
his noon prayer.22 Upon returning home, he saw his wife already officers maltreated him again.31 He also denied possession of the
waiting for him. At around 12:30-1:00 o’clock in the afternoon she cellular phone recovered by the police officers.
instructed him to buy medicines for their child who then had
fever.23 His statements were corroborated by his wife Naimah Sultan and
Ali.32
While he was setting his motorcycle, he saw Ombawa Ali (Ali) whom
he asked to go with him.24 Upon approaching Rizal corner Guerrero Eventually, an Information33 was filed by Laoag City Prosecutor
Streets, three male persons on board a car flagged them to stop. Angel G. Rubio as follows:
The three men introduced themselves as police officers and asked
That on or about the 4th day of October 2006, in the City of Laoag,
both of them if they were Muslims.25 When Langcua answered in
the affirmative, they asked him and Ali to move to the side of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
[above] herein accused[,] did then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully
street and go with them. When he asked the police officers what
was their fault, they replied "just come with us if you don’t want to and feloniously sell and deliver to a police officer who acted as
poseur buyer one (1) big plastic sachet of Methamphetamine
get hurt."26He eventually complied with the police officers after one
of them kicked his motorcycle and strangled him. Ali ran away when Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug popularly known as "shabu[,]" with
net weight of 1.7257 gram, without any license or authority, in
he saw this.27
violation of the aforecited law.
The police officers pulled him towards the direction of Guerrero
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Street where several armed men were already waiting for them.
One of them boxed him and handcuffed his hands.28 Upon boarding Upon arraignment on 16 April 2007,34 the accused-appellant, with
the car of the police officers, he saw a man he knew as Danny the assistance of counsel, pleaded NOT GUILTY to the offense
Domingo inside and both of them were brought to the police charged.
station.29 He added that he was again physically maltreated inside
the vehicle until they reached the station.30 On 7 March 2008, the trial court found the accused-appellant
GUILTY of violation of Section 5, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165 under
While inside the police station, the police officers frisked him and Criminal Case No. 13295-13. The disposition reads:
recovered his wallet containing money worth P11,000.00. When

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL
Saibern Langcua y Daimla GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as DUTY.
charged of the offense of illegal sale of shabu and is therefore
III. THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CORPUS
sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a
fine of P2,000, 000.00. DELICTI OF THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROPERLY ESTABLISHED
BY THE PROSECUTION.
The shabu subject of this case consisting of 1.7257 grams is ordered
confiscated, the same to be disposed of as the law prescribes.35 We do not agree.
On the first assigned error, the focus is on the alleged inconsistency

On appeal to the CA, the accused-appellant argued that the trial
court erred in holding that the buy-bust operation was sufficiently of recollection of events of PO1 Domingo and PO3 Nicolas as
compared to the statement of P/I Rosqueta. PO1 Domingo and PO3
established; in finding credible the testimonies of the police officers;
and in relying on the presumption of regularity of the performance Nicolas testified that the police informant relayed to them the
telephone conversation regarding an illegal sale. On the other hand,
of official duties. He argued that the corpus delicti of the crime was
not established.36 P/I Rosqueta recalled that he himself heard the telephone
conversation because he placed his ear on the cellular phone of the
The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The dispositive portion informant. This inconsistency, according to the defense, tainted the
reads: initial contact of the buy-bust operation.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, The argument is misplaced.
Branch 13, in Criminal Case No. 132925-13 dated 7 March 2008 is
What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took
hereby AFFIRMED.37
place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the
In this appeal, accused-appellant adopted his arguments before the corpus delicti.38 The commission of illegal sale merely
appellate court: consummates the selling transaction, which happens the moment
the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police
I. THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INITIAL officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was
CONTACT ON THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION WAS accepted by seller, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs
SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED. to the former, the crime is already consummated.39
II. THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONIES OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE APPLICATION OF

In this case, the prosecution has adequately proven all the elements A: Subject person Saiben Langcua accounted the peso bills and after
constituting sale of illegal drug. This is evident from the testimony of he accounted the money, he immediately pocketed it in his left front
PO1 Domingo, we quote: pocket of his short pants, sir.
xxxx Q: By the way, Mr. Witness, what denominations are those money
that were used in the buy-bust operation?
Q: And after that, what happened next?
A: Eight (8) pieces of P1,000,000.00 bills and Six (6) pieces of
A: And after that, Saiben Langcua asked: "SAN NA YUNG PERA P500.00 bills, sir.
NYO?" [(]Where is your money then[?")]
Q: After pocketing them, what did the accused do, if any?
xxxx
A: The accused brought out one (1) folded paper colored light blue
Q: What was your reply, if any? from the right front of his short pants and he handed it to me, sir.
A: "HETO," I answered, "here[.]" Q: And did you actually receive that?
Q: And after that, what next transpired? A: Yes, sir.
A: I showed to the subject person the money and I handed it to him, Q: What did you with it after receiving the same?
sir.
A: I immediately opened the folded paper containing one (1) big
Q: You said money, what money are you referring to that you heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, sir.
handed to the subject person?
Q: After determining that it is a big plastic sachet containing white
A: The buy-bust money used in the buy-bust operation, sir. crystalline substance, what did you do, if any?
Q: What is that money in relation to the one that you have recorded A: I secured the plastic sachet containing alleged shabu and I
in the police blotter? immediately miss called the cell phone of Police Inspector Teddy
A: It is the one to be used in the buy-bust operation, sir. Rosqueta, sir.40 (Emphasis supplied)
Q: And after handling the money, what next transpired? xxxx

PO1 Domingo in open court identified the white crystalline testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material
substance contained in the plastic sachet as the one handed by details surrounding the actual commission of the crime."45
Langcua to him during the buy-bust operation. The substance
The inconsistencies in the recollection of facts of PO1 Domingo, PO3
yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, as evidenced by the Chemistry Report given by PSI Nicolas and P/I Rosqueta regarding the street where the accused
came from, the position of the motorcycle as well as the operational
Cayabyab.41
condition of the cellular phone, are not material elements in
Further, the defense cited several inconsistencies on the part of the establishing an illegal sale of dangerous drug. It is not irregular for
police officers. One instance was the disagreement on the name of police officers to have inconsistent statements in the narration of
the street where the accused-appellant came from when he details of the buy-bust operation, as, indeed the inconsistency can
approached the Employment Center. Another inconsistency was indicate truthfulness. What is important is for them to recount the
whether he was riding a motorcycle when he was arrested or was material facts constituting sale of dangerous drug such as the
just standing near the same. A question on whether the cellular exchange of the illegal drug for buy-bust money and identification of
phone confiscated from him was operational or not was also put in the buyer, seller and illegal drug in court as the object of the sale.
issue. Further, the defense doubted the lower court’s finding that The three witnesses corroborated each other on material points
there is no significance in the non-indication of the marking "J" in which added to the confidence placed on their testimonies.
the buy-bust money in the pre-operation blotter and the absence of
the confiscated cellular phone in the list of the Certificate of Seized As last attempt to persuade this Court of his innocence, the accused-
appellant relied on the allegation of broken chain of custody of
Items.
evidence.
We cannot subscribe to the arguments of the defense.
The contention of the defense suggests that the non-marking of the
As held in the case of People v. Gonzaga,42 minor inconsistencies do seized illegal drug at the place where the same was confiscated is
not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of enough to exonerate the accused-appellant. The reason is that this
the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.43 "[M]inor allegedly places in doubt the authenticity of the drug delivered to
inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from the crime laboratory for examination.
their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is
coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact A review of the records and pleadings failed to convince us to
overturn the ruling of conviction.
suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been
rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements
detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."44"[T]he witnesses’ and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources

of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the xxxx
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of Q: Now, Mr. Witness, with respect to the white crystalline substance
contained in the plastic sachet that you claimed to have been
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized handed to you by the accused Saiben Langcua, if shown to you
again, Mr. Witness, would you be able to identify it?
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final A: Yes, sir.
disposition.46
Q: What could make you identify it?
In the case of People v. Kamad,47 the Court had the opportunity to
enumerate the different links that the prosecution must prove in A: I put markings, sir, my initial "JD" and the other is the initial of the
order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, accused, I put "SL" on the other side.
namely:
Q: I have here a plastic sachet with markings that corresponds to
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug what you have just mentioned, Mr. Witness, kindly look over the
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; same and tell what is the relation of that to that which was handed
to you by the accused?
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; A: This is the plastic sachet handed to me by the accused, sir. (The
witness identified the heat-sealed plastic sachet sealed with
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to masking tape with markings containing white crystalline substance.
the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and On one side were the markings "JD." October 4, 2006 and the other
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug side bearing the initial "SL[,]" October 4, 2006).
seized by the forensic chemist to the court.48 Q: After taking custody of that, after it was delivered to you by the
The Court finds that the different links to establish the chain of accused, what did you do with it, if any?
custody are sufficiently established. A: We made a letter request to the crime laboratory and we
PO1 Domingo in his testimony identified the confiscated white delivered that heat-sealed plastic sachet containing alleged shabu to
the Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination, sir.49
crystalline substance and its turnover to the crime laboratory for
examination. We quote the portion of his testimony: xxxx

The Request for Laboratory Examination50 dated 4 October 2006 The prosecution has properly established the continuous
also stated that PO1 Domingo delivered the heat-sealed plastic whereabouts of the exhibit at least from the time it came into
sachet, containing white crystalline substance with markings "JD" possession of the police officers, during its testing in the laboratory
representing his initials and "SL" at the other side of the plastic to determine its composition and up to the time it was offered in
sachets representing the initials of the arrested suspect Langcua, to evidence.1âwphi1
PSI Cayabyab.
Be it granted that there was no strict observance of the procedure;
The laboratory examination yielded positive result for the substantial compliance thereof is well sanctioned for in Section
methamphetamine hydrochloride, an illegal drug.51 The testimony 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165
of PSI Cayabyab was dispensed with by both parties hence, the which reads:
appreciation of the report was left to the sound discretion of the
court for evaluation. Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
In his cross testimony, P/I Rosqueta explained why the marking was Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
not made at the place of the buy-bust operation, we quote: Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
Q: And because there were other people in the area from the time plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
that you were able to confiscate the items from the accused, you essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
immediately ordered the accused to be brought to your office laboratory so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
because you were afraid that the incident might invite commotion? disposition in the following manner:
A: Yes, sir, because after the confiscation of the items, there were (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control
many people gathering near and they were shouting. of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
Q: And it was because of this reason that you did not longer (sic) physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
order the marking of the confiscated items on the buybust? accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
A: Not anymore, sir, because after showing me the confiscated item. from media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
I told them to bring it to the camp and when were already at the public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
camp, the shabu that was bought from Saiben is the same that was inventory and be given copy thereof. Provided, that the physical
sold and that is also the same that was brought to the crime inventory and the photograph shall be conducted at the place where
laboratory.52 the search warrant is served; or at least the nearest police station or

at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the decision
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that of the Court of Appeals dated 16 October 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-II. C.
noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, No. 03462 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team/officer, shall not SO ORDERED.
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
(Emphasis supplied)
PEOPLE v DAHIL
The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that DECISION
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,
MENDOZA, J.:
so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the
evidence are removed.53 As long as the integrity and evidentiary This is an appeal from the September 27, 2013 Decision1 of the
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05707, which affirmed
apprehending police officers, substantial compliance with the the July 17, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57,
procedure to establish a chain of custody is sanctioned. Angeles City (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. DC 02-376, DC 02-377 and
DC 02-378, finding accused Ramil Doria Dahil (Dahil) and Rommel
This Court in People v. Lorena54held that:
Castro (Castro) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections
People v. Pringas teaches that non-compliance by the 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
fatal. Its non-compliance will not automatically render an accused’s
The Facts
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and On October 1, 2002, Dahil and Castro were charged in three (3)
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be separate Informations before the RTC. In Criminal Case No. DC 02-
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the 376, Dahil and Castro were charged with violation of Section 5,
accused. We recognize that the strict compliance with the Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale of 26.8098 grams of marijuana
requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field in the Information which reads:
conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot
at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of
handling of confiscated evidence.55 Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating and

mutually helping one another, did, then and there, willfully, tops weighing ONE HUNDRED THIRTY GRAMS and EIGHT
unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver to a poseur buyer six THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A
(6) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY SIX GRAM (130.8286), which is a dangerous drug, without authority
GRAMS AND EIGHT THOUSAND NINETY EIGHT TEN THOUSANDTHS whatsoever.
OF A GRAM (26.8098), which is a dangerous drug, without authority
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 On November 14, 2002, Castro was arraigned and he pleaded not
guilty. Dahil, on the other hand, filed a motion for reinvestigation
In Criminal Case No. DC 02-377, Dahil was charged with possession and his arraignment was deferred. Trial ensued and the prosecution
of 20.6642 grams of marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II of presented PO2 Arieltino Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz)and SPO1 Eliseo Licu
R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads: That on or about the (SPO1 Licu), as witnesses.
29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and
On August 6, 2009, the RTC discovered that Dahil was never
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously arraigned through inadvertence.6 The RTC informed the parties of
the situation and the defense counsel did not interpose any
have in his possession and custody and control Five (5) tea bags of
dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY GRAMS AND SIX objection to the reopening of the case and the arraignment of Dahil.
The latter was then arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter,
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A
GRAM (20.6642), which is a dangerous drug, without authority the public prosecutor manifested that he was adopting all the
evidence already adduced.
whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4 Version of the Prosecution
Evidence of the prosecution tended to show that, for a couple of

