We should look at the situation of Andaya with utmost caution because of what our judicial

experience through the years has told us about unscrupulous lawmen resorting to stratagems of
false incrimination in order to arrest individuals they target for ulterior reasons. In this case, the
arrest did not emanate from probable cause, for the formless signal from the anonymous poseur
buyer did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
1wphi1

In affirming the RTC's conviction of the accused, the CA observed that the defense of frame-up put
up by the accused was discredited by the absence of proof of "any intent on the paii of the police
authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty stands." Such outright rejection by the lower courts of Andaya's defense
of frame-up is not outrightly binding. For sure, the frame-up defense has been commonly used in
prosecutions based on buy-bust operations that have led to the an-est of the suspects. Its use
might be seen as excessive, but the failure of the accused to impute any ill motives to falsely
incriminate them should not deter us from scrutinizing the circumstances of the cases brought to us
for review. We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the accused committed the
crimes they have been charged with. The State must fully establish that for us. If the imputation of ill
motive to the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them, then that would be the end of our
dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests and wrongful incriminations. We are aware
that there have been in the past many cases of false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that
should heighten our resolve to strengthen the ramparts of judicial scrutiny.
18

19

Nor should we shirk from our responsibility of protecting the liberties of our citizenry just because the
lawmen are shielded by the presumption of the regularity of their performance of duty. The presumed
regularity is nothing but a purely evidentiary tool intended to avoid the impossible and timeconsuming task of establishing every detail of the performance by officials and functionaries of the
Government. Conversion by no means defeat the much stronger and much firmer presumption of
innocence in favor of every person whose life, property and liberty comes under the risk of forfeiture
on the strength of a false accusation of committing some crime. The criminal accusation against a
person must be substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court should steadfastly
safeguard his right to be presumed innocent. Although his innocence could be doubted, for his
reputation in his community might not be lily-white or lustrous, he should not fear a conviction for any
crime, least of all one as grave as drug pushing, unless the evidence against him was clear,
competent and beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence in his favor
would be rendered empty.
20

G.R. No. 183700

October 13, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
PABLITO ANDAYA y REANO, Accused-Appellant.
In the present case, the totality of the prosecutions evidence shows the integrity of the drugs seized
to be intact. The identity of the drugs was proven and the chain of its custody and possession has
been duly accounted for and not broken. This can be gleaned from the testimonies of Espejo and
Arce who narrated that from the moment the items were seized from appellant, the same were
brought to the police station where Espejo marked them with his initials "MC-1," "MC-2" and "MC-3,"
properly inventoried, and, together with the laboratory request, were immediately delivered by
Espejo himself to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination to determine the presence of
dangerous drugs. Police Inspector Melanie Joy Ordoo conducted an examination on the specimens
submitted with the corresponding markings and concluded that the three heat sealed transparent
1wphi1

plastic sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Incidentally,

this conclusion is bolstered by the defenses admission of the existence and due execution of the
request for laboratory examination, the Chemistry Report and the specimens submitted. Moreover,
Espejo, when confronted during trial, identified the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance as the very same items confiscated from the appellant. Under the situation, this Court
finds no circumstance whatsoever that would hint any doubt as to the identity, integrity and
evidentiary value of the items subject matter of this case. "Besides, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence
has been tampered with" and in such case, the burden of proof rests on the appellant. Here,
appellant miserably failed to discharge this burden. Moreover, and as aptly observed by the CA,
appellant did not seasonably question these procedural gaps before the trial court. Suffice it to say
that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
18

19

20

21

22

n fine, the prosecutions evidence positively identified appellant as the seller of white crystalline
substance found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, for P1,000.00
to Espejo, a police officer who acted as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation. The plastic sachets
containing the said substance presented during the trial as Exhibits "F-1 to F-3" were positively
identified by Espejo as the same substance which were sold and delivered to him by appellant
during the said operation.
The marked discrepancy between the testimony of P/S Insp. Forro and the documentary evidence,
which shows that a certain PSI Cario received the specimens, was not explained by the
prosecution. This material and glaring inconsistency creates doubt as to the preservation of the
seized items.
Moreover, although PO2 Suarez testified that he was the one who marked the specimens with his
own initials,36he did not identify the seized items in open court to prove that the ones he marked were
the same specimens brought to the laboratory for testing and eventually presented in open court.
Neither did PO3 Santos, the one who delivered the request and the specimens to the laboratory,
identify in open court that the specimens presented are the same specimens he delivered to the
laboratory for testing.
While P/S Insp. Forro testified that the specimens she received for testing were the same ones
presented in court,37 this Court cannot accurately determine whether the tested specimens were the
same items seized from the accused and marked by PO2 Suarez. The failure of the police officers to
identify the seized drugs in open court created another gap in the link. Thus, the identity of the
corpus delicti was not proven.
The gaps in the chain of custody creates a reasonable doubt as to whether the specimens seized
from the accused were the same specimens brought to the laboratory and eventually offered in court
as evidence. Without adequate proof of the corpus delicti, the conviction cannot stand.
After a careful scrutiny of the records, the Court finds the appeal to be impressed with merit.
It has been consistently ruled that the elements needed to be proven to successfully prosecute a
case of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.26

Simply put, the prosecution must establish that the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took
place together with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized in
evidence.27 Central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory
examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the accused. 28
The Court has adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. "It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the
same."29
Contrary to the claim of accused, the prosecution was able to clearly recount how the buy-bust
operation was conducted. However, the Court finds that the chain of custody was broken in view of
several infirmities in the procedure and the evidence presented.
G.R. No. 194948

September 2, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

vs.
FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION