Mallin - Calantiao

SECOND DIVISION
JUNIE MALLILLIN Y. LOPEZ, G.R. No. 172953

Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
- versus - Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BRION, JJ.
Respondent.
Promulgated:
April 30, 2008
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome
the constitutional presumption of innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else
can eclipse the hypothesis of guiltlessness.And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the
innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability.
In this Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Junie Malilliny Lopez
(petitioner) assails the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals dated 27 January 2006 as well as its
Resolution[3] dated 30 May 2006 denying his motion for reconsideration. The challenged decision has
affirmed the Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon City, Branch 52[5] which found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
locally known as shabu, a prohibited drug.
The antecedent facts follow.
On the strength of a warrant [6] of search and seizure issued by the RTC of SorsogonCity, Branch 52, a
team of five police officers raided the residence of petitioner in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City on 4
February 2003. The team was headed by P/Insp.Catalino Bolanos (Bolanos), with PO3 Roberto Esternon
(Esternon),
SPO1
PedroDocot,
SPO1 Danilo Lasala and
SPO2
members. The searchconducted in the presence of barangay kagawad
Romeo Gallinera (Gallinera)
as
Delfin Licup as well as petitioner himself, his wife Sheila and his mother, Normaallegedly yielded two (2)
plastic sachets of shabu and five (5) empty plastic sachets containing residual morsels of the said
substance.
Accordingly, petitioner was charged with violation of Section 11, [7] Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in a criminal information
whose inculpatory portion reads:
That on or about the 4 th day of February 2003, at about 8:45 in the morning
in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City, Philippines, the said accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two
(2) plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride [or] shabu with an aggregate
weight of 0.0743 gram, and four empty sachets containing shabu residue, without
having been previously authorized by law to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
Petitioner entered a negative plea. [9] At the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented Bolanos,
Arroyo and Esternon as witnesses.
Taking the witness stand, Bolanos, the leader of the raiding team, testified on the circumstances
surrounding the search as follows: that he and his men were allowed entry into the house by petitioner
after the latter was shown the search warrant; that upon entering the premises, he ordered Esternon
and barangay kagawad Licup, whose assistance had previously been requested in executing the warrant,
to conduct the search; that the rest of the police team positioned themselves outside the house to make
sure that nobody flees; that he was observing the conduct of the search from about a meter away; that the
search conducted inside the bedroom of petitioner yielded five empty plastic sachets with
suspected shabu residue contained in a denim bag and kept in one of the cabinets, and two plastic sachets
containing shabu which fell off from one of the pillows searched by Esternona discovery that was made
in the presence of petitioner.[10] On cross examination, Bolanos admitted that during the search, he was
explaining its progress to petitioners mother, Norma, but that at the same time his eyes were fixed on the
search being conducted by Esternon.[11]
Esternon testified that the denim bag containing the empty plastic sachets was found behind the
door of the bedroom and not inside the cabinet; that he then found the two filled sachets under a pillow on
the bed and forthwith called on Gallinera to have the items recorded and marked. [12] On cross, he admitted
that it was he alone who conducted the search because Bolanos was standing behind him in the living
room portion of the house and that petitioner handed to him the things to be searched, which included the
pillow in which the two sachets of shabu were kept;[13] that he brought the seized items to
the Balogo Police Station for a true inventory, then to the trial court [14] and thereafter to the laboratory.[15]
Supt. Lorlie Arroyo (Arroyo), the forensic chemist who administered the examination on the
seized items, was presented as an expert witness to identify the items submitted to the laboratory. She
revealed that the two filled sachets were positive of shabu and that of the five empty sachets, four were
positive of containing residue of the same substance.[16] She further admitted that all seven sachets were
delivered to the laboratory by Esternon in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant was executed
except that it was not she but rather a certain Mrs. Ofelia Garcia who received the items from Esternon at
the laboratory.[17]
The evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the search and seizure conducted by
the police operatives. Petitioner testified that Esternon began the search of the bedroom with Licup and
petitioner himself inside. However, it was momentarily interrupted when one of the police officers
declared to Bolanos that petitioners wife, Sheila, was tucking something inside her underwear. Forthwith,
a lady officer arrived to conduct the search of Sheilas body inside the same bedroom. At that point,
everyone except Esternon was asked to step out of the room. So, it was in his presence that Sheila was
searched by the lady officer. Petitioner was then asked by a police officer to buy
cigarettes at a nearby store and when he returned from the errand, he was told that nothing was found on
Sheilas body.[18] Sheila was ordered to transfer to the other bedroom together with her children. [19]
Petitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he was summoned by Esternon to the
bedroom and once inside, the officer closed the door and asked him to lift the mattress on the bed. And as
he was doing as told, Esternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion of the headboard. In that
instant, Esternon showed him sachet of shabu which according to him came from a pillow on the bed.
[20]
Petitioners
account
in
its
entirety
was
corroborated
in
its
material
respects
by
Norma, barangaykagawad Licup and Sheila in their testimonies. Norma and Sheila positively declared
that petitioner was not in the house for the entire duration of the search because at one point he was sent
by Esternon to the store to buy cigarettes while Sheila was being searched by the lady officer. [21] Licup for
his part testified on the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the plastic sachets. He recounted that
after the five empty sachets were found, he went out of the bedroom and into the living room and after
about three minutes, Esternon, who was left inside the bedroom, exclaimed that he had just found two
filled sachets.[22]
On 20 June 2004 the trial court rendered its Decision declaring petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Petitioner was condemned to prison for twelve years (12) and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine ofP300,000.00.[23] The trial court reasoned that the fact
that shabu was
found
in
the
house
of
petitioner
was prima
facie evidence
of
petitioners animus possidendi sufficient to convict him of the charge inasmuch as things which a person
possesses or over which he exercises acts of ownership are presumptively owned by him. It also noted
petitioners failure to ascribe ill motives to the police officers to fabricate charges against him. [24]
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. [25] In his Appeal Brief[26] filed with the Court of
Appeals, petitioner called the attention of the court to certain irregularities in the manner by which the
search of his house was conducted. For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) advanced that
on the contrary, the prosecution evidence sufficed for petitioners conviction and that the defense never
advanced any proof to show that the members of the raiding team was improperly motivated to hurl false
charges against him and hence the presumption that they had regularly performed their duties should
prevail.[27]
On 27 January 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming the judgment
of the trial court but modifying the prison sentence to an indeterminate term of twelve (12) years as
minimum to seventeen (17) years as maximum. [28] Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was
denied by the appellate court.[29] Hence, the instant petition which raises substantially the same issues.
In its Comment,[30] the OSG bids to establish that the raiding team had regularly performed its
duties in the conduct of the search. [31] It points to petitioners incredulous claim that he was framed up by
Esternon on the ground that the discovery of the two filled sachets was made in his
and Licups presence. It likewise notes that petitioners bare denial cannot defeat the positive assertions of
the prosecution and that the same does not suffice to overcome the prima facie existence
of animus possidendi.
This argument, however, hardly holds up to what is revealed by the records.
Prefatorily, although the trial courts findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be
disturbed on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal. [32] In the case at bar, several circumstances obtain
which, if properly appreciated, would warrant a conclusion different from that arrived at by the trial court
and the Court of Appeals.
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of
possession of a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the
same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. [33] Essential therefore in these cases is that
the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. [34] Be that as it may, the mere fact of
unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to
sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally
possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established with
the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of
the evidence are removed.[35]
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of
an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be.[36] It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened
to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same.[37]
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always
impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of
real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing
or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. [38] The same standard likewise
obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination [39]and even substitution
and exchange.[40] In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or
tamperingwithout regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise notdictates the level of strictness
in the application of the chain of custody rule.
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the
exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to
substances familiar to people in their daily lives. [41]Graham vs. State[42] positively acknowledged this
danger. In that case where a substance later analyzed as heroinwas handled by two police officers prior to
examination who however did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the
time it was in their possessionwas excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the
white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled
that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least
between the time it came into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to
determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratorys findings is inadmissible. [43]
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact
they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot
reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of
custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from
other casesby accident or otherwisein which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was
submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that
applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting
standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it
improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or
tampered with.
A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises significant doubts as to the identity of the
sachets of shabu allegedly seized from petitioner. Of the people who came into direct contact with the
seized objects, only Esternon and Arroyo testified for the specific purpose of establishing the identity of
the evidence. Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over the confiscated sachets for recording
and marking, as well as Garcia, the person to whom Esternon directly handed over the seized items for
chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not presented in court to establish the circumstances under
which they handled the subject items. Any reasonable mind might then ask the question: Are the sachets
of shabu allegedly seized from petitioner the very same objects laboratory tested and offered in court as
evidence?
The prosecutions evidence is incomplete to provide an affirmative answer. Considering that it