In Criminal Case No. DC 02-378, Castro was charged with possession
of 130.8286 grams of marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II weeks, the agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing operations
of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads: That on or about
the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, relative to the information they received that a certain alias "Buddy"
and alias "Mel" were trafficking dried marijuana in TB Pavilion,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and Marisol Subdivision, Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. On
September 29, 2002, the Chief of PDEA formed a team to conduct a
feloniously have in his possession and custody and control One (1)
brick in form wrapped in masking tape of dried marijuana fruiting buy-bust operation. The team was composed of four (4) police
officers, namely, Sergeant Juanito dela Cruz (Sergeant dela Cruz), as

team leader; and PO2 Corpuz, SPO1 Licu and PO2 Javiar, as "ADGC" and "EML." Finally, the marijuana brick confiscated from
members. PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-buyer while Castro was marked "C-RDRC." Sergeant dela Cruz then prepared the
SPO1 Licu was assigned as his back-up. request for laboratory examination, affidavits of arrest and other
pertinent documents. An inventory of the seized items7 was also
The team proceeded to the target place at around 8:00 o’clock in the prepared which was signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. Thereafter, PO2
evening. Upon arriving, PO2 Corpuz together with the informant Corpuz brought the confiscated drugs to the Philippine National
went to the house of Dahil which was within the TB Pavillon Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, which subsequently
compound. When PO2 Corpuz and the informant were in front of yielded positive results for marijuana.
the house, they met Dahil and Castro. The informant then
introduced PO2 Corpuz as the buyer of marijuana. Dahil asked PO2 The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the
Corpuz how much would he be buying and the latter answered that essential contents of the prospective testimony of the forensic
he would buy ₱200.00 worth of marijuana. At this juncture, Dahil chemist, to wit:
took out from his pocket six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana and
handed them to PO2 Corpuz. After checking the items, PO2 Corpuz 1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by PO3 Dela
Cruz;
handed two (2) ₱100.00 marked bills to Castro.
Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to signal that the 2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent to
the PNP Crime Laboratory,Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;
sale had been consummated. The rest of the buy-bust team then
rushed to their location and arrested Castro and Dahil. PO2 Corpuz 3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;
frisked Dahil and recovered from his possession another five (5)
plastic sachets containing marijuana while SPO1 Licu searched the 4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the
person of Castro and confiscated from him one (1) brick of substance subject of the letter request with qualification that said
suspected marijuana. request was not subscribedor under oath and that the forensic
chemist has no personal knowledge as from whom and where said
Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were substance was taken;
then brought by the buy-bust team to the PDEA office. There, the
seized items were marked by PO2 Corpuz and SPO1Licu. First, the six 5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in
(6) plastic sachets of marijuana which were sold by Dahil to PO2 Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002; and
Corpuz were marked with "A-1" to "A-6" and with letters "RDRC,"
6. The findings and conclusion thereof.8
"ADGC" and "EML." Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered
from Dahil were marked with "B-1" to "B-5" and with letters "RDRC,"

The prosecution was ordered to formally offer its evidence on March In its Decision,11 dated July 17, 2012, the RTC found both accused
7, 2007.9 After much delay, the public prosecutor was finally able to liable for violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, and imposed
orally submit his formal offer of exhibits after almost two years, or upon them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
on January 6, 2009.10 He offered the following documentary ₱500,000.00 each for the crime of illegal sale of marijuana;Twelve
evidence: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation (12) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years of
Report, (3) Photocopy of the marked money, (4) Brown envelope Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000.00 each
containing the subject illegal drugs, (5) Inventory of Property Seized, for the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.
(6) Laboratory Examination Request, and (7) Chemistry Report No.
D-0518-2002. The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the
case of selling and possession of illegal drugs against the accused. All
Version of the Defense the elements of the crimes were established. To the trial court, the
evidence proved that PO2 Corpuz bought marijuana from Dahil. The
In his defense, Dahil claimed that on September 29, 2002, a tricycle latter examined the marijuana purchased and then handed the
driver came looking for him after he had arrived home. He saw the marked money to Castro.
tricycle driver with another man already waiting for him. He was
then asked by the unknown man whether he knew a certain Buddy The marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers, but
in their place. He answered that there were many persons named the RTC ruled that the same was not fatal considering that a
Buddy. Suddenly, persons alighted from the vehicles parked in front photocopy of the marked money was presented and identified by
of his house and dragged him into one of the vehicles. He was the arresting officers.12 It did not give credence to the defense of
brought to Clark Air Base and was charged with illegal selling and frame-up by Dahil and Castro explaining that it could easily be
possession of marijuana. concocted with no supporting proof.
For his part, Castro testified thaton September 29, 2002, he was on CA Ruling
4th Street of Marisol, Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City, watching
The accused then appealed to the CA. In their Brief for the Accused-
a game of chess when he was approached by some men who asked
if he knew a certain Boy residing at Hardian Extension. He then Appellants,13 they argued that there were irregularities on the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal
replied that he did not know the said person and then the men
ordered him to board a vehicle and brought him to Clark Air Base items seized from them. The prosecution witnesses exhibited gross
disregard of the procedural safeguards which generated clouds of
where he was charged withillegal possession of marijuana.
doubts as tothe identity of the seized items presented in
RTC Ruling evidence.14

In its Brief for the Appellee,15 the OSG contended that the It was also held that the prosecution was able to establish the chain
prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of illegal of custody. PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu testified that the said drugs
sale and possession of marijuana. As to the chain of custody were marked at the police station. An inventory of the seized items
procedure, it insists that the prosecution witnesses were able to was made as shown by the Inventory Report of Property Seized, duly
account for the series of events that transpired, from the time the signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. The Request for Laboratory
buy-bust operation was conducted until the time the items were Examination revealed that the confiscated drugs were the same
presented in court. items submitted to the PNP crime laboratory for examination. On
the other hand, Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002 showed that the
The CA denied the appeal in its Decision, dated September 27, 2013. specimen gave positive results to the test of marijuana. The accused
In its view, the prosecution was able to establish that the illegal sale failed to show that the confiscated marijuana items were tampered
of marijuana actually took place. As could be gleaned from the with, or switched, before they were delivered to the crime
testimony of PO2 Corpuz, there was an actual exchange as Dahil laboratory for examination.20
took out from his pocket six (6) sachets containing marijuana, while
PO2 Corpuz handled out the two (2) ₱100.00 marked bills, after they Hence, this appeal.
agreed to transact ₱200.00 worth of the illegal drug.16 The charge
of illegal possession of marijuana, was also thus established by the This appeal involves the sole issue of whether or not the law
enforcement officers substantially complied with the chain of
prosecution.17 Another five (5) plastic sachets of marijuana were
recovered from Dahil’s possession while one (1) brick of marijuana custody procedure required by R.A. No. 9165.
from Castro’s possession.18 The Court’s Ruling
It was likewise proven that the illicit drugs confiscated from the Let it be underscored that appeal incriminal cases throws the whole
accused during the buy-bust operation were the same drugs case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to
presented before the RTC. As testified to by PO2 Corpuz, the six (6) correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment
plastic sachets of marijuana, which were sold by Dahil toPO2 Corpuz whether they are assigned or unassigned.21 Considering that what
were marked "A-1" to "A-6" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC"and is at stake here is no less than the liberty of the accused, this Court
"EML," the five (5) plastic sachets recovered in the possession of has meticulously and thoroughly reviewed and examined the
Dahil were marked "B-1" to "B-5" and with the initials "ADGC" and records of the case and finds that there is merit in the appeal. The
"EML," while the marijuana brick confiscated from Castro was Court holds that that there was no unbroken chain of custody and
marked "C-RDRC."19 that the prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the
crime charged.

A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, explains the said
of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out term as follows:
illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements
secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not
escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources
of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
topolice abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion.22 time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
material if not indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in
dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
that the items offered in court were the same substances disposition.
boughtduring the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement,
As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody,
known under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain of custody, performs the
function of ensuring thatunnecessary doubts concerning the identity Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies that:
of the evidence are removed.23 In People v. Catalan,24 the Court (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
said: drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photographthe same in the presence of the accused
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, the Prosecution must prove the corpus or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
delicti.That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On the other
hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are inventory and be given a copy thereof.
substantial gapsin the chain of custody of the seized dangerous Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence Regulations (IRR)of R.A. No. 9165 enumeratesthe procedures to be
presented in court. observed by the apprehending officers toconfirm the chain of
Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, to wit:
custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous DrugsBoard Regulation No. 1, xxx

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control official who shall be required tosign the copies of the inventory and
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, be given a copy thereof.
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
First,the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative after seizure and confiscation as it was only done at the police
station. Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR allows the
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory to be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending team whichever is practicable, in case of
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the warrantless seizures. In this case, however, the prosecution did not
even claim that the PDEA Office Region 3 was the nearest office
search warrantis served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is from TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The prosecution also
failed to give sufficient justification for the delayed conduct of the
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that
non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, inventory. PO2 Corpuz testified, to wit:
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items Q: What documents did you ask Kgd. Abel Pamintuan to sign?
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; A: The inventory of the property seized, sir.
xxx Q: And did he sign that?
The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not A: Yes, sir.
complied with.
Q: Where was he when he signed that?
Although the prosecution offered inevidence the Inventory of the
A: In our office, sir.
Property Seized signed by the arresting officers and Kagawad
Pamintuan, the procedures provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 Q: Already in your office?
were not observed. The said provision requires the apprehending
team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately (1) conduct a A: Yes, sir.
physically inventory; and (2) photograph the same in the presence of
Q: Who prepared the inventory of the property seized?
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/orseized, or his/her representative or counsel, a A: Our investigator, sir.
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public

Q: And that was prepared while you were already at your office? A: In our office, ma’am
A: Yes, sir, because we did not bring with us the material or Q: Were pictures takenon the alleged seized items together with
equipment for the preparation of the documents so, we invited him Ramil Dahil?
to our office.25
A: No, ma’am.29
PO2 Corpuz gave the flimsy excusethat they failed to immediately
[Emphases supplied]
conduct an inventory because they did not bring with them the
material or equipment for the preparation of the documents. Such SPO1 Licu when cross-examined on the same point, testified this
explanation is unacceptable considering that they conducted a was:
surveillance on the target for a couple of weeks.26 They should have
been prepared with their equipment even before the buy-bust Q: After you conducted the alleged buy-bust operation, did you
operation took place. conduct an inventory of the alleged seized items?
Second,there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared A: Yes, ma’am.
the Inventory of Property Seized. According to the CA decision, it
Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at the time you conduct
was Sergeant dela Cruzwho prepared the said document.27 PO2
the inventory?
Cruz on the other hand, testified that it was their investigatorwho
prepared the document while SPO1 Licu’s testimony was that a A: No, ma’am.
certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their investigator.28
Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items?
Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items
were photographed in the presence of the accused or his/her A: Pictures were takenon the accused, ma’am.
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
[Emphasis supplied]
DOJ, and any elected public official. During the cross-examination,
PO2 Corpuz testified: Q: After you arrested Ramil Dahil,did you In other words, when questioned on the conduct of the inventory,
conduct the inventory of the alleged seized items? PO2 Corpuz testified that no pictures of the seized items were taken
while SPO1 Licu said that pictures of the accused were taken. From
A: Yes, sir (sic).
the vague statements of the police officers, the Court doubts that
Q: Where did you conduct the inventory? photographs of the alleged drugs were indeed taken. The records
are bereft of any document showing the photos of the seized items.

The Court notes that SPO1 Licu could have misunderstood the link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
question because he answered that "pictures were taken on the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
accused" when the question referred to photographs of the drugs touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
and not of the accused. received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the
The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
value of the seized items were preserved. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession
dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly of the same.
comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrestof the In People v. Kamad,34 the Court identified the links that the
accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
inadmissible.30 The issue of non-compliance with the said section is situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking,
not of admissibility, but of weight to be given on the ifpracticable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
evidence.31Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial" apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized
and not necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven bythe apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
guilt or innocence of the accused.32 turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized forensic chemist to the court.
items are preserved, the proper chain of custody of the seized items First link: Marking of the Drugs Recovered from the Accused by the
must be shown. The Court explained in People v. Malillin33 how the Apprehending Officer
chain of custody or movement of the seized evidence should be
maintained and why this must be shown by evidence, viz: Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized
drugs or other related items immediately after they have been
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized

contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of sheet, and all other documents necessary for the filing of the case
the specimens will use the markingsas reference. The marking of the against the two (2), sir.
evidence serves to separate the markedevidence from the corpus of
xxx
all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the Q: What about the marijuana, subject of the deal, and the one
criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or which you confiscated from the accused, what did you do with
contamination of evidence.35 those?
It must be noted that marking isnot found in R.A. No. 9165 and is A: Before sending them to Olivas, we placed our markings, sir.37
different from the inventory-taking and photography under Section
21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, Hence, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office Region 3,
however, this Court had consistently held that failure of the the seized items were not marked. It could not, therefore, be
authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast determined how the unmarked drugs were handled. The Court must
reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.36 conduct guesswork on how the seized drugs were transported and
who took custody of them while in transit. Evidently, the alteration
In the present case, PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu claimed that they of the seized items was a possibility absent their immediate marking
had placed their initials on the seized items. They, however, gave thereof.
little information on how they actually did the marking. It is clear,
nonetheless, that the marking was not immediately done at the Still, there are cases whenthe chain of a custody rule is relaxed such
place of seizure, and the markings were only placed at the police as when the marking of the seized items is allowed to be undertaken
station based on the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, to wit: Q: So, after at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as
recovering all those marijuana bricks and plastic sachets of it is done in the presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases.38
marijuana and the marked money from the accused, what else did Even a less stringent application of the requirement, however, will
you do? not suffice to sustain the conviction of the accused in this case.
Aside from the fact that the police officers did not immediately
A: We brought the two (2) suspects and the evidence and marked place their markings on the seized marijuana upon their arrival at
money to our office, sir. the PDEA Office, there was also no showing that the markings were
Q: So, in your office, what happened there? made in the presence of the accused.
PO2 Corpuz testified that they only placed their markings on the
A: Our investigator prepared the necessary documents, sir, the
request for crime lab examination, joint affidavit of arrest, booking drugs when they were about to send them to Camp Olivas for

forensic examination. This damaging testimony was corroborated by Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending
the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution. The following Officer to the Investigating Officer
documents were made at the PDEA Office: (1) Joint Affidavit of
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized
Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Inventory of Property
Seized, and (4) Laboratory Examination Request. Glaringly, only the drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns
Laboratory Examination Request cited the markings on the seized
drugs. Thus, it could only mean that when the other documents it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to
the police crime laboratory for testing.42 This is a necessary step in
were being prepared, the seized drugs had not been marked and the
police officers did not have basis for identifying them. Considering the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who
shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary
that the seized drugs wereto be used for different criminal charges,
it was imperative for the police officers to properly mark them at the documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the
investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to
earliest possible opportunity. Here, they failed in such a simple and
critical task. The seized drugs were prone to mix-up at the PDEA properly prepare the required documents.
Office itself because of the delayed markings. The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin.43
Worse, not all of the seized drugs were properly marked. As noted Surprisingly, there was no testimony from the witnesses as to the
turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly
by the RTC, Exhibit B-3 RC RD,39 Exhibit A-5 RC RD and Exhibit A-6
RD RC40 did not have the initials of the apprehending officers on the improbable for an investigator in a drug-related case toeffectively
perform his work without having custody of the seized items. Again,
back. Bearing in mind the importance of marking the seized items,
these lapses in the procedure are too conspicuous and cannot be the case of the prosecution is forcing this Court to resort to
guesswork as to whether PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu gave the seized
ignored. They placed uncertainty as to the identity of the corpus
delicti from the moment of seizure until it was belatedly marked at drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the investigating officer or they had
custody of the marijuana all night while SPO4 Jamisolamin was
the PDEA Office.
conducting his investigation on the same items.
Similarly, in People v. Garcia,41 the Court considered the belated
In People v. Remigio,44 the Court noted the failure of the police
marking of the seized drug by the apprehending officer in acquitting
the accused in the case. The officer testified that he marked the officers to establish the chain of custody as the apprehending officer
did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The
confiscated items only after he had returned tothe police station.
Such admission showed that the marking was not done immediately apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of
confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic
after the seizure of the items, but after the lapse of a significant
intervening time.

chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran, the forensic chemist who conducted the
the acquittal of the accused in the said case. tests on the subject drugs, did not appear in court despite the
numerous subpoenas sent to her.46 Instead, the prosecution and
Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal Drugs the defense agreed to stipulate on the essential points of her
to the Forensic Chemist proffered testimony. Regrettably, the stipulated testimony of the
From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist failed to shed light as to who received the subject
forensic chemist. Once the seized drugs arrive at the forensic drugs in Camp Olivas. One of the stipulations was "that said forensic
laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and chemist conducted an examination on the substance of the letter-
verify the nature of the substance. In this case, it was only during his request with qualification that said request was not subscribed or
cross-examination that PO2 Corpuz provided some information on under oath and that forensic chemist has no personalknowledge as
the delivery of the seized drugs to Camp Olivas, to wit: from whom and where said substance was taken."47 This bolsters
the fact that the forensic chemist had no knowledge as to who
Q: How about the alleged marijuana, you stated that the same was received the seized marijuana at the crime laboratory.
brought to the crime laboratory, who brought the same to the crime
lab? The recent case of People v. Beran48 involved irregularities in the
third link. The police officer, who both served as apprehending and
A: Me and my back-up, ma’am. investigating officer, claimed that he personally took the drug to the
laboratory for testing, but there was no showing who received the
Q: When did you bring the marijuana to the crime lab for
drug from him. The records also showed that he submitted the
examination?
sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining
A: I think it was the following day, ma’am.45 how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. All those
facts raised serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of
As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, very little the seized item have not been fatally compromised. Hence, the
detail was offered on how the seized marijuana was handled and accused inthe said case was also acquitted.
transferred from the PDEA Office in Angeles City to the crime
laboratory in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the
kept possession of the seized drugs overnight without giving Forensic Chemist to the Court.
detailson the safekeeping of the items. The most palpable deficiency
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the
of the testimony would be the lack of information as to who
forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the
received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas.
criminal case. No testimonial or documentary evidence was given

whatsoever as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of value of the seized items were preserved. The four links required to
the forensic chemist until it was transferred to the court. The establish the proper chain of custody were breached with
forensic chemist should have personally testified on the safekeeping irregularity and lapses.
of the drugs but the parties resorted to a general stipulation of her
testimony. Although several subpoenae were sent to the forensic The Court cannot either agree with the CA that the evidentiary rule
involving the presumption of regularity of the performance of
chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs arrived
in court.49 Sadly, instead of focusing on the essential links in the official duties could apply in favor of the police officers. The
regularity of the performance of duty could not be properly
chain of custody, the prosecutor propounded questions concerning
the location of the misplaced marked money, which was not even presumed in favor of the police officers because the records were
replete with indicia of their serious lapses.51 The presumption
indispensable in the criminal case.
stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the
The case of People v. Gutierrez50 also had inadequate stipulations regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that
as to the testimony of the forensic chemist. No explanation was instance, the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than
given regarding the custody of the seized drug in the interim - from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a
the time it was turned over to the investigator up to its turnover for mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right
laboratory examination. The records of the said case did not show of an accused to be presumed innocent.52
what happened to the allegedly seized shabu between the turnover
by the investigator to the chemist and its presentation in court. Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the
identity of the seized marijuana that the prosecution presented as
Thus, since there was no showing that precautions were taken to
ensure that there was no change in the condition of that object and evidence before the Court. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully
prove the elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession
thereof, the accused therein was likewise acquitted. doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.53
For said reason, there is no need to discuss the specific defenses

In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that,
indeed, there was no compliance with the procedural requirements raised by the accused. WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The
September 27, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical
inventory and the lack of photography of the marijuana allegedly HC No. 05707 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants,
Ramil Doria Dahil and Rommel Castro y Carlos, are ACQUITTED of
confiscated from Dahil and Castro. No explanation was offered for
the non-observance of the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the the crime charged against them and ordered immediately RELEASED
from custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful
saving mechanism of Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 because
it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the evidentiary cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement The Case
this decision and to inform this Court of the date of the actual
release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from
receipt of copy. Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of
SO ORDERED. Court, seeking to set aside the November 28, 2003 Decision[2] and
the March 10, 2004 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
GR CR No. 25401. The CA affirmed, with modifications as to the
MARTURILLAS v PEOPLE award of damages, the Decision[4] of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial
DECISION Court (RTC) of Davao City. The RTC had found Celestino Marturillas
guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No. 42091-98. The assailed CA
Decision disposed as follows:
PANGANIBAN, CJ: WHEREFORE, subject to the modification thus indicated, the

judgment appealed from must be, as it hereby is, AFFIRMED. With
the costs of this instance to be assessed against the accused-
appellant.[5]
ell-rooted is the principle that factual findings of trial courts,

especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally
binding on the Supreme Court. In convicting the accused in the
present case, the Court not merely relied on this doctrine, but also The challenged CA Resolution denied petitioners Motion for
meticulously reviewed the evidence on record. It has come to the Reconsideration.[6]
inevitable conclusion that petitioner is indeed guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Petitioner was charged with homicide in an Information[7] dated
November 5, 1998, worded as follows:

Lito Santos, a forty-three-year old farmer and resident of Barangay
Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City, testified that about 6:00
[T]hat on or about November 4 1998, in the City of Davao, oclock in the afternoon of November 4, 1998, he saw his neighbor
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the and kumpare Artemio Pantinople arrive on board a jeepney from
above-mentioned accused, armed with a gun, and with intent to kill, Bunawan, Davao City. Artemio was carrying a truck battery, some
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one Artemio Pantinople, corn bran and rice. They talked for a while concerning their
thereby inflicting fatal wound upon the latter which caused his livelihood afterwhich, Artemio proceeded to connect the battery to
death.[8] the fluorescent lamps in his store. Artemios store was located about
five (5) meters away from Litos house.
The Facts After installing the battery to the fluorescent lamps, Artemio sat for
a while on a bench located in front of his store. Then, Cecilia Santos,
Version of the Prosecution Litos wife, called him and Artemio for supper. Artemio obliged.Lito,
opting to eat later, served Artemio and Cecilia the food. After eating,
Artemio returned to the bench and sat on it again together with his
tree (3) children, namely: Janice, Saysay and Pitpit.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the Peoples

version of the facts:
Lito was eating supper in their kitchen when he heard a gunshot.
From a distance of about ten (10) meters, he also noticed smoke and
fire coming from the muzzle of a big gun. Moments later, he saw
4. The prosecution presented Lito Santos, Ernita Pantinople, PO2 Artemio clasping his chest and staggering backwards to the direction
Mariano Operario, Alicia Pantinople and Dr. Danilo Ledesma as its of his (Litos) kitchen. Artemio shouted to him, Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil
witnesses from whose testimonies, the following facts were ko ni kapitan, meaning Help me, Pre, I was shot by the
established. captain.However, Lito did not approach Artemio right after the
shooting incident because Cecilia warned him that he might also be
shot.

Lito did not see the person who shot Artemio because his attention suddenly heard the sound of a gunburst followed by a shout, Help
was then focused on Artemio. me Pre, I was shot by the captain. She immediately pushed open the
window of their kitchen and saw appellant wearing a black jacket
and camouflage pants running towards the direction of the back
Shortly, Lito saw Ernita Pantinople, the wife of Artemio, coming from portion of Litos house. From there, appellant crossed the street and
her house towards the direction where Artemio was sprawled on disappeared.
the ground. Ernita was hysterical, jumping and shouting, Kapitan,
bakit mo binaril and aking asawa. She also repeatedly cried for help.
Ernita saw appellant carrying with him a long firearm which looked
like an M-14 rifle. Ernita also sensed that appellant had some
Lito then went out of their house and approached Artemio who was companions with him because she heard the crackling sound of the
lying dead near a banana trunk more than five (5) meters from his dried leaves around the place. Ernita had a clear view of appellant at
house. Some of their neighbors, namely: Antenero, Loloy Libre and that time because their place was well-illumined by the full moon
Lapis answered Ernitas call for help and approached them. that night and by the two (2) fluorescent lamps in their store which
were switched on at the time of the incident.
When the shooting incident happened about 7:30 in the evening of

November 4, 1998, Litos house was illumined by a lamp. Their Ernita immediately went out of their house and ran towards
kitchen has no walls. It is an open-type kitchen giving him an Artemio. Artemio tried to speak to her but he could not do so
unobstructed view of Artemio who was about five (5) meters away because his mouth was full of blood. Upon seeing the pitiful sight of
from where he was positioned at that time. Although there was a her husband, Ernita shouted several times, Kapitan, ngano nimo
gemilina tree growing in the space in between his house and the gipatay and akong bana. She also repeatedly called her neighbors for
store of Artemio, the same did not block his view of Artemio. help but only Lito Santos, Eufemio Antenero, Norman Libre and
Likewise, the coconut trees and young banana plants growing at the some residents of Poblacion Gatungan responded to her calls and
scene of the crime did not affect his view. approached them. She noted that no member of the CFO and
CAFGU came to help them. Also, no barangay tanod came to offer
At the same instance, Ernita was also in their kitchen preparing milk them to help.
for her baby. Her baby was then lying on the floor of their kitchen.
When she was about to put the bottle into the babys mouth, she

While waiting for the police, Ernita did not allow Artemios body to of appellant and informed him that he was a suspect in the killing of
be touched by anybody. After more than two (2) hours, the police Artemio. He then invited appellant to go with him to the police
arrived, together with a photographer by the name of Fe Mendez of station and also to bring along with him his M-14 rifle. Appellant did
Bunawan District, Davao City who took pictures of the crime scene. not say anything. He just got his M-14 rifle and went with the police
to the police station where he was detained the whole night of
November 4, 1998. Appellant did not also give any statement to
PO2 Mariano Operario, Investigation Officer of the Investigation anybody about the incident. The following day, appellant was
Section of the Bunawan Police Station, Philippine National Police, transferred by the police to Tibungco Police Station where he was
Davao City, testified that about 9:05 in the evening of November 4, detained.
1998, he received a report of an alleged shooting incident at
Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District in Davao City. Together with
SPO1 Rodel C. Estrellan and a member of the mobile police patrol on Alicia Pantinople, the 44-year old sister of Artemio, testified that on
board their mobile car, PO2 Operario proceeded immediately to the the night of November 4, 1998, she was at home watching
crime scene. They reached the crime scene about 10:00 oclock in television. She heard a gunshot but did not mind it because she was
the evening of the same date. They found the lifeless body of already used to hearing the sound of guns fired indiscriminately in
Artemio sprawled on the ground. Ernita and Lito then approached their place.
PO2 Operario and informed him that appellant was the one
responsible for the shooting.
After a few minutes, Junjun, a child and resident of Sitio Centro,
Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City came knocking at
PO2 Operario stayed at the crime scene for about one (1) hour and their door. Junjun informed them that: Yoyo, Uncle Titing was
waited for the funeral vehicle to pick up the body of Artemio. When shot,referring to Artemio.
the funeral hearse arrived, PO2 Operario told the crew to load
Artemios body into the vehicle. Thereafter, he then boarded again
their mobile car together with Lito Santos. Upon hearing the report, Alicia looked for some money thinking that
it might be needed for Artemios hospitalization because she
expected Artemio to be still alive. Artemios two (2) children, namely:
Armed with the information that appellant was the one responsible Jonel and Genesis who were staying with her hurriedly left. She then
for the shooting of Artemio, PO2 Operario proceeded to the house

ran to the place where her brother was shot and found Artemios Dr. Danilo Ledesma, a medico-legal officer of the Davao City Health
dead body on the ground surrounded by his four (4) children. Department, conducted an autopsy on Artemios cadaver about 9:30
in the morning of November 5, 1998 at the Rivera Funeral Homes
located at Licanan, Lasang. His findings are summarized in his
At the Bunawan Police Station, Alicia was informed by the police Necropsy Report No. 76:
that appellant was at Tibungco Police Station. She sent her male
cousin to proceed to Tibungco Police Station to find out if appellant
was indeed in the said place. However, her cousin immediately POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
returned and informed her that appellant was not in Tibungco Police
Station. She then went around the Bunawan Police Station and
noticed a locked door. When she peeped through the hole of the Pallor, marked generalized.
said door, she saw appellant reclining on a bench about two and a
half (2 ) meters away from the door. Appellants left leg was on top of
the bench while his right leg was on the ground. Appellant was
Body in rigor mortis.
wearing a brown shirt, black jacket and a pair of camouflage pants.
He was also wearing brown shoes but he had no socks on his feet.
Wound, gunshot, ENTRANCE, 0.9 x 0.8 cm. Ovaloid located at the

anterior chestwall, rightside, 1.0 cm; from the anterior median line,
At the police station, Alicia confronted appellant: Nong Listing I
at the level of the third (3rd) intercoastal space and 131.0 cms.
know that you can recognize my voice. It is me. Why did you kill my
above the right heel, directed backwards, upwards, medially
brother? What has he done wrong to you?
crossing the midline from the right to left, involving the soft tissues,
perforating the body of the sternum, into the pericardial cavity,
perforating the heart into the left thoracic cavity, perforating the
Appellant did not answer her. Nevertheless, she was sure that heart into the left thoracic cavity, perforating the upper lobe of the
appellant was awake because he was tapping the floor with his right left lung, forming an irregular EXIT, 1.5 x 1.1 cms. at the posterior
foot. chest wall left side, 13.0 cms. from the posterior median line and
139.0 cms. above the left heel.

Hemopericadium, 300 ml. than twenty-four (24) inches when he fired his gun at Artemio. He
did not also find any bullet slug inside the body of Artemio
indicating that the bullet went through Artemios body. Artemios
Hemothorax, left, 1,000 ml. heart and lungs were lacerated and his stomach contained partially
digested food particles indicating that he had just eaten his meal
when he was shot.
Stomach, filled with partially digested food particles.
In the certificate of death of Artemio, Dr. Ledesma indicated that the

cause of his death was a gunshot wound on the chest.
Other visceral organs, pale.
5. After the defense presented its evidence, the case was submitted
CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound of the chest.
for decision.[9]
Signed by: DANILO P. LEDESMA
Medico-Legal Officer IV
Version of the Defense

During the trial, Dr. Ledesma explained that Artemio died of a
gunshot wound, 0.9 x 0.8 centimeters in size located about one (1)
inch away from the centerline of Artemios Adams apple down to his On the other hand, petitioner presented the following statement of
navel and about 1:00 oclock from his right nipple. facts:
The trajectory of the bullet passing through Artemios body indicates 9. This is a criminal case for Homicide originally lodged before the
that his assailant was in a lower position than Artemio when the gun Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of Davao City against herein
was fired. Dr. Ledesma also found the wound of Artemio negative of Petitioner Celestino Marturillas, former Barangay Captain of
powder burns indicating that the assailant was at a distance of more Gatungan, Bunawan District[,] Davao City and docketed as Criminal

Case No. 42,091-98. The criminal charge against Petitioner was the of having shot her husband instead of Lito Santos who was his
result of a shooting incident in Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan enemy. Petitioner was taken aback by the instant accusation against
District, DavaoCity which resulted in the slaying of Artemio him. He explained that he just came from his house where he was
Pantinople while the latter was on his way home in the evening of roused by his Kagawads from his sleep. Not being able to talk sense
November 4, 1998. with Ernita Pantinople, Petitioner and his companions backed off to
avoid a heated confrontation. Petitioner instead decided to go back
to his house along with his companions.
10. On that same evening at around 8:30 p.m. herein Petitioner
former Barangay Captain Celestino Marturillas was roused from his
sleep at his house in Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, 12. Upon reaching his house, Petitioner instructed Kagawad Jimmy
DavaoCity by his wife since Kagawads Jimmy Balugo and Norman Balugo to contact the Bunawan Police Station and inform them what
Libre (Barangay Kagawads of Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao transpired. Not knowing the radio frequency of the local police,
City) wanted to see him. Dazed after just having risen from bed, Kagawad Balugo instead radioed officials of nearby Barangay San
Petitioner was rubbing his eyes when he met the two Kagawads Isidro requesting them to contact the Bunawan PNP for police
inside his house. He was informed that a resident of his barangay, assistance since someone was shot in their locality.
Artemio Pantinople, had just been shot. Petitioner at once ordered
his Kagawads to assemble the members of the SCAA (Special Civilian
Armed [Auxiliary]) so that they could be escorted to the crime scene 13. Moments later, PO2 Mariano Operario and another police officer
some 250 meters away. As soon as the SCAAs were contacted, they arrived at the house of Petitioner and when confronted by the latter,
(Petitioner, Kagawads Libre and Balugo including Wiliam Gabas, he was informed by PO2 Operario that he was the principal suspect
Eddie Loyahan and Junior Marturillas - the last three being SCAA in the slaying of Artemio Pantinople. Upon their invitation,
members) then proceeded to the crime scene to determine what Petitioner immediately went with the said police officers for
assistance they could render. questioning at the Bunawan Police Station. He also took with him his
government-issued M-14 Rifle and one magazine of live M-14
ammunition which Petitioner turned over for safe keeping with the
11. While approaching the store owned by the Pantinoples and not Bunawan PNP. The police blotter showed that Petitioner
very far from where the deceased lay sprawled, Petitioner was met surrendered his M-14 rifle with live ammunition to SPO1 Estrellan
by Ernita Pantinople (wife of the deceased-Artemio Pantinople) who and PO3 Sendrijas of the Bunawan PNP at around 10:45 p.m. of
was very mad and belligerent. She immediately accused Petitioner November 4, 1998.

reported that prior to these writing, one Artemio Pantinople, former
Barangay Kagawad of Barangay Gatungan was allegedly shot to
14. When the shooting incident was first recorded in the Daily death by unidentified armed man at the aforementioned barangay. x
Record of Events of the Bunawan PNP it was indicated therein that x x.
deceased may have been shot by unidentified armed men viz:
16. On November 5, 1998 at around 7:15 a.m. PO2 Mariano

Entry No. Date Time Incident/Events Operario indorsed with the Bunawan PNP an empty shell fired from
2289 110498 2105H SHOOTING INCIDENT- a carbine rifle which was recovered by the said police officer from
the crime scene in the night of the incident. Owing to his pre-
occupation in organizing and preparing the affidavits of the
Complainant and her witnesses the previous evening, he was only
One Dominador Lopez 43 years old, married, farmer and a resident
able to indorse the same the following morning. At the same time,
of Puro[k] 5, Barangay Gatungan, Davao City appeared at this
P/Chief Insp. Julito M. Diray, Station Commander of the Bunawan
Precinct and reported that shortly before this writing, one ARTEMIO
PNP made a written request addressed to the District Commander
PANTINOPLE, former barangay kagawad of Barangay Gatungan was
of the PNP Crime Laboratory requesting that a paraffin test be
allegedly shot to death by an unidentified armed men at the
conducted on Petitioner and that a ballistics examination be made
aforementioned Barangay. x x x.
on the M-14 rifle which he surrendered to Bunawan PNP.
17. At around 9:30 a.m. of November 5, 1998, Dr. Danilo P. Ledesma,

15. The extract from the police blotter prepared by SPO2 Dario B. M.D., Medico-Legal Officer for Davao City conducted an autopsy on
Undo dated November 9, 1998 already had a little modification the cadaver of deceased and made the following Post-Mortem
indicating therein that deceased was shot by an unidentified armed Findings contained in Necropsy Report No. 76 dated November 6,
man and the following entry was made. 1998, viz:
2105H: Shooting Incident: One Dominador Lopez, 43 years old, Pallor, marked, generalized
married, farmer and a resident of Purok 5, Barangay Gatungan
Body in rigor mortis
Bunawan District, Davao City appeared at this Police Precinct and

18. After the fatal shooting of deceased, Celestino Marturillas was
subjected to paraffin testing by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Davao
Wound, gunshot, ENTRANCE, 0.9-0.8 cm. ovaloid located at the City at 10:30 a.m. November 5, 1998. The next day, November 6,
anterior chest wall, right side, .0 cm. from the anterior median line, 1998, the PNP Crime Laboratory released Physical Sciences Report
at the level of the third (3rd) intercostal space and 131.0 cms. above No. C-074-98 regarding the paraffin test results which found
the right neck, directed backwards, upwards, medially, crossing the Petitioner NEGATIVE for gunpowder nitrates based on the following
midline from the right to left, involving the soft tissues, perforating findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory:
the body of the sternum into the pericardial cavity, perforating the
heart into the left thoracic cavity, perforating the upper lobe of the
left lung forming an irregular EXIT, 1.5x1.1 cms. at the posterior
FINDINGS:
chest wall, left side, 13.0 cms. from the posterior median line and
139.0 cms. above the left neck.
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-mentioned

Hemopericadium, 300 ml. specimen gave NEGATIVE result to the test for the presence of
gunpowder nitrates. x x x
Hemothorax, left 1,000 ml.

CONCLUSION:
Stomach filled with partially digested food particles.

Both hands of Celestino Marturillas do not contain gunpowder
nitrates[.]
Other visceral organs, pale
19. After preparing all the affidavits of Ernita Pantinople and her
witnesses PO2 Mariano R. Operario Jr., the police officer as[s]igned
CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound of the chest. to investigate the shooting of the deceased, prepared and
transmitted, on November 5, 1998, a Complaint to the City

Prosecution Office recommending that Petitioner be indicted for
Murder, attaching therewith the Sworn Affidavits of Ernita O.
Pantinople (Complainant), Lito D. Santos (witness) and the Sworn That I hurriedly go down from my house and proceeded to the
victims body, wherein when I came nearer I got surprised for the
Joint Affidavit of SPO1 Rodel Estrellan and PO2 Mariano R. Operario
Jr. of the PNP. victim was my beloved husband;
20. The following is the Affidavit-Complaint of Ernita Pantinople as That I was always shouting in visayan words kapitan nganong imo
mang gipatay and akong bana;
well as the supporting affidavits of her witnesses all of which are
quoted in full hereunder:
That I let my husband body still at that placed until the police
Ernita Pantinoples Affidavit-Complaint dated November 5, 1998: officers will arrived and investigate the incident;
That last November 4, 1998 at about 7:30 in the evening, I was That I know personally Brgy. Capt. Celestino Marturillas for he is my
nearby neighbor at that placed;
attending and caring my baby boy at that time to let him sleep and
that moment I heard first one gun shot burst after then somebody That I am executing this affidavit to apprise the authorities concern
shouting seeking for help in Visayan words tabangi ko Pre gipusil ko of the truthfulness of the foregoing and my desire to file necessary
ni Kapitan I estimated a distance to more or less ten (10) meters charges against Celestino Marturillas.
away from my house;
Witness-Affidavit of Lito Santos dated November 5, 1998 reads:

That I immediately peep at the windows, wherein I very saw a
person of Brgy. Capt. Celestino Marturillas of Brgy. Gatungan,
Bunawan District, Davao City, wearing black jacket and camouflage
I, LITO D. SANTOS, 43 yrs. old, married, farmer, a resident of Purok 5,
pants carrying his M-14 rifle running to the direction to the left side
Brgy. Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City after having been duly
portion of the house of Lito Santos who was my neighbor
sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and say:
respectively;

That last November 4, 1998 at about 7:30 in the evening I was taking 21. Based on the Affidavits executed by Ernita Pantinople and Lito
my dinner at the kitchen of my house and after finished eating I Santos, then 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor Raul B. Bendigo issued a
stood up then got a glass of water and at that time I heard one gun Resolution on November 5, 1998 finding sufficient evidence to indict
shot burst estimated to more or less ten (10) meters from my Appellant for the crime of Homicide and not Murder as alleged in
possession then followed somebody shouting seeking for help in Private Complainants Affidavit Complaint. The Information states:
Visayan words tabangi ko pre gipusil ko ni Kapitan;
Above-mentioned Accused, armed with a gun, and with intent to

That I really saw the victim moving backward to more or less five (5) kill, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one Artemio
meters away from where he was shot then and there the victim Pantinople, thereby inflicting fatal wound upon the latter which
slumped at the grassy area; caused his death.
That I immediately go out from my house and proceeded to the CONTRARY TO LAW.
victims body, wherein, when I came nearer I found and identified
the victim one Artemio Pantinople who was my nearby neighbor
sprawled on his own blood at the grassy area; xxxxxxxxx
That no other person named by the victim other than Brgy. Capt. 23. The theory of the Defense was anchored on the testimony of the
Celestino Marturillas of Brgy. Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao following individuals:
City;
23.1 Jimmy Balugo, was one of the Barangay Kagawads who went to
That I am executing this affidavit to apprised the authorities concern the house of Petitioner after receiving a radio message from Brgy.
of the true facts and circumstances that surrounds the incident. Kagawad Glenda Lascua that a shooting incident took place in their
barangay. He also testified that together with Kagawad Norberto

Libre, he proceeded to the house of Petitioner to inform him of the 23.3) Ronito Bedero testified that he was in his house on the night
shooting incident involving a certain Artemio Titing Pantinople. After Artemio Pantinop[l]e was shot. The material point raised by this
informing Petitioner about what happened, the latter instructed him witness in his testimony was the fact that he saw an unidentified
and Norberto Libre to gather the SCAAs and to accompany them to armed man flee from the crime scene who later joined two other
the crime scene. He also narrated to the court that Petitioner and armed men near a nangka tree not far from where deceased was
their group were not able to render any assistance at the crime shot. All three later fled on foot towards the direction of the Purok
scene since the widow and the relatives of deceased were already Center in Barangay Gatungan. This witness noticed that one of the
belligerent. As a result of which, the group of Petitioner including three men was armed with a rifle but could not make out their
himself, went back to the formers house where he asked Petitioner identities since the area where the three men converged was a very
if it would be alright to contact the police and request for assistance. dark place. After the three men disappeared, he saw from the
He claimed that he was able to contact the Bunawan PNP with the opposite direction Petitioner, Barangay Kagawad Jimmy Balugo and
help of the Barangay Police of Barangay San Isidro. three (3) SCAA members going to the scene of the crime but they
did not reach the crime scene. A little later, he saw the group of
Petitioner return to where they came from.
23.2) Norberto Libre testified that in the evening of November 4,
1998, he heard a gunburst which resembled a firecracker and after a
few minutes Barangay Kagawad Jimmy Balugo went to his house and 23.4) Police C/Insp. Noemi Austero, Forensic Chemist of the PNP
informed him that their neighbor Titing Pantinople was shot. Crime Laboratory, testified that she conducted a paraffin test on
Kagawad Balugo requested him to accompany the former to go to both hands of Petitioner on November 5, 1999 at around 10:30
the house of then Barangay Captain Celestino Marturillas; that he a.m.She also testified that Petitioner tested NEGATIVE for
and Kagawad Balugo proceeded to the house of Petitioner and gunpowder nitrates indicating that he never fired a weapon at any
shouted to awaken the latter; that Barangay Captain Marturillas time between 7:30 p.m. of November 4, 1999 until the next day,
went out rubbing his eyes awakened from his sleep and was November 5, 1999. She also testified that as a matter of procedure
informed of the killing of Artemio Pantinople; that Petitioner at the PNP Crime Laboratory, they do not conduct paraffin testing on
immediately instructed them to fetch the SCAA and thereafter their a crime suspect seventy two (72) hours after an alleged shooting
group went to the crime scene. incident. She also testified that based on her experience she is not
aware of any chemical that could extract gunpowder nitrates from
the hands of a person who had just fired his weapon.

23.5) Dominador Lapiz testified that he lived on the land of the
victim, Artemio Pantinople for ten (10) years. He was one of the first
persons who went to the crime scene where he personally saw the 23.6) Celestino Marturillas, former Barangay Captain of Barangay
Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City testified that he learned of
body of deceased lying at a very dark portion some distance from
the victims house and that those with him at that time even had to Pantinoples killing two hours later through information personally
relayed to him by Kagawads Jimmy Balugo and Norberto Libre. He
light the place with a lamp so that they could clearly see the
deceased. He also testified that there were many coconut and other intimated to the Court that he did try to extend some assistance to
the family of the deceased but was prevented from so doing since
trees and bananas in the crime scene. He also testified that the
house of Lito Santos was only about four (4) meters from the crime the wife of deceased herself and her relatives were already hostile
with him when he was about to approach the crime scene. He also
scene, while the house of victim-Artemio Pantinople was about
FIFTY (50) meters away. He testified that there was no lighted testified that he voluntarily went with the police officers who
arrested him at his residence on the same evening after the victim
fluorescent at the store of deceased at the time of the shooting. He
was also the one who informed Kagawad Glenda Lascuna about the was shot. He also turned over to police custody the M-14 rifle issued
to him and voluntarily submitted himself to paraffin testing a few
shooting of Artemio Pantinople. His testimony also revealed that
when the responding policemen arrived, Lito Santos immediately hours after he was taken in for questioning by the Bunawan PNP.
Petitioner, during the trial consistently maintained that he is
approached the policemen, volunteered himself as a witness and
even declared that he would testify that it was Petitioner who shot innocent of the charge against him.[10]
Artemio Pantinople.
On cross-examination, this witness declared that the crime scene

was very dark and one cannot see the body of the victim without
light. On cross-examination, this witness also testified that Lito Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Santos approached the service vehicle of the responding policemen
and volunteered to be a witness that Petitioner was the assailant of
the victim, Artemio Pantinople. This witness further testified that
immediately after he went to the crime scene, the widow of the
victim and the children were merely shouting and crying and it was
only after the policemen arrived that the widow uttered in a loud
voice, Kapitan nganong gipatay mo and akong bana?

The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that the guilt of petitioner
had been established beyond reasonable doubt. According to the
appellate court, he was positively identified as the one running away The Issues
from the crime scene immediately after the gunshot. This fact,
together with the declaration of the victim himself that he had been
shot by the captain, clearly established the latters complicity in the
crime.
In his Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for the

No ill motive could be ascribed by the CA to the prosecution Courts consideration:
witnesses. Thus, their positive, credible and unequivocal testimonies
were accepted as sufficient to establish the guilt of petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt. I
On the other hand, the CA also rejected his defenses of denial and The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it gave
alibi. It held that they were necessarily suspect, especially when credence to the claim of the solicitor general that the prosecutions
established by friends or relatives, and should thus be subjected to witnesses positively identified petitioner as the alleged triggerman
the strictest scrutiny. At any rate, his alibi and denial cannot prevail
over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses found to
be more credible.
II
The appellate court upheld petitioners conviction, as well as the

The Court of Appeals was in serious error when it affirmed the trial
award of damages. In addition, it awarded actual damages
courts blunder in literally passing the blame on petitioner for the
representing unearned income.
lapses in the investigation conducted by the police thereby shifting
Hence, this Petition.[11] on him the burden of proving his innocence

III shot by the captain), which was considered by the two lower courts
either as his dying declaration or as part of res gestae.
The Court of Appeals committed a serious and palpable error when

it failed to consider that the deceased was cut off by death before Under the second main issue, petitioner contends that the burden
he could convey a complete or sensible communication to whoever of proof was erroneously shifted to him; that there should have
heard such declaration assuming there was any been no finding of guilt because of the negative results of the
paraffin test; and that the prosecution miserably failed to establish
the type of gun used in the commission of the crime.
IV
Petit[i]oners alibi assumed significance considering that evidence The Courts Ruling
and testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses arrayed against
petitioner failed to prove that he was responsible for the
commission of the crime.[12]
The Petition is unmeritorious.
First Main Issue:
Credibility of the Prosecution Evidence

In sum, petitioner raises two main issues: 1) whether the
prosecutions evidence is credible; and 2) whether it is sufficient to
convict him of homicide. Under the first main issue, he questions According to petitioner, the charge of homicide should be dismissed,
the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses; the because the inherent weakness of the prosecutions case against him
alleged inconsistencies between their Affidavits and court was revealed by the evidence presented. He submits that any doubt
testimonies; and the plausibility of the allegation that the victim had as to who really perpetrated the crime should be resolved in his
uttered, Tabangi ko pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan (Help me pre, I was favor.