was Gallinera who recorded and marked the seized items, his testimony in court is crucial to affirm
whether the exhibits were the same items handed over to him by Esternon at the place of seizure and
acknowledge the initials marked thereon as his own. The same is true of Garcia who could have, but
nevertheless failed, to testify on the circumstances under which she received the items from Esternon,
what she did with them during the time they were in her possession until before she delivered the same to
Arroyo for analysis.
The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its burden of establishing the identity of the
seized items because it failed to offer not only the testimony ofGallinera and Garcia but also any
sufficient explanation for such failure. In effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the
exhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the exhibits, which cannot but
inure to its own detriment. This holds true not only with respect to the two filled sachets but also to the
five sachets allegedly containing morsels of shabu.
Also, contrary to what has been consistently claimed by the prosecution that the search and
seizure was conducted in a regular manner and must be presumed to be so, the records disclose a series of
irregularities committed by the police officers from thecommencement of the search of petitioners house
until the submission of the seized items to the laboratory for analysis. The Court takes note of
the unrebutted testimony of petitioner, corroborated by that of his wife, that prior to the discovery of the
two filled sachets petitioner was sent out of his house to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. Equally telling is
the testimony of Bolanos that he posted some of the members of the raiding team at the door of
petitioners house in order to forestall the likelihood of petitioner fleeing the scene. By no stretch of logic
can it be conclusively explained why petitioner was sent out of his house on an errand when in the first
place the police officers were in fact apprehensive that he would flee to evade arrest. This fact assumes
prime importance because the two filled sachets were allegedly discovered by Esternon immediately after
petitioner returned to his house from the errand, such that he was not able to witness the conduct of the
search during the brief but crucial interlude that he was away.
It is also strange that, as claimed by Esternon, it was petitioner himself who handed to him the
items to be searched including the pillow from which the two filled sachets allegedly fell. Indeed, it is
contrary to ordinary human behavior that petitioner would hand over the said pillow to Esternon knowing
fully well that illegal drugs are concealed therein. In the same breath, the manner by which the search of
Sheilas body was brought up by a member of the raiding team also raises serious doubts as to the
necessity thereof. The declaration of one of the police officers that he saw Sheila tuck something in her
underwear certainly diverted the attention of the members of petitioners household away from the search
being conducted by Esternon prior to the discovery of the two filled sachets. Lest it be omitted, the Court
likewise takes note ofEsternons suspicious presence in the bedroom while Sheila was being searched by a
lady officer. The confluence of these circumstances by any objective standard of behavior contradicts the
prosecutions claim of regularity in the exercise of duty.
Moreover, Section 21[44] of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clearly
outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In a language too plain to require a
different construction, it mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of drugs under a search
warrant must conduct the photographing and the physical inventory of the item at the place where the
warrant has been served. Esternon deviated from this procedure. It was elicited from him that at the close
of the search of petitioners house, he brought the seized items immediately to the police station for the
alleged purpose of making a true inventory thereof, but there appears to be no reason why a true inventory
could not be made in petitioners house when in fact the apprehending team was able to record and mark
the seized items and there and then prepare a seizure receipt therefor. Lest it be forgotten, the raiding team
has had enough opportunity to cause the issuance of the warrant which means that it has had as much time
to prepare for its implementation. While the final proviso in Section 21 of the rules would appear to
excuse non-compliance therewith, the same cannot benefit the prosecution as it failed to offer any
acceptable justification for Esternonscourse of action.
Likewise, Esternons failure to deliver the seized items to the court demonstrates a departure from
the directive in the search warrant that the items seized be immediately delivered to the trial court with a
true and verified inventory of the same, [45] as required by Rule 126, Section 12[46] of the Rules of
Court. People v. Go[47]characterized this requirement as mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of
or tampering with said items by interested parties. [48] Thus, as a reasonable safeguard,People vs. Del
Castillo[49] declared that the approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary before
police officers can retain the property seized and without it, they would have no authority to retain
possession thereof and more so to deliver the same to another agency. [50] Mere tolerance by the trial court
of a contrary practice does not make the practice right because it is violative of the mandatory
requirements of the law and it thereby defeats the very purpose for the enactment. [51]
Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon from the standard and normal procedure
in the implementation of the warrant and in taking post-seizure custody of the evidence, the blind reliance
by the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty
is manifestly misplaced.The presumption of regularity is merely just thata mere presumption disputable
by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.
[52]
Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that
prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. [53] In the present case the lack of conclusive
identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the
manner by which the same were placed under police custody before offered in court, strongly militates a
finding of guilt.
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of
proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The rule is invariable whatever may
be the reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is
shown.[54] In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on
reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27 January 2006 affirming
with modification the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City, Branch 52,
and its Resolution dated 30 May 2006 denying reconsideration thereof, are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner Junie Malillin y Lopez is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is accordingly
ordered immediately released from custody unless he is being lawfully held for another offense.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to implement this Decision and to report to
this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R. No. 179029

Present:
versus -
FELIMON PAGADUAN yTAMAYO,

Appellant.
CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson,

BRION,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
August 12, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We review the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01597 which
affirmed in toto the decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya, in Criminal Case No. 4600, finding appellant Felimon Pagaduan y Tamayo (appellant) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165 or theComprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 under an Information that states:
That on or about December 27, 2003 at about 4:30 oclock (sic) in the afternoon,
in the Municipality of Solano, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, dispense, deliver and give away 0.01
gram, more or less, of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, as
contained in a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet to PO3 Peter C. Almarez, a member
of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) who posed as a buyer of shabu in
the amount of P200.00, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
The appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial on the merits, thereafter, followed.
The evidence for the prosecution reveals the following facts.
After having received information that the appellant was selling illegal drugs in Nueva Vizcaya,
Captain Jaime de Vera called, on his cellular phone, PO3 Peter Almarez and SPO1 Domingo Balido who
were both in Santiago City and informed them of a planned buy-bust operation. They agreed to meet at
the SSS Building near LMN Hotel in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. [4] On their arrival there, Captain de
Vera conducted a briefing and designated PO3 Almarez as the poseur buyer. Thereafter, Captain de Vera
introduced PO3 Almarez to the police informant (tipster),[5] and gave him (PO3 Almarez) two P100 bills
(Exhibits D and E) which the latter marked with his initials. [6]
After this briefing, the buy-bust team went to Bintawan Road, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya to conduct
the entrapment operation.[7] PO3 Almarez and the informant rode a tricycle, while Captain de Vera and
SPO1 Balido followed on board a tinted van. [8] The buy-bust team arrived at the target area at around 4:30
p.m., and saw the appellant already waiting for the informant. The informant approached the appellant
and introduced PO3 Almarez to him as a buyer. PO3 Almarez told the appellant that he
needed shabu worth P200, and inquired from him (appellant) if he had a stock. The appellant replied in
the affirmative, and then handed one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance to PO3 Almarez. PO3 Almarez, in turn, gave the two pre-marked P100 bills to the appellant.
[9]
Immediately after, PO3 Almarez made the pre-arranged signal to his companions, who then approached
the appellant. Captain de Vera took the marked money from the appellants right pocket, and then arrested
him.[10] PO3 Almarez, for his part, marked the sachet with his initials. [11] Thereafter, the buy-bust team
brought the appellant to the Diadi Police Station for investigation. [12]
At the police station, Captain de Vera prepared a request for laboratory examination (Exh. C).
The appellant was transferred to the Diadi Municipal Jail where he was detained. [14] Two days later, or
on December 29, 2003, PO3 Almarez transmitted the letter-request, for laboratory examination, and the
seized plastic sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they were received by PO2 Fernando Dulnuan.
[15]
Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Alfredo Quintero, the Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory,
conducted an examination on the specimen submitted, and found it to be positive for the presence
of shabu (Exh. B).[16]
[13]
On the hearing of August 13, 2004, the prosecution offered the following as exhibits:
Exhibit A the shabu confiscated from the appellant
Exhibit B the report by the PNP Crime Laboratory
Exhibit C the request for laboratory examination
Exhibits D and E the buy-bust money
Exhibit F - the request for laboratory examination received by Forensic Chemist