Petitioner contends that it was inconceivable for Prosecution
Witness Ernita Pantinople -- the victims wife -- to have identified
We do not agree. This Court has judiciously reviewed the findings him as the assassin. According to him, her house was a good fifty
and records of this case and finds no reversible error in the CAs (50) meters away from the crime scene,[17] which was enveloped in
ruling affirming petitioners conviction for homicide. pitch darkness.[18] Because of the alleged improbability, he insists
that her testimony materially contradicted her Affidavit. The
Affidavit supposedly proved that she had not recognized her
Basic is the rule that this Court accords great weight and a high husband from where she was standing during the shooting. If she
degree of respect to factual findings of the trial court, especially had failed to identify the victim, petitioner asks, how was it possible
when affirmed by the CA, as in the present case.[13] Here, the RTC for her to conclude that it was [p]etitioner whom she claims she saw
was unequivocally upheld by the CA, which was clothed with the fleeing from the scene?[19]
power to review whether the trial courts conclusions were in accord
with the facts and the relevant laws.[14] Indeed, the findings of the
trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless it has All these doubts raised by petitioner are sufficiently addressed by
overlooked or misinterpreted some facts or circumstances of weight the clear, direct and convincing testimony of the witness. She
and substance.[15] Although there are recognized exceptions[16] to positively identified him as the one running away immediately after
the conclusiveness of the findings of fact of the trial and the the sound of a gunshot. Certain that she had seen him, she even
appellate courts, petitioner has not convinced this Court of the described what he was wearing, the firearm he was carrying, and
existence of any. the direction towards which he was running. She also clarified that
she had heard the statement, Help me pre, I was shot by the
captain, uttered after the shooting incident. Accepting her
Having laid that basic premise, the Court disposes seriatim the testimony, the CA ruled thus:
arguments proffered by petitioner under the first main issue.
Ernitas testimony that she saw [petitioner] at the crime scene is

Positive Identification credible because the spot where Artemio was shot was only 30
meters away from her house. Undoubtedly, Ernita is familiar with
[petitioner], who is her neighbor, and a long-time barangay captain
of Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City when the

incident took place. Ernita was also able to see his face while he was
running away from the crime scene. The identification of a person
can be established through familiarity with ones physical features. These assertions are easily belied by the findings of the courts
below, as borne by the records. Ernita testified on the crime scene
Once a person has gained familiarity with one another, identification
becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. conditions that had enabled her to make a positive identification of
petitioner. Her testimony was even corroborated by other
Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that people in rural
communities generally know each other both by face and name, and prosecution witnesses, who bolstered the truth and veracity of
those declarations. Consequently, the CA ruled as follows:
can be expected to know each others distinct and particular features
and characteristics.[20]
x x x Ernitas recognition of the assailant was made possible by the

lighted two fluorescent lamps in their store and by the full moon. x x
x. In corroboration, Lito testified that the place where the shooting
occurred was bright.
This holding confirms the findings of fact of the RTC. Settled is the The trees and plants growing in between Ernitas house and the
rule that on questions of the credibility of witnesses and the veracity place where Artemio was shot to death did not impede her view of
of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest the assailant. To be sure, the prosecution presented photographs of
degree of respect.[21] It was the trial court that had the opportunity the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinities. These
to observe the manner in which the witnesses had testified; as well photographs gave a clear picture of the place where Artemio was
as their furtive glances, calmness, sighs, and scant or full realization shot. Admittedly, there are some trees and plants growing in
of their oaths.[22] It had the better opportunity to observe them between the place where the house of Ernita was located and the
firsthand; and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under spot where Artemio was shot. Notably, however, there is only one
grueling examination.[23] gemilina tree, some coconut trees and young banana plants growing
in the place where Artemio was shot. The trees and banana plants
have slender trunks which could not have posed an obstacle to
Petitioner doubts whether Ernita could have accurately identified Ernitas view of the crime scene from the kitchen window of her
him at the scene of the crime, considering that it was dark at that house especially so that she was in an elevated position.[24]
time; that there were trees obstructing her view; and that her house
was fifty (50) meters away from where the crime was committed.

This Court has consistently held that -- given the proper conditions -- culprit. For her to do so is to let the guilty go free.[29] Where there
the illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, a flashlight, a wick is nothing to indicate that witnesses were actuated by improper
lamp, moonlight, or starlight is considered sufficient to allow the motives on the witness stand, their positive declarations made
identification of persons.[25] In this case, the full moon and the light under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.[30]
coming from two fluorescent lamps of a nearby store were sufficient
to illumine the place where petitioner was; and to enable the
eyewitness to identify him as the person who was present at the Inconsistency Between
crime scene. Settled is the rule that when conditions of visibility are
favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their Affidavit and Testimony
assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be
accepted.[26]
Petitioner contends that the testimony of Ernita materially

But even where the circumstances were less favorable, the
contradicted her Affidavit. According to him, she said in her
familiarity of Ernita with the face of petitioner considerably reduced
testimony that she had immediately recognized her husband as the
any error in her identification of him.[27] Since the circumstances in
victim of the shooting; but in her Affidavit she stated that it was only
this case were reasonably sufficient for the identification of persons,
when she had approached the body that she came to know that he
this fact of her familiarity with him erases any doubt that she could
was the victim.
have erred in identifying him. Those related to the victim of a crime
have a natural tendency to remember the faces of those involved in
it. These relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned
with seeking justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor We find no inconsistency. Although Ernita stated in her testimony
before the law.[28] that she had recognized the victim as her husband through his voice,
it cannot necessarily be inferred that she did not see him.Although
she recognized him as the victim, she was still hoping that it was not
really he. Thus, the statement in her Affidavit that she was surprised
Neither was there any indication that Ernita was impelled by ill
to see that her husband was the victim of the shooting.
motives in positively identifying petitioner. The CA was correct in
observing that it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested
in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody else other than the real

To be sure, ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete, as these are Ernita positively testified that immediately after the shooting, she
frequently prepared by administering officers and cast in their had heard her husband say, Help me pre, I was shot by the captain.
language and understanding of what affiants have said.[31] Almost This statement was corroborated by another witness, Lito Santos,
always, the latter would simply sign the documents after being read who testified on the events immediately preceding and subsequent
to them. Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are to the shooting.
considered incomplete and often inaccurate. They are products
sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of want of
suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may It should be clear that Santos never testified that petitioner was the
be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for one who had actually shot the victim. Still, the testimony of this
accurate recollection.[32] witness is valuable, because it validates the statements made by
Ernita.He confirms that after hearing the gunshot, he saw the victim
and heard the latter cry out those same words.
Nevertheless, the alleged inconsistency is inconsequential to the
ascertainment of the presence of petitioner at the crime scene.
Ruled the CA: Petitioner insinuates that it was incredible for Santos to have seen
the victim, but not the assailant. The CA dismissed this argument
thus:
x x x. They referred only to that point wherein Ernita x x x
ascertained the identity of Artemio as the victim. They did not relate
to Ernitas identification of [petitioner] as the person running away x x x. The natural reaction of a person who hears a loud or startling
from the crime scene immediately after she heard a gunshot.[33] command is to turn towards the speaker. Moreover, witnessing a
crime is an unusual experience that elicits different reactions from
Statements Uttered
witnesses, for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be
Contemporaneous with the Crime prescribed. Litos reaction is not unnatural. He was more concerned
about Artemios condition than the need to ascertain the identity of
Artemios assailant.[34]

It was to be expected that, after seeing the victim stagger and ourselves with speculations, probabilities or possibilities. Said the
hearing the cry for help, Santos would shift his attention to the CA:
person who had uttered the plea quoted earlier. A shift in his focus
of attention would sufficiently explain why Santos was not able to
see the assailant. Petitioner then accuses this witness of harboring a x x x. Thus, as between the positive and categorical declarations of
deep-seated grudge,[35] which would explain why the latter the prosecution witnesses and the mere opinion of the medical
allegedly fabricated a serious accusation. doctor, the former must necessarily prevail.
Moreover, it must be stressed that the post-mortem examination of

This contention obviously has no basis. No serious accusation the cadaver of Artemio was conducted by Dr. Ledesma only about
9:30 in the morning of November 5, 1998 or the day following the
against petitioner was ever made by Santos. What the latter did was
merely to recount what he heard the victim utter immediately after fatal shooting of Artemio. Evidently, several hours had elapsed prior
to the examination. Thus, Dr. Ledesma could not have determined
the shooting. Santos never pointed to petitioner as the perpetrator
of the crime. The statements of the former corroborated those of Artemios physical condition a few seconds after the man was shot.
[36]
Ernita and therefore simply added credence to the prosecutions
version of the facts. If it were true that he had an ulterior motive, it
would have been very easy for him to say that he had seen
petitioner shoot the victim.
Dying Declaration
The two witnesses unequivocally declared and corroborated each

other on the fact that the plea, Help me pre, I was shot by the
captain, had been uttered by the victim. Nevertheless, petitioner
contends that it was highly probable that the deceased died Having established that the victim indeed uttered those words, the
instantly and was consequently unable to shout for help. We do not question to be resolved is whether they can be considered as part of
discount this possibility, which petitioner himself admits to be a the dying declaration of the victim.
probability. In the face of the positive declaration of two witnesses
that the words were actually uttered, we need not concern Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, provides:

The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of voluntarily without coercion or suggestions of improper influence; 4)
impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is be offered in a criminal case, in which the death of the declarant is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding the subject of inquiry; and 5) have been made by a declarant
circumstances of such death. competent to testify as a witness, had that person been called upon
to testify.[42]
The statement of the deceased certainly concerned the cause and

Generally, witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from circumstances surrounding his death. He pointed to the person who
their own perception. A recognized exception, though, is a report in had shot him. As established by the prosecution, petitioner was the
open court of a dying persons declaration made under the only person referred to as kapitan in their place.[43] It was also
consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in established that the declarant, at the time he had given the dying
the case.[37] declaration, was under a consciousness of his impending death.
True, he made no express statement showing that he was conscious

Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the of his impending death. The law, however, does not require the
verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of credence and declarant to state explicitly a perception of the inevitability of death.
respect.[38] Persons aware of an impending death have been known [44] The perception may be established from surrounding
to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in circumstances, such as the nature of the declarants injury and
their accusations.[39] The dying declaration is given credence, on conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was a
the premise that no one who knows of ones impending death will consciousness of impending death.[45] Even if the declarant did not
make a careless and false accusation.[40] Hence, not infrequently, make an explicit statement of that realization, the degree and
pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the seriousness of the words and the fact that death occurred shortly
dying declaration of the deceased victim.[41] afterwards may be considered as sufficient evidence that the
declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of being
in a dying condition.[46]
To be admissible, a dying declaration must 1) refer to the cause and

circumstances surrounding the declarants death; 2) be made under
the consciousness of an impending death; 3) be made freely and Also, the statement was made freely and voluntarily, without
coercion or suggestion, and was offered as evidence in a criminal

case for homicide. In this case, the declarant was the victim who, at subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may
the time he uttered the dying declaration, was competent as a be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements
witness. accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a
legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
As found by the CA, the dying declaration of the victim was

complete, as it was a full expression of all that he intended to say as
conveying his meaning. It [was] complete and [was] not merely
Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the
fragmentary.[47] Testified to by his wife and neighbor, his dying
declaration was not only admissible in evidence as an exception to victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during,
or after its commission.[49] These statements are a spontaneous
the hearsay rule, but was also a weighty and telling piece of
evidence. reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion,
without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false
statement.[50] An important consideration is whether there
intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any
Res Gestae circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the
mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for
deliberation.[51]
The fact that the victims statement constituted a dying declaration

does not preclude it from being admitted as part of the res gestae, if A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in
the elements of both are present.[48] evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, when the following
requisites concur: 1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the declarant had
time to contrive or devise; and 3) the statements concerned the
Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
[52]
Part of the res gestae. -- Statements made by a person while a

startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or

All these requisites are present in this case. The principal act, the on the strength of its evidence, implying that there was no sufficient
shooting, was a startling occurrence. Immediately after, while he evidence to convict him.
was still under the exciting influence of the startling occurrence, the
victim made the declaration without any prior opportunity to
contrive a story implicating petitioner. Also, the declaration We disagree. The totality of the evidence presented by the
concerned the one who shot the victim. Thus, the latters statement prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction of petitioner. The
was correctly appreciated as part of the res gestae. dying declaration made by the victim immediately prior to his death
constitutes evidence of the highest order as to the cause of his
death and of the identity of the assailant.[53] This damning
Aside from the victims statement, which is part of the res gestae, evidence, coupled with the proven facts presented by the
that of Ernita -- Kapitan, ngano nimo gipatay ang akong bana? prosecution, leads to the logical conclusion that petitioner is guilty
(Captain, why did you shoot my husband?) -- may be considered to of the crime charged.
be in the same category. Her statement was about the same
startling occurrence; it was uttered spontaneously, right after the
shooting, while she had no opportunity to concoct a story against The following circumstances proven by the prosecution produce a
petitioner; and it related to the circumstances of the shooting. conviction beyond reasonable doubt:
Second Main Issue: First. Santos testified that he had heard a gunshot; and seen smoke
coming from the muzzle of a gun, as well as the victim staggering
Sufficiency of Evidence
backwards while shouting, Help me pre, I was shot by the captain.
This statement was duly established, and the testimony of Santos
confirmed the events that had occurred. It should be
understandable that pre referred to Santos, considering that he and
Having established the evidence for the prosecution, we now the victim were conversing just before the shooting took place. It
address the argument of petitioner that the appellate court had was also established that the two called each other pre, because
effectively shifted the burden of proof to him. He asserts that the Santos was the godfather of the victims child.[54]
prosecution should never rely on the weakness of the defense, but

Second. Ernita testified that she had heard a gunshot and her These pieces of evidence indubitably lead to the conclusion that it
husbands utterance, Help me pre, I was shot by the captain, then was petitioner who shot and killed the victim. This Court has
saw petitioner in a black jacket and camouflage pants running away consistently held that, where an eyewitness saw the accused with a
from the crime scene while carrying a firearm. gun seconds after the gunshot and the victims fall, the reasonable
conclusion is that the accused had killed the victim.[57] Further
establishing petitioners guilt was the definitive statement of the
Third. Ernitas statement, Captain, why did you shoot my husband? victim that he had been shot by the barangay captain.
was established as part of the res gestae.
Clearly, petitioners guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Fourth. The version of the events given by petitioner is simply To be sure, conviction in a criminal case does not require a degree of
implausible. As the incumbent barangay captain, it should have been proof that, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute
his responsibility to go immediately to the crime scene and certainty.[58] Only moral certainty is required or that degree of
investigate the shooting. Instead, he avers that when he went to the proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[59]
situs of the crime, the wife of the victim was already shouting and
accusing him of being the assailant, so he just left. This reaction was
very unlikely of an innocent barangay captain, who would simply That some pieces of the above-mentioned evidence are
want to investigate a crime. Often have we ruled that the first circumstantial does not diminish the fact that they are of a nature
impulse of innocent persons when accused of wrongdoing is to that would lead the mind intuitively, or by a conscious process of
express their innocence at the first opportune time.[55] reasoning, toward the conviction of petitioner.[60] Circumstantial,
vis--vis direct, evidence is not necessarily weaker.[61] Moreover, the
circumstantial evidence described above satisfies the requirements
Fifth. The prosecution was able to establish motive on the part of of the Rules of Court, which we quote:
petitioner. The victims wife positively testified that prior to the
shooting, her husband was trying to close a real estate transaction
which petitioner tried to block. This showed petitioners antagonism SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. -- Circumstantial
towards the victim.[56] evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and Corpus Delicti
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a Petitioner then argues that the prosecution miserably failed to
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[62] establish the type of gun used in the shooting. Suffice it to say that
this contention hardly dents the latters case. As correctly found by
the appellate court, the prosecution was able to give sufficient proof
of the corpus delicti -- the fact that a crime had actually been
committed. Ruled this Court in another case:
[Corpus delicti] is the fact of the commission of the crime that may
Paraffin Test be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses. In its legal sense,
corpus delicti does not necessarily refer to the body of the person
murdered, to the firearms in the crime of homicide with the use of
Petitioner takes issue with the negative results of the paraffin test unlicensed firearms, to the ransom money in the crime of
done on him. While they were negative, that fact alone did not ipso kidnapping for ransom, or x x x to the seized contraband cigarettes.
facto prove that he was innocent. Time and time again, this Court [65]
has held that a negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof
that a person has not fired a gun.[63] In other words, it is possible to
fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when culprits wear
gloves, wash their hands afterwards, or are bathed in perspiration.
[64] Besides, the prosecution was able to establish the events during
the shooting, including the presence of petitioner at the scene of To undermine the case of the prosecution against him, petitioner
the crime. Hence, all other matters, such as the negative paraffin depends heavily on its failure to present the gun used in the
test result, are of lesser probative value.

shooting and on the negative paraffin test result. These pieces of
evidence alone, according to him, should exculpate him from the
crime. His reliance on them is definitely misplaced, however. In a [Petitioners] alibi is utterly untenable. For alibi to prosper, it must be
shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been
similar case, this Court has ruled as follows:
at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Here, the
locus criminis was only several meters away from [petitioners]
home. In any event, this defense cannot be given credence in the
Petitioner likewise harps on the prosecutions failure to present the face of the credible and positive identification made by Ernita.[67]
records from the Firearms and Explosives Department of the
Philippine National Police at Camp Crame of the .45 caliber
Remington pistol owned by petitioner for comparison with the
specimen found at the crime scene with the hope that it would
exculpate him from the trouble he is in. Unfortunately for petitioner,
we have previously held that the choice of what evidence to
present, or who should testify as a witness is within the Third Issue:
discretionary power of the prosecutor and definitely not of the
Damages
courts to dictate.
Anent the failure of the investigators to conduct a paraffin test on

petitioner, this Court has time and again held that such failure is not
fatal to the case of the prosecution as scientific experts agree that
the paraffin test is extremely unreliable and it is not conclusive as to An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for
an accuseds complicity in the crime committed.[66] review. It then becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in
the appealed judgment, whether or not included in the assignment
of error.[68] The CA upheld the RTC in the latters award of damages,
with the modification that unearned income be added.
Finally, as regards petitioners alibi, we need not belabor the point. It

was easily, and correctly, dismissed by the CA thus:

We uphold the award of P50,000 indemnity ex delicto[69] to the JOSE v CA
heirs of the victim. When death occurs as a result of a crime, the DECISION
heirs of the deceased are entitled to this amount as indemnity for
the death, without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[70] MENDOZA, J.: rny
As to actual damages, we note that the prosecution was able to
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision[1] of the
establish sufficiently only P22,200 for funeral and burial costs. The
Court of Appeals, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
rest of the expenses, although presented, were not duly receipted.
Branch 172, Valenzuela, Metro Manila and ordering petitioners to
We cannot simply accept them as credible evidence. This Court has
pay damages for injuries to persons and damage to property as a
already ruled, though, that when actual damages proven by receipts
result of a vehicular accident.
during the trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of P25,000
for temperate damages is justified, in lieu of the actual damages of a The facts are as follows:
lesser amount.[71] In effect, the award granted by the lower court is
upheld. Petitioner Manila Central Bus Lines Corporation (MCL) is the
operator-lessee of a public utility bus (hereafter referred to as Bus
203) with plate number NVR-III-TB-PIL and body number 203. Bus
203 is owned by the Metro Manila Transit Corporation and is insured
As to the award of moral damages, the P500,000 given by the RTC
with the Government Service Insurance System.
and upheld by the CA should be reduced to P50,000, consistent with
prevailing jurisprudence.[72] We also affirm the award of loss of On February 22, 1985, at around six oclock in the morning, Bus 203,
earning capacity[73] in the amount of P312,000; attorneys fees of then driven by petitioner Armando Jose, collided with a red Ford
P20,000; and payment of the costs. Escort driven by John Macarubo on MacArthur Highway, in Marulas,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Bus 203 was bound for Muntinlupa, Rizal,
while the Ford Escort was headed towards Malanday, Valenzuela on
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and the opposite lane. As a result of the collision, the left side of the
Resolution are AFFIRMED, subject to the modification in the award Ford Escorts hood was severely damaged while its driver, John
of damages set forth here. Costs against petitioner. Macarubo, and its lone passenger, private respondent Rommel
Abraham, were seriously injured. The driver and conductress of Bus
203 rushed Macarubo and Abraham to the nearby Fatima Hospital
where Macarubo lapsed into a coma. Despite surgery, Macarubo
SO ORDERED.
failed to recover and died five days later. Abraham survived, but he

became blind on the left eye which had to be removed. In addition, dawn and the car started to run only after five oclock in the
he sustained a fracture on the forehead and multiple lacerations on morning. With lack of sleep, the strains of a party still on their
the face, which caused him to be hospitalized for a week. bodies, and the attention to the repair coupled with the wait until
the car was ready to run, are potentials in a driver for possible
On March 26, 1985, Rommel Abraham, represented by his father, accident. The accident happened at 6:15 a.m. when the physical and
Felixberto, instituted Civil Case No. 2206-V-85 for damages against mental condition of the driver John Macarubo was as expected not
petitioners MCL and Armando Jose in the Regional Trial Court, too fit for the driving as he could not anymore control the car. The
Branch 172, Valenzuela. desire to be home quick for the much needed sleep could have
On July 17, 1986, the spouses Jose and Mercedes Macarubo, prompted him to overtake the preceding vehicle.
parents of the deceased John Macarubo, filed their own suit for Indeed the pictures taken of the two vehicles (Exh. 1,2 and 3) will
damages in the same trial court, where it was docketed as Civil Case clearly show that the MCL bus was at its proper lane and not in an
No. 2428-V-86, against MCL alone. On the other hand, MCL filed a overtaking position while the car driven by John Macarubo was
third-party complaint against Juanita Macarubo, registered owner of positioned in a diagonal manner and crossed the line of the MCL,
the Ford Escort on the theory that John Macarubo was negligent which is an indication of an overtaking act. If it were the bus that
and that he was the "authorized driver" of Juanita Macarubo. The was overtaking at the time, the car would have been thrown farther
latter, in turn, filed a counterclaim for damages against MCL for the away from the point of the impact.
damage to her car. Civil Case No. 2206-V-85 and Civil Case No. 2428-
V-86 were consolidated and later tried jointly. The facts, as found by The court is convinced of the close supervision and control of MCL
the trial court, are as follows: Esmsc over their drivers, and its exercise of due diligence in seeing to it
that no recklessness is committed by its employees, drivers
In Civil Case No. 2206-V-85, the Court heard the testimonies that especially, from the unrebutted testimonies of Cesar Cainglet.
during the night previous to the accident of February 22, 1985 at
6:15 a.m., Rommel Abraham and John Macarubo were at a party. The Court noted the respective damages of the two vehicles
There was therefore, no sleep for them, notwithstanding testimony especially the point of the impact. From these damages as shown by
to the contrary and the service of drinks cannot be totally the picture, it can be clearly deduced which vehicle did the
discounted. After the party at 11 p.m., while both Rommel and John bumping. It was the car driven by John Macarubo that hit the MCL
were enroute home to Valenzuela from La Loma, the car which was on its right and correct lane.[2]
encountered mechanical trouble and had to be repaired as its cross-
joint was detached. The defect of a cross-joint is not minor and Based on the foregoing facts, the trial court rendered judgment on
September 28, 1989, dismissing both civil cases against MCL and
repair thereof would as testified to by Rommel lasted up to early