Quintero
The defense presented a different version of the events, summarized as follows:
At around 4:30 p.m. of December 27, 2003, Jojo Jose came to the appellants house and informed
him that Captain de Vera was inviting him to be an asset. The appellant and Jojo boarded a tricycle and
proceeded to the SSS Building where Captain de Vera was waiting for them. [17] As the tricycle approached
the Methodist Church along Bintawan Road, Jojo dropped his slippers and ordered the driver to stop.
Immediately after, a van stopped in front of the tricycle; Captain de Vera alighted from the van and
handcuffed the appellant. Captain de Vera brought the appellant inside the van, frisked him, and
took P200 from his pocket.[18] Afterwards, Captain de Vera took the appellant to the SSS Building, where
he (Captain de Vera) and the building manager drank coffee. Captain de Vera then brought the appellant
to the Diadi Municipal Jail where he was detained for almost two days. [19]
On the morning of December 29, 2003, the appellant was transferred to the Provincial Jail. He
signed a document without the assistance of a lawyer after being told that it would result in his immediate
release.[20]
The RTC, in its decision[21] of August 16, 2005, convicted the appellant of the crime charged, and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. The RTC likewise ordered the appellant to pay
a P500,000.00 fine.
The appellant appealed to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01597. The CA, in its
decision[22] dated May 22, 2007, affirmed the RTC decision.
The CA found unmeritorious the appellants defense of instigation, and held that the appellant was
apprehended as a result of a legitimate entrapment operation. It explained that in inducement or
instigation, an innocent person is lured by a public officer or private detective to commit a crime. In the
case at bar, the buy-bust operation was planned only after the police had received information that the
appellant was selling shabu.
The CA also held that the failure of the police to conduct a prior surveillance on the appellant was not
fatal to the prosecutions case. It reasoned out that the police are given wide discretion to select effective
means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance is, therefore, not necessary, especially when the
police are already accompanied by their informant.
The CA further ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove an unbroken chain of custody of
the shabu. It explained that PO3 Almarez sealed the plastic sachet seized from the appellant, marked it
with his initials, and transmitted it to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. PSI Quintero conducted
a qualitative examination and found the specimen positive for the presence of shabu. According to the
CA, the prosecution was able to prove that the substance seized was the same specimen submitted to the
laboratory and presented in court, notwithstanding that this specimen was turned over to the crime
laboratory only after two days.
In his brief,[23] the appellant claims that the lower courts erred in convicting him of the crime charged
despite the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He harps on the fact that the
police did not conduct a prior surveillance on him before conducting the buy-bust operation.
The appellant further contends that the prosecution failed to show an unbroken chain of custody
in the handling of the seized drug. He claims that there was no evidence to show when the markings were
done. Moreover, a period of two days had elapsed from the time the shabu was confiscated to the time it
was forwarded to the crime laboratory for examination.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters with the argument that the chain of custody of
the shabu was sufficiently established. It explained that the shabuwas turned over by the police officers to
the PNP Crime Laboratory, where it was found by the forensic chemist to be positive for the presence
of shabu. The OSG likewise claimed that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties by the police. The OSG further added that a prior surveillance is not
indispensable to a prosecution for illegal sale of drugs. [24]
THE COURTS RULING
After due consideration, we resolve to acquit the appellant for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the prosecution failed to show that the police complied with
paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of this
Act.
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act: A Brief Background
R.A. No. 9165 was enacted in 2002 to pursue the States policy to safeguard the integrity of its
territory and the well-being of its citizenry particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous
drugs on their physical and mental well-being, and to defend the same against acts or omissions
detrimental to their development and preservation.
R.A. No. 9165 repealed and superseded R.A. No. 6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Realizing that dangerous drugs are one of the most serious social ills of the society at present, Congress
saw the need to further enhance the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs. The new law thus
mandates the government to pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and use
of dangerous drugs and other similar substances through an integrated system of planning,
implementation and enforcement of anti-drug abuse policies, programs and projects. [25]
Illegal Sale of Drugs under Section 5
vis--vis the Inventory and Photograph
Requirement under Section 21
In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the
prosecution must prove the following elements: (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. All these require
evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti,
i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as
shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction. [26] To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the
identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in
court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for
possession or for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails.[27]
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph
1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
9165, which reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items[.]
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique
characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution either by accident or otherwise. [28] The records of the present case are bereft of evidence
showing that the buy-bust team followed the outlined procedure despite its mandatory terms. The
deficiency is patent from the following exchanges at the trial:
PROSECUTOR [EMERSON TURINGAN]:
Q: After you handed this buy-bust money to the accused, what happened next?
[PO3 ALMAREZ:]
A: When the shabu was already with me and I gave him the money[,] I signaled
the two, Captain Jaime de Vera and SPO1 Balido, sir.
xxxx
Q: After you gave that signal, what happened?
A: Then they approached us and helped me in arresting Felimon Pagaduan, sir.
Q: After Pagaduan was arrested, what happened next?
A: After arresting Pagaduan[,] we brought him directly in Diadi Police Station,
sir.
Q: What happened when you brought the accused to the Police Station in Diadi?
A: When we were already in Diadi Police Station, we first put him in jail in the
Municipal Jail of Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya, sir.
Q: What did you do with the shabu?
A: The request for laboratory examination was prepared and was brought to
the Crime Lab. of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, sir.
xxxx
Q: After making the request, what did you do next[,] if any[,] Mr. Witness?
A: After submission of the request to the Crime Lab.[,] we prepared our
joint affidavit for submission of the case to the Court, sir.[29]
From the foregoing exchanges during trial, it is evident that the apprehending team, upon confiscation of
the drug, immediately brought the appellant and the seized items to the police station, and, once there,
made the request for laboratory examination. No physical inventory and photograph of the seized items
were taken in the presence of the accused or his counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and an elective official. PO3 Almarez, on cross-examination, was unsure and could
not give a categorical answer when asked whether he issued a receipt for the shabuconfiscated from the
appellant.[30] At any rate, no such receipt or certificate of inventory appears in the records.
In several cases, we have emphasized the importance of compliance with the prescribed
procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. We have repeatedly declared that the
deviation from the standard procedure dismally compromises the integrity of the evidence. In People v.
Morales,[31] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the
seized items, without giving any justifiable ground for the non-observance of the required
procedures. People v. Garcia[32] likewise resulted in an acquittal because no physical inventory was ever
made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No.
9165 and its implementing rules. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[33] we also acquitted the accused for the failure
of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized items, without justifiable grounds.
We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[34] People v. Denoman,[35]People v. Partoza,
[36]
People v. Robles,[37] and People v. dela Cruz,[38] where we emphasized the importance of complying
with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not
always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all
times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. For this reason,
the last sentence of the implementing rules provides that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items[.] Thus, noncompliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case; police procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence
may still have some lapses, as in the present case. These lapses, however, must be recognized and
explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved.[39]
In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation to justify the failure of
the police to conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs. The
apprehending team failed to show why an inventory and photograph of the seized evidence had not been
made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police station (as required by the
Implementing Rules in case of warrantless arrests). We emphasize that for the saving clause to apply, it
is important that the prosecution explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the
integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved. [40] In other words, the justifiable
ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds
are or that they even exist.[41]
The Chain of Custody Requirement
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing
the corpus delicti - the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug. Thus, every fact
necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this
function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.[42]
Blacks Law Dictionary explains chain of custody in this wise:
In evidence, the one who offers real evidence, such as the narcotics in a trial of
drug case, must account for the custody of the evidence from the moment in which it
reaches his custody until the moment in which it is offered in evidence, and such
evidence goes to weight not to admissibility of evidence. Com. V. White, 353 Mass.409,
232 N.E.2d 335.
Likewise, Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements
R.A. No. 9165 defines chain of custody as follows:
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition[.]
In Malillin v. People,[43] the Court explained that the chain of custody rule requires that there be
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the object seized was picked up to the time it is
offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched it 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.
In the present case, the prosecutions evidence failed to establish the chain that would have shown
that the shabu presented in court was the very same specimen seized from the appellant.
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the heat-sealed plastic sachet from
the appellant. PO3 Almarez mentioned on cross-examination that he placed his initials on the confiscated
sachet after apprehending the appellant. Notably, this testimony constituted the totality of the prosecutions
evidence on the marking of the seized evidence. PO3 Almarezs testimony, however, lacked specifics on
how he marked the sachet and who witnessed the marking. In People v. Sanchez, we ruled that the
marking of the seized items to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended
violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. In the present case, nothing in the records gives us an insight
on the manner and circumstances that attended the marking of the confiscated sachet. Whether the
marking had been done in the presence of the appellant is not at all clear from the evidence that merely
mentioned that the evidence had been marked after the appellants apprehension.
The second link in the chain of custody is its turnover from the apprehending team to the police
station. PO3 Almarez testified that the appellant was brought to the Diadi Police Station after his arrest.
However, he failed to identify the person who had control and possession of the seized drug at the time of
its transportation to the police station. In the absence of clear evidence, we cannot presume that PO3
Almarez, as theposeur buyer, handled the seized sachet to the exclusion of others - during its transfer from
the place of arrest and confiscation to the police station. The prosecution likewise failed to present
evidence pertaining to the identity of the duty desk officer who received the plastic sachet
containing shabu from the buy-bust team. This is particularly significant since the seized specimen was
turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after two days. It was not, therefore, clear who had
temporary custody of the seized items during this significant intervening period of time. Although the
records show that the request for laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachet was prepared by
Captain de Vera, the evidence does not show that he was the official who received the marked plastic
sachet from the buy-bust team.
As for the subsequent links in the chain of custody, the records show that the seized specimen was
forwarded by PO3 Almarez to the PNP Crime Laboratory on December 29, 2003, where it was received
by PO2 Dulnuan, and later examined by PSI Quintero. However, the person from whom PO3 Almarez
received the seized illegal drug for transfer to the crime laboratory was not identified. As earlier discussed,
the identity of the duty desk officer who received the shabu, as well as the person who had temporary
custody of the seized items for two days, had not been established.
The procedural lapses mentioned above show the glaring gaps in the chain of custody, creating a
reasonable doubt whether the drugs confiscated from the appellant were the same drugs that were
brought to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and eventually offered in court as evidence .
In the absence of concrete evidence on the illegal drugs bought and sold, the body of the crime the corpus
delicti has not been adequately proven.[44] In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of
the crime charged, creating reasonable doubt on the appellants criminal liability.
Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties
In sustaining the appellants conviction, the CA relied on the evidentiary presumption that official
duties have been regularly performed. This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. [45] It
cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Any taint of irregularity affects
the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. In the present case, the failure of
the apprehending team to comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the
chain of custody requirement of this Act effectively negates this presumption. As we explained in Malillin
v. People:[46]
The presumption of regularity is merely just that - a mere presumption disputable by
contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding
truth. Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of
innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the
present case the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized
from petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the manner by which the same were
placed under police custody before offered in court, strongly militates a finding of guilt.
We are not unmindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are lingering maladies
that destroy families and relationships, and engender crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies
concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma. Regardless of
how much we want to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by the Constitution,
most particularly the presumption of innocence bestowed on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the
conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this constitutional presumption. If
the prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of the crime charged, which in this case
is thecorpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDEthe May 22, 2007
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01597.Appellant Felimon Pagaduan y Tamayo
is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is
ordered immediatelyRELEASED from detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections,Muntinlupa City for
immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he
has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 203984
June 18, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
MEDARIO CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal from the January 1 7, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.H.C. No. 04069, affirming in toto the July 23, 2009 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Caloocan City, Branch 127, finding accused-appellant Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta
(Calantiao) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On November 13, 2003, Calantiao was charged before the RTC of violation of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in an Information,3 the pertinent portion of which reads: That
on or about the 11th day of November, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority
of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody
and control two (2) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops with a total weight of 997 .9 grams,
knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
The facts, as synthesized by the RTC and adopted by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
On November 13, 2003[,] at around 5:30 x x x in the afternoon, while PO1 NELSON MARIANO
and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ were on duty, a certain EDWIN LOJERA arrived at their office
and asked for police assistance regarding a shooting incident. Per report of the latter, it appears
that while driving a towing truck and traversing along EDSA, Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a
traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a white taxi cab prompting him to follow said vehicle until they
reached along 8th Avenue Street corner C-3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat, the passengers of
said taxi cab, one of them was accused Calantiao, alighted and fired their guns. Surprised,
Lojera could not do anything but continued his driving until he reached a police station nearby
where he reported the incident.
The police officers on duty then were PO1 NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ.
PO1 Mariano testified that they immediately responded to said complaint by proceeding to 5th
Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where they found the white taxi. While approaching
said vehicle, two armed men alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards them (police officers)
and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were subdued. PO1
Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag containing two (2) bricks of dried marijuana
fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3 Ramirez recovered
from Calantiaos companion [a] .38 revolver.
The suspects and the confiscated items were then turned over to SPO3 PABLO TEMENA,
police investigator at Bagong Barrio Police Station for investigation. Thereat, PO1 Mariano
marked the bricks of marijuana contained in a black bag with his initials, "NM". Thereafter, said
specimen were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. The result of the
examination conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA revealed that the same was positive
for marijuana, a dangerous drug.
The foregoing testimony of PO1 MARIANO was corroborated by PO3 RAMIREZ who testified
that he personally saw those bricks of marijuana confiscated from the accused. He confirmed
that he was with PO1 Mariano when they apprehended said accused and his companion and
testified that while PO1 Mariano recovered from the accused a black bag containing marijuana,
on his part, he confiscated from accuseds companion a .38 revolver.
MR. CRISENDO AMANSEC, the driver of the taxi where the suspects boarded was also
presented in open court and testified as to what he knows about the incident. He confirmed that
on that date, two (2) persons boarded on his taxi and upon reaching C-3 Road, they alighted
and fired three (3) shots and ran away.
Aside from the oral testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution also offered the following
documentary evidence to boost their charge against the accused:
Exh. "A" Request for Laboratory Examination dated November 12, 2003
Exh. "B" Physical Sciences Report No. D-1423-03 dated November 12, 2003
Exh. "C-1" Picture of First brick of marijuana fruiting tops
Exh. "C-2" Picture of Second brick of marijuana fruiting tops
Exh. "D" Referral Slip dated November 12, 2003
Exh. "E" Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated November 12, 2003 of PO3
Eduardo Ramirez and PO1 Nelson Mariano
Exh. "E-1" Their respective signatures
Exh. "F" Sinumpaang Salaysay of Crisendo Amansec (Erroneously marked as Exh.
"E")
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE
The accused offered a different version of the story. According to his testimony, this instant case
originated from a traffic mishap where the taxi he and his companion Rommel Reyes were
riding almost collided with another car. Reyes then opened the window and made a "fuck you"
sign against the persons on board of that car. That prompted the latter to chase them and when
they were caught in a traffic jam, PO1 Nelson Mariano, one of the persons on board of that
other car alighted and kicked their taxi. Calantiao and Reyes alighted and PO1 Mariano slapped
the latter and uttered, "Putang ina mo bakit mo ako pinakyu hindi mo ba ako kilala?" Said police
officer poked his gun again[st] Reyes and when Calantiao tried to grab it, the gun fired.
Calantiao and Reyes were then handcuffed and were brought to the police station. Thereat, they
were subjected to body frisking and their wallets and money were taken. PO1 Mariano then
prepared some documents and informed them that they will be charged for drugs. A newspaper
containing marijuana was shown to them and said police officer told them that it would be
sufficient evidence against them. They were detained and subjected to medical examination
before they were submitted for inquest at the prosecutors office.4
Ruling of the RTC
On July 23, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision giving credence to the prosecutions case. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring accused
MEDARIO CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the
offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165, for illegally possessing997.9 grams of
marijuana fruiting tops. Henceforth, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).5
In convicting Calantiao, the RTC held that the illegal drug seized was admissible in evidence as
it was discovered during a body search after Calantiao was caught in flagrante delicto of
possessing a gun and firing at the police officers. Moreover, the RTC found all the elements of
the offense to have been duly established by the prosecution.6
Aggrieved, Calantiao appealed7 his conviction to the Court of Appeals, assigning the following
errors:
I
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE
II, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGEDLY
SEIZED ITEMS ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
II
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS PATENT NON-COMPLIANCE WITHTHE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.
III
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE THE PROPER CHAIN OF
CUSTODY OF THE SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.8
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn Calantiaos conviction. It found that there was
sufficient reason to justify a warrantless arrest, as the police officers were acting on a legitimate
complaint and had a reasonable suspicion that the persons identified at the scene were the
perpetrators of the offense. Likewise, the Court of Appeals held that the search and subsequent
seizure of the marijuana in question was lawful and valid, being incidental to a lawful
arrest.9 Finding that all the elements of the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to
be present and duly proven,10 the Court of Appeals, on January 17, 2012, promulgated its
Decision, affirming in toto the RTCs ruling.
Undaunted, Calantiao is now before this Court praying for an acquittal, adding the following
arguments in support of his position:
First, the plain view doctrine is not an exception to a search incident to a valid warrantless
arrest.
xxxx
Second, Calantiao did not waive the inadmissibility of the seized items.
xxxx