ruling favorably on its third-party complaint against Juanita (d) P5,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
Macarubo, ordering the latter to pay MCL P54,232.12 as actual
damages, P24,000.00 for lost income, and P10,000.00 as attorneys (e) P10,000.00 as attorneys fees.
fees. 2. The heirs of John Macarubo:
Rommel Abraham, the Macarubo spouses, and third-party (a) P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death;
defendant Juanita Macarubo then appealed to the Court of Appeals
which, on December 21, 1994, rendered a decision reversing the (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages;
decision of the trial court. It held (1) that the trial court erred in
(c) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
disregarding Rommel Abrahams uncontroverted testimony that the
collision was due to the fault of the driver of Bus 203; (2) that the (d) P10,000.00 as attorneys fees.
trial court erred in relying on photographs (Exhs. 1-3) which had
been taken an hour after the collision as within that span of time, Costs against the appellees.
the positions of the vehicles could have been changed; (3) that the
SO ORDERED.
photographs do not show that the Ford Escort was overtaking
another vehicle when the accident happened and that John Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners MCL and
Macarubo, its driver, was negligent; and (4) that MCL failed to make Armando Jose raise four issues which boil down to the question
a satisfactory showing that it exercised due diligence in the selection whether it was the driver of Bus 203 or that of the Ford Escort who
and supervision of its driver Armando Jose. The dispositive portion was at fault for the collision of the two vehicles.
of the decision reads: Jksm
It is well-settled that a question of fact is to be determined by the
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and the evidence offered to support the particular contention.[3] In the
defendants-appellees MCL and Armando Jose are adjudged to pay proceedings below, petitioners relied mainly on photographs,
jointly and severally: identified in evidence as Exhibits 1 to 3, showing the position of the
two vehicles after the collision. On the other hand, private
1. Rommel Abraham, represented by his father Felixberto Abraham:
respondents offered the testimony of Rommel Abraham to the
(a) P37,576.47 as actual damages; effect that the collision took place because Bus 203 invaded their
lane.[4]
(b) P50,000.00 as compensatory damages;
The trial court was justified in relying on the photographs rather
(c) P15,000.00 as moral damages; than on Rommel Abrahams testimony which was obviously biased

and unsupported by any other evidence. Physical evidence is a mute Indeed, Bus 203 could not have been overtaking another vehicle
but an eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our when the collision happened. It was filled with passengers,[8] and it
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.[5] In criminal cases such as was considerably heavier and larger than the Ford Escort. If it was
murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found overtaking another vehicle, it necessarily had to accelerate. The
guilty, this Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon acceleration of its speed and its heavy load would have greatly
physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. In People v. Vasquez,[6] increased its momentum so that the impact of the collision would
where the physical evidence on record ran counter to the have thrown the smaller and lighter Ford Escort to a considerable
testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that the distance from the point of impact. Exhibit 1, however, shows that
physical evidence should prevail.[7] Esm the Ford Escorts smashed hood was only about one or two meters
from Bus 203s damaged left front. If there had been a great impact,
In this case, the positions of the two vehicles, as shown in the such as would be the case if Bus 203 had been running at a high
photographs (Exhs. 1 to 3) taken by MCL line inspector Jesus speed, the two vehicles should have ended up far from each other.
Custodio about an hour and fifteen minutes after the collision,
disputes Abrahams self-serving testimony that the two vehicles In discrediting the physical evidence, the appellate court made the
collided because Bus 203 invaded the lane of the Ford Escort and following observations:
clearly shows that the case is exactly the opposite of what he
We cannot believe that it was the car which overtook another
claimed happened. Contrary to Abrahams testimony, the
photographs show quite clearly that Bus 203 was in its proper lane vehicle and proceeded to the lane occupied by the bus. There was a
traffic jam on the "bus lane" while traffic was light on the "car lane."
and that it was the Ford Escort which usurped a portion of the
opposite lane. The three photographs show the Ford Escort Indeed, we find it inconceivable that the car, occupying the lane
without any traffic, would overtake and traverse a heavy traffic lane.
positioned diagonally on the highway, with its two front wheels
occupying Bus 203s lane. As shown by the photograph marked [9] (Underscoring supplied.)
Exhibit 3, the portion of MacArthur Highway where the collision This is correct. However, the fact remains that when the Ford Escort
took place is marked by a groove which serves as the center line finally came to a stop, it encroached on the opposite lane occupied
separating the right from the left lanes. The photograph shows that by Bus 203.
the left side of Bus 203 is about a few feet from the center line and
that the bus is positioned parallel thereto. This negates the claim Significantly, Rommel Abraham testified that on February 21, 1985,
that Bus 203 was overtaking another vehicle and, in so doing, the night before the accident, he and John Macarubo went to a
encroached on the opposite lane occupied by the Ford Escort. friends house in La Loma where they stayed until 11 p.m.[10]
Abrahams explanation as to why they did not reach Valenzuela until

six oclock in the morning of the next day when the accident A: About 12:00 oclock perhaps, sir.
happened indicates that the Ford Escort careened and slammed
against Bus 203 because of a mechanical defect. Abraham told the Q: What happened to the cross joint?
court:[11] Esmmis A: It was cut, maam.
ATTY. RESPICIO: Q: You were able to repair that cross-joint 12:00 oclock and you
were able to run and reached this place of accident at 6:00 oclock?
Q: I am sorry, Your honor. After leaving Arnels place where did you
go? A: No, we were not able to get spare parts, maam.
ROMMEL ABRAHAM Q: Why were you able to reach this place at 6:00 oclock?
A: We proceeded in going home, sir. A: We went home and look for the spare parts in their house, maam.
Q: You were on your way home? Q: House of Macarubo?
A: Yes, sir. A: Yes, maam.
Q: What time did you . . . I will reform the question. You met the Q: So you were able to repair the car?
accident at about 6:00 oclock the next day, 6:00 oclock in the
morning the next day, did it take you long to reach BBB? A: Yes, maam.
A: Our car had a mechanical trouble somewhere at 2nd Avenue, sir. Q: What time were you able to repair the car?
Q: What kind of trouble? A: Around 5:00 oclock in the morning, sir.
A: The cross-joint were detached, sir. Q: You were able to replace the cross-joint or what?
Q: Are you familiar with cars? A: Ginawaan ng paraan, maam.
A: A little, sir. Q: How?
COURT: A: The cross-joint were welded in order to enable us to go home,

maam.
Q: What time was that when you have this cross-joint problem?

Q: No spare parts was replaced? Msesm one Patrolman Kalale, which shows Bus 203 to be occupying the
Ford Escorts lane. However, the records of this case do not show
A: No, maam. that such a sketch was ever presented in evidence in the trial court
Thus, as Rommel Abraham himself admitted, the Ford Escorts rear or that Patrolman Kalale was ever presented as a witness to testify
cross-joint was cut/detached. This mechanism controls the on the sketch allegedly prepared by him. Under Rule 132, 3 of the
movement of the rear tires. Since trouble in the cross-joint affects a Rules on Evidence, courts cannot consider any evidence unless
cars maneuverability, the matter should have been treated as a formally offered by a party.
serious mechanical problem. In this case, when asked if they were Finally, the appellate court also ruled that MCL failed to make a
able to repair the cross-joint, Abraham said "Ginawaan ng paraan, satisfactory showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father
maam," by simply welding them just so they could reach home. His of a family in the selection and supervision of its bus driver,
testimony indicates that the rear cross-joint was hastily repaired and Armando Jose.[13] Under the circumstances of this case, we hold
that, at most, the kind of repairs made thereon were merely that proof of due diligence in the selection and supervision of
temporary; just enough to enable Abraham and Macarubo to reach employees is not required.
home. Given such fact, the likelihood is that while the Ford Escort
might not have been overtaking another vehicle, it actually strayed The Civil Code provides in pertinent parts:
into the bus lane because of the defective cross-joint, causing its
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
driver to lose control of the vehicle.
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
The appellate court refused to give credence to the physical done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
evidence on the ground that the photographs were taken an hour relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
after the collision and that within such span of time the bus could by the provisions of this chapter.
have been moved because there was no showing that the driver left
the scene of the accident. This is not correct. Constancia Gerolada, Art. 2180. The obligation imposed in Art. 2176 is demandable not
only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons
Bus 203s conductress, testified that, immediately after the collision,
she and bus driver, petitioner Armando Jose, took the injured driver for whom one is responsible. Esmso
and passenger of the Ford Escort to the Fatima Hospital.[12] This ....
fact is not disputed by private respondents.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees
Rommel Abraham mentioned in his appellants brief in the appellate and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
court a sketch of the scene of the accident allegedly prepared by

tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or employer-employee relation in the complaint are enough to make
industry. out a case of quasi-delict under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, the
failure to prove the employees negligence during the trial is fatal to
.... proving the employers vicarious liability. In this case, private
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the respondents failed to prove their allegation of negligence against
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence driver Armando Jose who, in fact, was acquitted in the case for
of a good father of a family to prevent damage. criminal negligence arising from the same incident.[15]
Thus, the responsibility of employers is premised upon the For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the appellate court erred in
presumption of negligence of their employees. As held in Poblete v. holding petitioners liable to private respondents. The next question
Fabros:[14] then is whether, as the trial court held, private respondent Juanita
Macarubo is liable to petitioners.
[I]t is such a firmly established principle, as to have virtually formed
part of the law itself, that the negligence of the employee gives rise Article 2180 of the Civil Code makes the persons specified therein
to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. This responsible for the quasi-delicts of others. The burden is upon MCL
is the presumed negligence in the selection and supervision of the to prove that Juanita Macarubo is one of those specified persons
employee. The theory of presumed negligence, in contrast with the who are vicariously liable for the negligence of the deceased John
American doctrine of respondent superior, where the negligence of Macarubo. Exsm
the employee is conclusively presumed to be the negligence of the In its third-party complaint, MCL alleged that Juanita Macarubo was
employer, is clearly deducible from the last paragraph of Article the registered owner of the Ford Escort car and that John Macarubo
2180 of the Civil Code which provides that the responsibility therein was the "authorized driver" of the car.[16] Nowhere was it alleged
mentioned shall cease if the employers prove that they observed all that John Macarubo was the son, ward, employee or pupil of private
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages (12 respondent Juanita Macarubo so as to make the latter vicariously
Manresa, 657; Balica vs. Litonjua and Leynes, 30 Phil. 624; Cangco liable for the negligence of John Macarubo. The allegation that John
vs. Manila Railroad Co., 30 Phil. 768), as observed in the same cases Macarubo was "the authorized driver" of the Ford Escort is not
just cited. equivalent to an allegation that he was an employee of Juanita
Therefore, before the presumption of the employers negligence in Macarubo. That John Macarubo was the "authorized driver" of the
the selection and supervision of its employees can arise, the car simply means that he drove the Ford Escort with the permission
negligence of the employee must first be established. While the of Juanita Macarubo.
allegations of negligence against the employee and that of an

Nor did MCL present any evidence to prove that Juanita Macarubo
was the employer of John Macarubo or that she is in any way liable
for John Macarubos negligence under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
For failure to discharge its burden, MCLs third-party complaint
should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and

the complaints filed in Civil Cases Nos. 2206-V-85 and 24428-V-86
against Manila Central Bus Lines and Armando Jose, as well as the
third-party complaint filed in Civil Case No. 2206-V-85 against
Juanita Macarubo, are hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Contents

Appellant Erlinda P. Carreon was charged with and convicted of

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 1

Appellant harps on the failure of the prosecution to present as

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 2

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 3

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 4

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 5

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 6

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 7

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 8

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 9

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 10

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN FINDING III

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 11

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 12

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 13

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 14

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 15

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 16

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 17

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 18

SO ORDERED. On February 27, 1991, accused-appellant Albino Bagas, Valeriano

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 19

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 20

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 21

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 22

The manner by which (witnesses) were made to identify the accused

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 23

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 24

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 25

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 26

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 27

TINGA, J.: CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]

Subject of this appeal is the 12 September 2007 decision[1] of the

Appellant was charged with illegal sale of shabu in an Information

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 28

The two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 29

On 15 September 2006, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 30

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 31

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 32

Furthermore, nothing on record shows that the procedural

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 33

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 34

That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines,

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 35

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 36

Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 37

A police officer or private person, without warrant, may arrest a

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 38

The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the

The CA gave more weight to the testimony of poseur buyer PO2

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 39

The procedural safeguards start with the requirements prescribed

Guided by the standard, we acquit petitioner.

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 40

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 41

Here, the Prosecution failed to demonstrate a faithful compliance by

EVIDENCE (RULE 130 Object Evidence Cases)Page 42