Finally, the seized items custodial chain is broken.11
In essence, Calantiao is questioning the admissibility of the marijuana found in his possession,
as evidence against him on the grounds of either it was discovered via an illegal search, or
because its custodial chain was broken.
Ruling of this Court
This Court finds no merit in Calantiaos arguments.
Search and Seizure of
Marijuana valid
This Court cannot subscribe to Calantiaos contention that the marijuana in his possession
cannot be admitted as evidence against him because it was illegally discovered and seized, not
having been within the apprehending officers "plain view."12
Searches and seizure incident to a lawful arrest are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Section 13.Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is "to
protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with
a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach." 13 It is
therefore a reasonable exercise of the States police power to protect (1) law enforcers from the
injury that may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2) evidence
from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and
the integrity of the evidence under the control and within the reach of the arrestee.
In People v. Valeroso,14 this Court had the occasion to reiterate the permissible reach of a valid
warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, viz:
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested
in order to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his
escape. Otherwise, the officers safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated.
In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence
on the arrestees person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers
to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the
permissible area within the latters reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of
his immediate control. The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the area
from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on a
table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer
as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. (Citations omitted.)
In Valeroso, however, the Court held that the evidence searched and seized from him could not
be used against him because they were discovered in a room, different from where he was
being detained, and was in a locked cabinet. Thus, the area searched could not be considered
as one within his immediate control that he could take any weapon or destroy any evidence
against him.15
In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a black bag in Calantiaos possession and within
his immediate control. He could have easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to
destroy the evidence inside it. As the black bag containing the marijuana was in Calantiaos
possession, it was within the permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly
conduct a warrantless search.
Calantiaos argument that the marijuana cannot be used as evidence against him because its
discovery was in violation of the Plain View Doctrine, is misplaced.
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspects person and premises under
his immediate control. This is so because "[o]bjects in the plain view of an officer who has the
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence."16 "The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object x x x.
[It] serves to supplement the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another object, hot
pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present
unconnected with a search directed against the accused and permits the warrantless
seizure."17
The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in Calantiaos situation because the police
officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not inadvertently come
across the black bag, which was in Calantiaos possession; they deliberately opened it, as part
of the search incident to Calantiaos lawful arrest.
Inventory and Chain of
Custody of Evidence
Calantiao claims that even if the search and seizure were validly effected, the marijuana is still
inadmissible as evidence against him for failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the
rules on chain of custody, as the item was marked at the police station.18
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 provide as follows:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations state:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
This Court has held that the failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, such as immediately marking seized drugs, will not automatically impair the integrity
of chain of custody because what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.19
Section 21 and its IRR do not even mention "marking." What they require are (1) physical
inventory, and (2) taking of photographs. As this Court held in People v. Ocfemia20:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the
matter of "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence
seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when
these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest.
Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items to
truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones
offered in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2)
immediately upon confiscation.
The prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the seized marijuana from the
time the police officers confiscated it, to the time it was turned over to the investigating officer,
up to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. 21 This Court has
no reason to overrule the RTC and the Court of Appeals, which both found the chain of custody
of the seized drugs to have not been broken so as to render the marijuana seized from
Calantiao inadmissible in evidence.
Furthermore, unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of the
evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will remain.
The burden of showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the police officers
handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly discharged their duties is on
Calantiao. Unfortunately, Calantiao failed to discharge such burden.22
It is worthy to note that these arguments were only raised by Calantiao on his appeal. He
himself admits this.23 His theory, from the very beginning, was that he did not do it, and that he
was being framed for having offended the police officers. Simply put, his defense tactic was one
of denial and frame-up. However, those defenses have always been frowned upon by the Court,
to wit:
The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for
it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must
be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the cases before us, appellant failed to
present sufficient evidence in support of his claims. Aside from his self-serving assertions, no
plausible proof was presented to bolster his allegations.24
Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear and convincing evidence that the apprehending
officers were stirred by illicit motive or failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies
deserve full faith and credit.25
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the January 17, 2012
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 209588
February 18, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
For the consideration of the Court is an appeal of the Decision 1 dated 19 June 2013 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00552- MIN, which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated 24
November 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 in Criminal
Case No. 2004-856, finding accused-appellant Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil (accused-appellant)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Sec. 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
In an Amended Information dated 21 February 2005,3 accused-appellant was charged with
violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R. A. No. 9165, to wit:
That on the 3rd day of July, 2004at about 5:30 oclock in the afternoon, more or less, at Purok 3,
Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Villanueva, Province of Misamis Oriental, Republic of the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not
being authorized by law to possess and to sell any dangerous drugs, knowingly, willfully and
feloniously, did then and there, sell and convey to a third person, who acted as a decoy in a buy
bust operation, one (1) sachet of shabu, containing 0.04 grams (sic) of shabu, which when
examined gave POSITIVE result to test for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(Shabu), a dangerous drug.4
Upon re-arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 5 Thereafter,
pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued.
Based on the records, the prosecutions version of the facts is as follows:
On October 13, 2002, on the basis of unconfirmed reports that accused-appellant Eric Rosauro
(Rosauro for brevity) was selling and distributing drugs, the Provincial Drug Enforcement Unit of
Misamis Oriental conducted a test-buy operation in the Municipality of Villanueva, Misamis
Oriental using a confidential agent. The confidential agent bought shabu from Rosauro at Purok
2, Barangay Katipunan, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. The substance bought from Rosauro was
examined by the PNP crime laboratory and yielded a positive result for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu).
On July 3, 2004, the police authorities received information that again drugs were being
distributed at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. Thus, at 5:30 oclock
in the afternoon, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-SOTU)
elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon positioned themselves in the
house of their confidential agent.
There, the PAID-SOTU elements saw Rosauro negotiate with the confidential agent. In
exchange for the one (1) sachet of shabu given by Rosauro to the confidential agent, the latter
gave him a marked 100-peso bill with serial number YZ7 12579.
After the transaction, Larot and Dizon came out of their hiding place and arrested Rosauro.
Thereafter, the confidential agent handed the sachet to Larot, who taped it, mark edit with the
marking "Exhibit A", and placed it inside his pocket. He also took pictures of Rosauro and the
drugs. In the police station, he prepared a Certificate of Inventory and a Request for Laboratory
Examination. Both the drugs and Rosauro were then turned over to the Crime laboratory.
On the basis of the request made by Larot, Police Chief Inspector Ma. Leocy Mag-abo, the
Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime Laboratory conducted a laboratory examination on the
contents of the sachet, on accused-appellant, and the marked money. The examination of the
seized item yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu); while the
accused-appellant and the marked money tested positive for the presence of ultra-violet
fluorescent powder.6
For his part, accused-appellant claims that he was merely a victim of instigation:
Accused-appellant Rosauro, on the other hand, tells a different tale. He testified that on July 3,
2004, the police asset went to his house four (4) times and convinced him to do an errand for
him. Rosauro refused to buy shabu as he did not know where to buy one. It was the confidential
informant who told him to buy the prohibited drug from a certain "Kael" and to deliver it to the
formers house.It was also the informant who gave the money to Rosauro to buy the shabu. But
Rosauro was not able to meet or buy directly from Kael because it was a young man who got
and handed to him the shabu on the road. When Rosauro went to the house of the confidential
informant as instructed, he was arrested by SPO4 Larot and Dizon. The sachet of shabu was
not even recovered from him but from the confidential informant.7
Finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant, the
RTC rendered a judgment of conviction, viz.:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, this Court hereby renders Judgment finding accused
ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL, "guilty" beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the
information for selling and delivering a sachet of shabu to the poseur buyer a Violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and imposes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand (PhP 500,000.00) Pesos and to pay the cost.
The accused ERIC B. ROSAURO who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be
credited in the service of his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during
which he has undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rule imposed upon convicted prisoners, except those
disqualified by law.
The sachet of shabu, Exh. "A" is confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be
destroyed in accordance with law.8
Accused-appellant appealed before the CA, assigning a lone error:

I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHEN
HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.9
After a review of the records, the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment. The appellate court ruled that
what transpired in the case at bar was an entrapment and not an instigation; 10 that all the
elements of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs were duly proven; 11 that the nonpresentation of the confidential agent in court is not fatal; 12 that the inconsistencies in the
testimony of the lone witness of the prosecution do not affect the result of the case; 13 and that
the apprehending team was able to preserve the integrity of the subject drug and that the
prosecution was able to present the required unbroken chain in the custody of the subject
drug.14 Thus, the CA held:
WHEREFORE, the Judgment dated November 24, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25,
Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No. 2004-856 is hereby AFFIRMED.15
Accused-appellant is now before the Court seeking a review of his conviction.
After a thorough review of the records, however, we dismiss the appeal.
It is apropos to reiterate here that where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or
misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, the Court will not
disturb the trial courts assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses since the
RTC was in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial. Settled
too is the rule that the factual findings of the appellate court sustaining those of the trial court
are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with
arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.16
The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of accused-appellant to be the result of a legitimate
entrapment procedure, and we find nothing in the records as to warrant a contrary finding. In
People v. Bartolome,17 we had the occasion to discuss the legitimacy of a "decoy solicitation," to
wit:
It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely
placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons
seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and
apparently assisting its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office
is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of
conduct.
As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely
furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that
appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly acted on it by utilizing an
informant to effect a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing that the informant
induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.1wphi1
Similarly, the presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded as indispensable to the

success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in
court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the
culprit arrested through his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informants identity is
protected in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only when the testimony
of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit
should the need to protect his security be disregarded.18 In the present case, as the buy-bust
operation was duly witnessed by the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit
(PAID-SOTU) elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot (SPO4 Larot) and PO3 Juancho Dizon, their
testimonies can take the place of that of the confidential informant.
As to whether accused-appellants guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt, we rule in
the affirmative.
In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a
successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs,
like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the
marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is
material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti.19
Verily, all the elements for a conviction of illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs were
proven by the prosecution: the identity of accused-appellant as the seller, and that of the
confidential informant as poseur-buyer were established, as well as the exchange of the sachet
of shabu and the marked money. It was also ascertained that the seized item was positive for
shabu, a dangerous drug, and that the same item was properly identified in open court by SPO4
Larot. Moreover, the P100.00 bill with serial number YZ712579, or the subject marked money,
as well as the living body of the accused-appellant revealed a positive result for ultraviolet
fluorescent powder.
Accused-appellant avers that the prosecution was not able to prove the corpus delicti, and that
the statutory safeguards provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not followed.
Indeed, as we held in People v. Torres,20 equally important in every prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous or prohibited drugs is the presentation of evidence of the seized drug as the corpus
delicti. The identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral certainty. It must also be
established with the same degree of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the
buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, paragraph 1,
Section 21, Article II of R. A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for safeguards for the
protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof.
However, this Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be
perfect, in reality it is "almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." The most
important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the
prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds arrest illegal
or the items seized from him inadmissible.21
The chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with the prescribed physical
inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. A. No. 9165 on the handling and disposition of
seized dangerous drugs states:
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items.22 (Italics, emphasis, undescoring omitted)
In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, the confidential informant gave the seized
item to SPO4 Larot who placed tape on the sachet and marked it "Exhibit A." Upon reaching the
police station, SPO4 Larot executed the Certificate of Inventory, as well as the request for
laboratory examination. The request, the specimen, as well as the marked money and accusedappellant were then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. They were received.
by SPO2 Ricardo Maisog, the Receiving Clerk of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, who then
forwarded them to Police Inspector Ma. Leocy Jabonillo Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer
of the PNP Crime Laboratory.23 Moreover, the seized item was duly identified by SPO4 Larot in
open court as the same item seized from accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant's guilt having been established, we likewise affirm the penalty imposed by
the RTC and the CA. Under the law, the offense of illegal sale of shabu carries with it the
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity and purity of
the substance.24 Thus, the RTC and CA were within bounds when they imposed the penalty of
life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court's Division.
Chief Justice

Mallin - Calantiao

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mallin - Calantiao

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SECOND DIVISION

JUNIE MALLILLIN Y. LOPEZ, G.R. No. 172953

The antecedent facts follow.

SPO1 Danilo Lasala and

members. The searchconducted in the presence of barangay kagawad

Romeo Gallinera (Gallinera)

This argument, however, hardly holds up to what is revealed by the records.

The prosecutions evidence is incomplete to provide an affirmative answer. Considering that it

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 179029

FELIMON PAGADUAN yTAMAYO,

CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson,

August 12, 2010

Exhibit F - the request for laboratory examination received by Forensic Chemist

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

June 18, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

February 18, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Accused-appellant appealed before the CA, assigning a lone error:

Similarly, the presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded as indispensable to the

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen