Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 189806

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

VELASCO, JR.,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ.
FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y Promulgated:
TRESBALLES,
Accused-Appellant. January 12, 2010
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

The Case

This is an appeal from the August 28, 2009 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03273, which affirmed in toto the Decision dated
July 12, 2007[2]in Criminal Case Nos. 03-4735 and 03-4961 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 64 in Makati City. The RTC found accused-appellant
Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes guilty of drug-sale and drug-use penalized by
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts
On November 25, 2003, an information was filed charging Manlangit with
violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, as follows:

That on or about the 24th day of November 2003, in the City of Makati,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully and
feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver zero point zero four (0.04) gram
of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug.[3]

On December 11, 2003, another information was filed against Manlangit for
breach of Sec. 15, Art. II of RA 9165, to wit:

That sometime on or before or about the 24 th day of November 2003, in

the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to use dangerous
drugs, and having been arrested and found positive for use of
Methylamphetamine, after a confirmatory test, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously use Methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug in
violation of the said law.[4]

During the arraignment for both cases, Manlangit pleaded not

guilty. Afterwards, the cases were tried jointly.

At the trial of the case, the prosecution adduced evidence as follows:

On November 24, 2003, the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)

Cluster 4 office received information from an informant that a certain Negro was
selling prohibited drugs along Col. Santos Street at Brgy. South
Cembo, Makati City. The MADAC thereafter coordinated with the Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSTOF) and the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency to conduct a joint MADAC-police buy-bust operation. A
team was assembled composed of several members of the different offices, among
which Police Officer 2 Virginio Costa was designated as the team leader, with
MADAC operative Wilfredo Serrano as the poseur-buyer and Roberto Bayona as
his back-up. The team prepared buy-bust money for the operation, marking two (2)
one hundred peso (PhP 100) bills with the initials AAM.
 Upon arrival on Col. Santos Street, Brgy. Cembo, Makati City, the team
spotted Manlangit standing in front of his house. The informant approached
Manlangit and convinced the latter that Serrano wanted to purchase shabu from
him. Manlangit asked Serrano how much shabu he wanted,
to which Serrano replied that he wanted two hundred pesos (PhP 200) worth
of shabu. Manlangit went inside his house and later reappeared with a plastic
sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Manlangit handed over the plastic
sachet to Serrano who, in turn, gave Manlangit the marked money. Then Serrano
gave the pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette to indicate to the rest of the
team that the buy-bust operation had been consummated. Thus, the rest of the team
approached Manlangit and proceeded to arrest him while informing him of
constitutional rights and the reason for his arrest. The marked money was
recovered from Manlangits pocket. The plastic sachet was then marked with the
initials FTM and sent to the Philippine National Police (PNP) crime laboratory
in Camp Crame, Quezon City for analysis. The PNP crime laboratory identified the
white crystalline substance as Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride in Chemistry
Report No. D-1190-03. Manlangit was also brought to the PNP crime laboratory
for a drug test, which yielded a positive result for use of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride.[5]

Manlangit denied that such buy-bust operation was conducted and claimed
that the recovered shabu was not from him. He claimed that he was pointed out by
a certain Eli Ballesteros to Serrano and Bayona. Thereafter, he was allegedly
detained at the Barangay Hall of Brgy. Pitogo. There, he was allegedly interrogated
by Serrano as to the location of the shabu and its proceeds, as well as the identity
of the drug pushers in the area. He also claimed that whenever he answered that he
did not know what Serrano was talking about, he was boxed in the chest. Later on,
he said that he was brought to Camp Crame for drug testing.[6]

On July 12, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as

follows:

1) In Criminal Case No. 03-4735, finding accused Francisco

Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
 DOUBT of Violation of Section 5, Art II, RA 9165 (drug-sale) and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. Said accused shall be
given credit for the period of his preventive detention.

2) In Criminal Case No. 03-4735,[7] finding accused Francisco

Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of Violation of Section 15, Art II, RA 9165 (drug-use),
and sentencing him to undergo rehabilitation for at least six (6)
months in a government rehabilitation Center under the auspices of
the Bureau of Correction subject to the provisions of Article VIII,
RA 9165.

It is further ordered that the plastic sachet containing shabu, subject of

Criminal Case No. 03-4735, be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) for the latters appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.[8]

From such Decision, Manlangit interposed an appeal with the CA.

In his Brief, accused-appellant Manlangit claimed that the prosecution failed

to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To support such contention, accused-
appellant claimed that there was no buy-bust operation conducted. He pointed out
that he was not in the list of suspected drug pushers of MADAC or of the
AIDSTOF. He further emphasized that the buy-bust operation was conducted
without first conducting a surveillance or test buy to determine the veracity of the
report made by the informant. He assailed the fact that despite knowledge of his
identity and location, the buy-bust team failed to secure even a search warrant.

Accused-appellant also raised the issue that the buy-bust team failed to
comply with the procedure for the custody and control of seized prohibited drugs
under Sec. 21 of RA 9165. He argued that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official function was overturned by the officers failure to follow
the required procedure in the conduct of a buy-bust operation, as well as the
procedure in the proper disposition, custody, and control of the subject specimen.

On August 28, 2009, the CA rendered the decision which affirmed the RTCs
Decision dated July 12, 2007. It ruled that contrary to accused-appellants
contention, prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust
operation. The case was a valid example of a warrantless arrest, accused-appellant
having been caught in flagrante delicto. The CA further stated that accused-
appellants unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to show that the witnesses
for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, in this case the members of
the buy-bust team; thus, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. After
examining the testimonies of the witnesses, the CA found them credible and found
no reason to disturb the RTCs findings. Finally, the CA found that chain of
evidence was not broken.

Hence, the instant appeal.

In a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 22, 2010,

accused-appellant expressed his desire not to file a supplemental brief and
reiterated the same arguments already presented before the trial and appellate
courts.

The Issues

The issues, as raised in the Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated September 29,
2008, are:

1. The Court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the
prosecutions failure to prove his built beyond reasonable doubt.[9]

2. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the procedure for the custody
and control of prohibited drugs was complied with.[10]

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal is bereft of merit.

First Issue:
Accused-appellants guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt
The first paragraph of Sec. 5 of RA 9165 punishes the act of selling dangerous
drugs. It provides:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,

Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals.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) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and
purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions. (Emphasis supplied.)

While Sec. 15, RA 9165 states:

Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.A person apprehended or arrested,
who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug
for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00):
Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also
found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided
for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall
apply. (Emphasis supplied.)

People v. Macatingag[11] prescribed the requirements for the successful prosecution

of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence
of corpus delicti.

The pieces of evidence found in the records amply demonstrate that all the
elements of the crimes charged were satisfied. The lower courts gave credence to
the prosecution witnesses testimonies, which established the guilt of accused-
appellant for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. The
testimoniesparticularly those of the police officers involved, which both the RTC
and the CA found credibleare now beyond question. As the Court ruled in Aparis v.
People:[12]

As to the question of credibility of the police officers who served as

principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled is the rule that prosecutions
involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial
courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded
respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative,
arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The
reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility
of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the
present case.

Moreover, accused-appellants defense of denial, without substantial evidence to

support it, cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of the police officers
performance of official functions. Thus, the Court ruled in People v. Llamado:[13]

In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be

given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when
they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the
absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the
appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty,
as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall
prevail over appellants self-serving and uncorroborated denial. (Emphasis
supplied.)

Contrary to accused-appellants challenge to the validity of the buy-bust

operation, the Court categorically stated in Quinicot v. People that a prior
surveillance or test buy is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, as long as the
operatives are accompanied by their informant, thus:

Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not
affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of
conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police
 authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior
surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the
police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.
Flexibility is a trait of good police work. We have held that when time is of the
essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. In the
instant case, having been accompanied by the informant to the person who
was peddling the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted
any prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust operation.
[14]
(Emphasis supplied.)

Furthermore, accused-appellants contention that the buy-bust team should

have procured a search warrant for the validity of the buy-bust operation is
misplaced. The Court had the occasion to address this issue in People v. Doria:[15]

We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not

unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by
Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,

is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from

a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a

warrant if he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense. Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an
accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the
police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a
warrant.

The Court reiterated such ruling in People v. Agulay:[16]

 Accused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, making the sachets of
shabu allegedly recovered from him inadmissible in evidence. Accused-appellants
claim is devoid of merit for it is a well-established rule that an arrest made after
an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a
valid warrantless arrest, in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of
the Revised Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,

is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has

been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a
buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender,
without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. If carried out
with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation
deserves judicial sanction.

Second Issue:
The chain of custody of the seized drug was unbroken

Accused-appellant contends that the arresting officers did not comply with the
requirements for the handling of seized dangerous drugs as provided for under Sec.
21(1) of RA 9165:
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, 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;
(Emphasis supplied.)
In particular, accused-appellant argues that:

While the marking of the specimen was done in the place of incident by MADAC
operative Soriano, the inventory of the item was done at Cluster 4. There was no
photograph made of the plastic sachet in the presence of the accused, media, any
elected local official, or the DOJ representatives, in clear violation of Section 21,
R.A. No. 9165.[17]
Based on such alleged failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedural
requirements of Sec. 21, RA 9165, accused-appellant posits that he should,
therefore, be acquitted. Such reasoning is flawed.

In People v. Rosialda,[18] the Court addressed the issue of chain of custody of

dangerous drugs, citing People v. Rivera, as follows:

Anent the second element, Rosialda raises the issue that there is a
violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, particularly the requirement that the
alleged dangerous drugs seized by the apprehending officers be photographed 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. Rosialda argues
that such failure to comply with the provision of the law is fatal to his conviction.

This contention is untenable.

The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on this matter

in People v. Rivera:

The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized

dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 which stipulates:

(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.

The same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz.:
 (a) 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: 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.

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers

conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the
evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does
not automatically render accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the implementing
rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added 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. The same provision clearly states as well,
that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been
preserved.

This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons existed, if
any, since the defense did not raise this issue during trial. Be that as it
may, this Court has explained in People v. Del Monte that what is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The existence of
the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a
judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential that the identity of the
prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody
requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.

To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or

testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between
the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was
 tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it
was offered in evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)

Here, accused-appellant does not question the unbroken chain of evidence. His
only contention is that the buy-bust team did not inventory and photograph the
specimen on site and in the presence of accused-appellant or his counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected
public official. However, as ruled by the Court in Rosialda, as long as the chain of
custody remains unbroken, even though the procedural requirements provided for
in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not
be affected.

And as aptly ruled by the CA, the chain of custody in the instant case was not
broken as established by the facts proved during trial, thus:

Lastly, the contention of appellant, that the police officers failed to comply with
the provisions of paragraph 1, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for the proper
procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs, is untenable. Record
shows that Serrano marked the confiscated sachet of shabu in the presence of
appellant at the place of incident and was turned over properly to the investigating
officer together with the marked buy-bust money. Afterwards, the confiscated
plastic sachet suspected to be containing shabu was brought to the forensic
chemist for examination. Likewise, the members of the buy-bust team executed
their Pinagsanib na Salaysay sa Pag-aresto immediately after the arrest and at the
trial, Serrano positively identified the seized drugs. Indeed, the prosecution
evidence had established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs from
the buy-bust team, to the investigating officer and to the forensic chemist. Thus,
there is no doubt that the prohibited drug presented before the court a quo was the
one seized from appellant and that indeed, he committed the crimes imputed
against him.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CAs August 28, 2009

Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03273 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

No costs.
SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

 Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-9. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices
Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Francisco P. Acosta.
[2]
CA rollo, pp. 17-24. Penned by Judge Maria Cristina J. Cornejo.
[3]
Id. at 15.
[4]
Id. at 16.
[5]
Id. at 100-102.
[6]
Id. at 102.
[7]
Should be Criminal Case No. 03-4961.
[8]
CA rollo, pp. 23-24.
[9]
Id. at 40.
[10]
Id. at 46.
[11]
G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 354, 361-362.
[12]
G.R. No. 169195, February 17, 2010.
[13]
G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552; citing Dimacuha v. People, G.R. No. 143705,
February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 513.
[14]
G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 458, 470.
[15]
G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 704.
[16]
G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 593-594.
[17]
CA rollo, pp. 46-47.
[18]
G.R. No. 188330, August 25, 2010; citing People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, October 17, 2008, 569
SCRA 879.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G. R. No. 190342
Plaintiff-Appellee,

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

- versus - BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.

CIPRIANO Promulgated:
CARDENAS y GOFRERICA,
Accused-Appellant. March 21, 2012

x--------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

SERENO, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision [1] dated 19 February 2009 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) Second Division in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02634, which affirmed
the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002. Appellant was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
Branch 103 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312 for selling the prohibited drug
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[2]

The Facts

On 07 January 2003, an Information was filed against accused Cipriano

Cardena y Gofrerica, alias Ope, for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165,
allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 6th day of January, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines,
the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport
or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully, and unlawfully
sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction,
 zero point zero five (0.05) gram of white crystalline substance containing
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as SHABU a dangerous
drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded Not guilty to the crime charged.[4]

Prosecutions Version of the Facts

The evidence for the prosecution shows that around 12 p.m. of 06 January 2003,
the Detection and Special Operations Division of the Criminal Investigation
Division Group (DSOD-CIDG) in Camp Crame received a report from its
confidential informant regarding the rampant selling of shabu by a certain Cipriano
Cardenas (a.k.a. Ope) at the Payatas Area in Quezon City. Acting on the
information, a team was organized to conduct a buy-bust operation. Police Officer
(PO) 3 Edgardo Palacio was head of the team and PO3 Rene Enteria was
designated to act as the poseur-buyer.[5] They marked a 100 bill with the initials
ERP on the lower right portion of its dorsal side and used the money in the buy-
bust operation.[6] The team agreed that upon the consummation of the sale, PO3
Enteria would throw away his cigarette to signal the moment at which the drug
pusher would be arrested.[7]

The team proceeded to Lupang Pangako, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City to

conduct the buy-bust operation. At the site, PO3 Enteria was guided by the
confidential informant and closely followed by PO3 Palacio and two other team
members. They chanced upon the accused wearing camouflage pants and standing
near a small house located on a pathway.[8] Approaching the accused, the informant
introduced the police officer as the person interested to buy shabu. PO3 Enteria
was asked how much he wanted to buy, and he answered 100. The accused then
took out a clear plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance from his
pocket and handed it to PO3 Enteria. After handing the marked 100 bill to the
accused, the police officer threw away his cigarette as a signal of the
consummation of the buy-bust operation.[9]

PO3 Palacio and the rest of the team, who were just 15 meters away from the
scene, immediately approached, arrested the accused, and frisked the latter. PO3
Palacio recovered two (2) other clear plastic sachets from the accuseds right
pocket. The three sachets were marked CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3 CC representing the
initials of the accused, Cipriano Cardenas.[10] He was then brought to Camp Crame,
where he was booked and investigated. The plastic sachets recovered from him
were transmitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for analysis upon the request of
Police Chief Inspector Ricardo N. Sto. Domingo, Jr. of the DSODCIDG. [11] The
results of the Initial Laboratory Report dated 07 January 2003 [12] showed that the
white crystalline substance contained in the three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets
tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, with a total weight
of 0.05 gram.[13]

On 07 January 2003, an Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.

9165, was filed against the accused.[14] The case was raffled to the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), National Judicial Capital Region of Quezon City, Branch 103 and
docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312.

The Accuseds Version of the Facts

The accused had a different version of the facts surrounding his arrest. He claimed
that around 3:00 p.m. of 06 January 2003, while he was walking home, four
persons handcuffed him and forced him to board a vehicle.[15] He was taken to the
CIDG office at Camp Crame, where he was informed that he was being arrested
for selling shabu. While inside the investigation room, one of the men who arrested
him gave the investigator a 100 bill. He claimed to have not seen the
alleged shabu at the time of his arrest or even during the CIDG investigation or
during the inquest at the public prosecutors office.[16]

The Ruling of the Trial Court

A full-blown trial was held by the RTC, before which were presented PO3 Palacio
and PO3 Enteria as witnesses for the prosecution. For the defense, only the accused
testified in his defense. On 03 January 2007, the RTC promulgated a
Decision[17] convicting him of the crime charged. The trial court gave credence to
the testimonies and pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution. It ruled that
the police operation had followed the normal course of a drug entrapment
operation, and that the arresting officers presented as prosecution witnesses were
credible based on their candid and honest demeanor. The RTC considered as
absurd the allegation of the accused that he had been whimsically arrested by the
police officers during the operation. It found as weak and inconceivable his
uncorroborated denial of the charge.

The dispostive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

 ACCORDINGLY, judgement is hereby rendered finding the accused
CIRPIANO CARDENAS y GOFRERICA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (drug pushing) as charged and he
is hereby sentenced to a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine
of 500,000.00.

The 3 sachets of shabu involved in this case are ordered transmitted to the
PDEA thru the DDB for proper care and disposition as required by R.A. 9165.

SO ORDERED.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The accused appealed his conviction to the CA, which docketed the case as CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 2634. On 19 February 2009, the appellate court, through its
Second Division, promulgated a Decision[18] affirming the trial courts conviction of
the accused. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the necessary
elements to prove the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
It also found that the prosecution witnesses were credible when they testified on
the custody and identity of the drugs confiscated from the accused. Thus, it
affirmed in toto the RTCs Decision, which it found to be supported by the facts and
law. The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the
appellate court for lack of merit.

The Issues

The accused elevated his appeal to this Court raising this lone issue:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE

ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY
OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO. 9165.[19]

The defense alleges that the arresting officers did not follow the required
procedure for the handling of seized drugs in a buy-bust operation as stated in
Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165. [20] It
points out that there is a dearth of evidence to prove that the plastic sachets
recovered from the accused were marked at the crime scene in his presence
immediately upon confiscation thereof.[21] Thus, the defense argues that due to the
arresting officers noncompliance with the correct procedure, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal.[22]
The Ruling of the Court
We DENY the appeal of the accused for lack of merit and accordingly affirm the
assailed Decision of the CA.

Under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements that must be proven for the successful
prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (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 its payment.[23] The State has the burden of proving these
elements and is obliged to present the corpus delicti in court to support a finding of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[24]

In the instant case, the defense does not raise any issue with regard the sale and
delivery of the illegal drugs for which the accused was arrested. The point of
contention pertains to the noncompliance by the arresting officers with Section 21,
Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165 regarding the chain of custody
of seized drugs. This is an important matter because, if proven, substantial gaps in
the chain of custody of the seized drugs would cast serious doubts on the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court and entitle the accused to an
acquittal.

In People v. Salonga,[25] we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that
the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same
substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with
unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. Thus, drug enforcement
agents and police officers involved in a buy-bust operation are required by R.A.
9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust scene.
Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR, states:

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.
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the 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: 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;

The defense wants to impress upon this Court that the arresting officers did not
conduct a physical inventory of the items seized and failed to photograph them in
the presence of the accused and of other personalities specified by Section 21 (a),
Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165. [26] It argues that this lapse on the part of the
police officers involved in the buy-bust operation raise uncertainty and doubts as to
the identity and integrity of the articles seized from the accused whether they were
the same items presented at the trial court that convicted him. Based on this
noncompliance by the arresting officers, the defense prays for the acquittal of the
accused.

We are not persuaded by these arguments.

The chain of custody is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board

Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165:
b. 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 used in court as evidence, and the final disposition .

To protect the civil liberties of the innocent, the rule ensures that the
prosecutions evidence meets the stringent standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. We have held, however that substantial compliance with the procedural
aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug
items inadmissible. In People v. Ara,[27]we ruled that R.A. 9165 and its IRR do not
require strict compliance with the chain of custody rule:
As recently highlighted in People v. Cortez and People v. Lazaro, Jr., RA 9165
and its subsequent Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require
strict compliance as to the chain of custody rule. The arrest of an accused will not
 be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole
ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165. We have
emphasized that what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA

9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the
apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and
custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs
was not broken. The testimony of PO3 Palacio shows that he was the one who
recovered from the accused the three plastic sachets of shabu, together with the
marked money. He also testified that he was the one who personally brought the
request for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory and had the plastic sachets
examined there. During the trial of the case, he positively identified the plastic
sachets that he had recovered from the accused and had marked CC-1, CC-2 and
CC-3. The pertinent portions of the testimony of PO3 Palacio are as follows:

FIS. JURADO:
Q. And after you recovered the buy-bust money and these three plastic sachets of
shabu, what did you do with the accused?

WITNESS:
A. We brought them to the office.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. What happened to (sic) the office?
WITNESS:
A. He was investigated.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. How about the three plastic sachets, what did you do with these three plastic
sachets.

WITNESS:
A. We have examined it at the Crime Laboratory.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. How does (sic) it brought to the Crime Laboratory?
WITNESS:
A. We asked a request from our investigator.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. Is this the same request for laboratory examination that you are referring to?
 WITNESS:
A. Yes sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Q. Who brought this request to the Crime Laboratory for examination?

WITNESS:

A. I sir.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. Where does it show the delivery?
WITNESS:
A. Here your honor.
(Witness pointing in open court to the document the request for laboratory
examination the date when it was delivered.)

xxx xxx xxx

FIS. JURADO:
Q. xxx xxx xxx

May we request that the said documents be marked as Exhibit F and if the
said plastic sachet would be shown to you, how will you be able to
identify the same?
WITNESS:

A. I can identify it because it has a marking sir CC-1, CC-2, and CC-3 your
Honor.

FIS. JURADO:

Q. You mean to say to this Honorable Court that the three plastic sachets has (sic)
a marking CC-1, CC-2, and CC-3?

WITNESS:

A. Yes your Honor.

FIS. JURADO:

Q. What was (sic) CC stands for?

 WITNESS:

A. The name of our suspect Cipriano Cardenas your Honor.[28]

PO3 Rene Enteria, who had acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation,
corroborated the testimony of PO3 Palacio and indicated that the latter was in
custody of the seized drugs from the time the accused was arrested until these were
sent to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis. We quote the relevant portions
of PO3 Enterias testimony from the records:

FIS. ARAULA:
After you said a while ago that you made a pre-arranged signal,
what happened then after that?

WITNESS:
PO3 Palacio approached us and arrested the subject sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

When PO3 Palacio arrested the accused, where was (sic) you?

WITNESS:
I was behind them sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

Where is the buy bust money when Palacio arrested the accused?

WITNESS:
It was recovered to (sic) Ope sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

After arresting the accused, what happened then?

WITNESS:
We returned to the police station sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

What happened to the police station?

WITNESS:
 The suspect was investigated sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

Who was in possession of that transparent plastic sachet when you

were going to the police station?
WITNESS:
I was the one sir.

xxx xxx xxx

FIS. ARAULA:

If that transparent plastic sachet be shown to you, can you identify

that?
WITNESS:
Yes sir.

FIS ARAULA:

Showing to you this transparent plastic sachet, what can you say
about this?

WITNESS:
This is the one that I purchased sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

It appears that there are three (3) transparent plastic sachets in

this case, in fact this is the one that you purchased, how about
these two (2) other transparent plastic sachets, where did it
came (sic) from?

WITNESS:
It was recovered by Palacio after the arrest of the suspect sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

Why did you say that this is the transparent plastic sachet
containing shabu that you purchased?

WITNESS:
Because I remember the size sir.

FIS. ARAULA:
 That is the only reason, due to the size of the transparent plastic
sachet?

WITNESS:
I also has (sic) initial in the plastic sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

What is the initial?

WITNESS:
Palacio was the one who made the marking sir.

xxx xxx xxx

FIS. ARAULA:

How about the evidence that you confiscated in relation to this

Section 5, R.A. 9165 against the accused, where was that when
there was an investigation?

WITNESS:
It was brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination sir.[29]

CROSS EXAMINATION:

ATTY. CABAROS:

Who actually recovered the shabu from the accused?

WITNESS:
Palacio sir.

xxx xxx xxx

COURT:
Why is it that it could (sic) seem that Palacio was the one who
marked the money and he marked also all the three (3) plastic
sachets? You never mark with your initial the buy bust money and
you never mark with your initial that particular plastic sachet you
said that was given to you by the accused, how come that it was
always Palacio (who) made the marking and you as poseur buyer
did not mark the items?

WITNESS:
 Because when we made (the) marking, we make only one marking,
your Honor.[30]
REDIRECT EXAMINATION:

FIS. ARAULA:

When this Palacio placed this mark, all the evidences that was
confiscated from the accused, where were you?

WITNESS:
I was near Palacio sir.

FIS. ARAULA:

So you noticed that Palacio placed his markings to the

evidences?

WITNESS:
Yes sir.[31] (Emphasis supplied.)

From these testimonies of the police officers, the prosecution established that they
had custody of the drugs seized from the accused from the moment he was
arrested, during the time he was transported to the CIDG office in Camp Crame,
and up to the time the drugs were submitted to the crime laboratory for
examination. The said police officers also identified the seized drugs with certainty
when these were presented in court. With regard to the handling of the seized
drugs, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would
cast doubt on the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court.
To the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a doubt that the evidence
seized from the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one
tested, introduced, and testified to in court. In short, there is no question as to the
integrity of the evidence.

Although we find that the police officers did not strictly comply with the
requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165, the
noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the
accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken
under the circumstances of the case. We held thus in Zalameda v. People of the
Philippines[32]:
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply
with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
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. In the present case, we see
substantial compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody
and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the seized
evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the succession of events
established by evidence, to the overall handling of the seized items by specified
individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no objection to
admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced mind,
show that the evidence seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently
identified and testified to in court. In People v. Del Monte, we explained:

We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said

law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the
drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in
evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law
or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or
rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the
evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will
accorded it by the courts. x x x

We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any

rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated
and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance
with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary
merit or probative value to be given the evidence. The weight to be
given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances
obtaining in each case. (Emphasis supplied.)

On the other hand, the accused alleges that he did not commit the crime he
was charged with and claims to have not seen the evidence presented by the
prosecution. It was established that he sold the seized drugs to PO3 Enteria during
the buy-bust operation, and that the sachets were found in his possession. These
facts establish the elements of Section 5, R.A. 9165. The only issue the appellant
raises before us is the noncompliance by the police officer with the correct
procedure for the handling of the evidence seized from him. We have no reason to
doubt the police officers who gave detailed accounts of what they did during the
buy-bust operation. Their testimonies have adequately established the unbroken
chain of custody of the seized drugs and have led us to affirm the conviction of the
accused.

The credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial
courts. The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to
declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the
trial judge. Unlike appellate magistrates, it is the judge who can weigh such
testimonies in light of the witnesses demeanor and manner of testifying, and who is
in a unique position to discern between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts
will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the
testimonies of witnesses. This is especially true when the trial courts findings have
been affirmed by the appellate court. For them the said findings are considered
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, [33] unless it be manifestly shown
that the trial court had overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts and
circumstances of significance.[34] Thus, we affirm the assailed Decision of the
appellate court and uphold the conviction of the accused.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-

H.C. No. 2634, People of the Philippines v. Cipriano Cardenas y Gofrerica dated
19 February 2009, is AFFIRMED in all respects.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
 Associate Justice

AT T E S TAT I O N

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.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, 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 Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-12. The Decision dated 19 February 2009 of the CA Second Division was penned by Associate
Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and former CA (now
Supreme Court) Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza.
[2]
RTC Records, pp. 144-146. The Decision dated 03 January 2007 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312 was penned
by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
[3]
RTC Records, p. 1.
[4]
Id. at 17.
[5]
Id. at 144.
[6]
TSN, 14 March 2003, p. 12.
[7]
Id. at 11.

[8]
RTC Records, p. 148.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id. at 7.
[12]
This initial result was followed by the issuance of an official report by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Crame denominated as Chemistry Report No. D-002-03 dated 07 January 2003, which states that the qualitative
examination yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. This was marked as Exhibit
G for the prosecution; RTC Records, p. 10.
[13]
The three plastic sachets were individually marked and weighed as follows: CC-1 0.01 gram; CC-2 0.01 gram
and CC-3 0.03 gram. RTC Records, pp. 9-10.
[14]
Id. at 1.
[15]
TSN, 26 April 2005, p. 3.
[16]
TSN, 30 May 2005, pp. 4-6.
[17]
Supra note 2.

[18]
Supra note 1.
[19]
Rollo, p. 33.
[20]
Id. at 34.
[21]
Id. at 36.
[22]
Id. at 41.
[23]
People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA 304.
[24]
People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 350.
[25]
G.R. No. 186390, 02 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783.
[26]
Rollo, pp. 35-36.
[27]
Supra note 23.
[28]
TSN, 14 March 2003, pp. 14-18.

[29]
TSN, 29 September 2004, pp. 9-10.
[30]
Id. at 12-13.
[31]
TSN, 29 September 2004, p. 17.
[32]
G.R. No. 183656, 04 September 2009, 598 SCRA 537.
[33]
People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, 16 October 2009, 604 SCRA 250.
[34]
People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, 11 September 2009, 599 SCRA 688.

THIRD DIVISION
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 187737
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CARPIO MORALES J.,

Chairperson,
- versus - BRION,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
ALIODING SULTAN,
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:
July 5, 2010
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Assailed before this Honorable Court is the October 17, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02646. The CA affirmed the
August 28, 2006 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City,
Branch 13 finding appellant Alioding Sultan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5,[3]Article II of Republic Act No. 9165[4] or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The prosecution charged appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of
Rep. Act No. 9165 in two (2) Informations which read:

Criminal Case No. 11867 for illegal delivery of shabu

That on or about the 19th day of August 2005 in the City of Laoag,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously give away and
deliver to a police officer who acted as a poseur buyer one plastic bag containing
metamphetamine hydrochloride (popularly known as shabu) a dangerous drug
with a weight of .1211 gram. without any license or authority, in violation of the
aforecited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]

Criminal Case No. 11868 for illegal sale of shabu

 That on or about the 19th day of August 2005 in the City of Laoag,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to
a police officer who acted as a poseur buyer two plastic bags containing
metamphetamine hydrochloride (popularly known as shabu) a dangerous drug
with a weight of .4931 grams and 0.5334 grams respectively without any license
or authority, in violation of the aforecited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]

Upon arraignment on August 25, 2005, the appellant, assisted by counsel de

parte, pleaded not guilty to both charges.[7] Thereafter, trial ensued.

The prosecution evidence established the following facts:

At around noon of August 19, 2005, SPO3 Rovimanuel Balolong, Chief,

Intelligence Division of the Laoag City Police Station, was in his house with two
(2) colleagues, SPO3 Allan Tunac and PO2 Sherwin Cabigas. While about to have
lunch, SPO3 Balolong received a call in his cellular phone from a female police
informant telling him that a certain Dax was selling shabu at his residence at Brgy.
1, Muslim Compound, Laoag City, and that she could access shabu from
him. SPO3 Balolong advised the informant to see him at his residence to discuss
the information further. When the informant arrived, SPO3 Balolong, together with
SPO3 Tunac and PO2 Cabigas, conducted a briefing with the informant and not
long after, devised a buy-bust plan to catch the appellant in flagrante delicto. SPO3
Balolong produced four (4) pieces of 500-peso bills[8] and marked them with his
initials on the lower right hand corner of the face of the bills. He then handed the
marked bills to PO2 Cabigas to use in the operation.[9] Then they proceeded as
planned.

PO2 Cabigas, who was the poseur-buyer, went with the informant and took a
tricycle to the Muslim Compound where the appellants residence was located.
Upon reaching an abandoned school located near the compound, PO2 Cabigas and
the informant alighted from the tricycle and proceeded on foot to the appellants
residence. However, even before reaching the said residence, the informant spotted
the appellant walking towards them at a distance of around fifteen (15) meters. She
discreetly informed PO2 Cabigas that the person in yellow was the person they
were after. PO2 Cabigas and the informant met with the appellant and received two
(2) plastic sachets of shabu[10] in exchange for P2,000 and a smaller sachet
of shabu as bonus.[11]

Upon receiving the three (3) sachets of shabu from the appellant, PO2 Cabigas
inserted them in his right side pocket and simultaneously pressed the call button on
his cellular phone inside his pocket. This raised the signal to SPO3 Balolong and
SPO3 Tunac, who were waiting nearby inside their vehicle, that the illegal sale
of shabu has been consummated and for them to assist PO2 Cabigas in arresting
the appellant. After pressing the call button, PO2 Cabigas held the appellants arm
and informed him that he was a police officer and that he was arresting him for
violation of Rep. Act No. 9165. According to PO2 Cabigas, [the appellant] put up a
strong resistance.[12] Around fifteen (15) seconds after the signal was sent, SPO3
Balolong and Tunac arrived at the scene. They saw PO2 Cabigas and the appellant
grappling and immediately assisted PO2 Cabigas in arresting the appellant.

After the arrest, SPO3 Balolong confiscated the buy-bust money from the
appellants wallet and asked him whether he had authority to sell shabu, to which
the appellant could not present any. The police officers then brought the appellant
to the Laoag City Police Station together with the confiscated shabu and buy-bust
money and turned over the evidence to the evidence custodian, SPO2 Loreto
Ancheta, who marked[13] the items appropriately. Thereafter they filed the
appropriate charges.[14]

On the other hand, the evidence of the appellant is basically a denial of all the
allegations. According to the defense, that morning at around 11:00 a.m., Chona
Martin was then at their store located in Brgy. 11, Lagasca Street, Laoag City. Later
on, Ariel Palaganas, who was her neighbor, gave her P1,000 and sent her to the
Muslim Compound to buy shabu. He did not tell her from whom to buy but she
was nonetheless able to buy the shabu. She handed the shabu to Ariel Palaganas
and then proceeded to Vintar Road on a tricycle as she was headed for the town
of Vintar. While on the tricycle, she was flagged down by three (3) men who were
riding in a red car. The men were identified as SPO3 Balolong, SPO3 Tunac and
PO2 Cabigas. According to her, she was frisked by the policemen and they found
one (1) sachet of shabu. They told her to come with them to a carinderiawhich was
owned by SPO3 Balolong and there she was interrogated as to where and from
whom she got the shabu. She merely told them that she got it from a small child in
the Muslim Compound. Unsatisfied, the policemen brought her along to the
Muslim Compound and made her search for the small child who delivered
the shabu to her. Being unable to spot the child, she pointed to a man who was
walking and whom she identified in open court as the appellant Alioding Sultan.[15]

The appellant, for his part, testified that on that day, he was walking on the street
beside the house of his siblings as he was looking for his children when suddenly
he was arrested. He asked why he was being arrested and the police responded by
saying that he should come with them peacefully if he did not want to get harmed.
He was brought to the headquarters where the policemen took off his clothes and
kept telling him to just bring it out. He, however, did not know what it was that
they wanted him to bring out. This went on for around fifteen (15) minutes but still
the police did not find anything on him.[16]

After trial, the RTC of Laoag City, Branch 13, gave credence to the
testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution and found the appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion of
the Decision dated August 28, 2006 reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment finding the accused
Alioding Sultan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale and
delivery of shabu in Criminal Case No. 11868 and is therefore sentenced to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00, with no costs.

For lack of factual basis, the accused is found NOT GUILTY and is
therefore ACQUITTED of the separate case of illegal delivery of shabu as
charged in Criminal Case No. 11867.

The shabu subject of these cases are forfeited, the same to be disposed of
as the law prescribes.

SO ORDERED.[17]

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC in its October 17, 2008 Decision stating that:
It is settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they
are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is
evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or
 deviation from the regular performance of their duties. Prescinding from the
foregoing, this Court is convinced that the guilt of appellant has been sufficiently
proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record.

The sale of shabu is penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act

No. 9165. Said section reads:

SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,

Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. 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) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver,
give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions.

Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 were

properly imposed on the appellant.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.[18]

Hence, this appeal.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for
selling and delivering 0.4931 grams and 0.5334 grams of shabu, respectively.

The appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus
delicti. According to him, there was no showing of any attempt or effort by the
arresting officers to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of Rep. Act No.
9165 and the prosecution failed to present evidence on post-examination custody
as the chemist who examined the specimens did not testify in open court. Hence,
there is doubt as to the identity of the specimen submitted in court.

The State, for its part, through the Solicitor General maintains that the
prosecution sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized
drugs and that the trial court correctly gave credence to the prosecution witnesses
testimonies as against those of the defense.

We affirm the appellants conviction.

Section 21 of Rep. Act No. 9165 was originally envisioned by the legislature to
serve as a protection for the accused from malicious imputations of guilt by abusive
police officers. The illegal drugs being the corpus delicti, it is essential for the
prosecution to prove and show to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal
drugs presented to the trial court as evidence of the crime are indeed the illegal drugs
seized from the accused.

Section 21, paragraph No. 1, prescribes the method by which law enforcement
agents/personnel are to go about in handling the corpus delicti at the time of seizure in
order to ensure full protection to the accused. It reads:
SEC. 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, 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;

xxxx

However, Section 21 was not meant to thwart the legitimate efforts of law
enforcement agents. Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from the
prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise
guilty defendant.[19] In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act
No. 9165 adequately reflects the desire of the law to excuse from the rigid tenor of
Section 21 situations wherein slight infractions in methodology are present but the
integrity and identity of the specimen remains intact. It reads:
Section 21. x x x

(a) xxx 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;

In the case at bar, the failure of the apprehending officer to immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the [prohibited
drugs] in the presence of the accused as required by Section 21 can be considered
as a slight infraction that does not automatically render the seized items
inadmissible. There is a justifiable reason for such failure in this case as was
explained by SPO3 Balolong during his cross-examination. To wit:
[ATTY. CARIDAD:] Now, while you were still there and you said the accused
resisted, is it not a fact that the sisters of the accused tried
to pull the accused because they insisted that the accused
was not selling shabu, yes or no?

[WITNESS:] I do not know any sister of the accused, sir.

[ATTY. CARIDAD:] There were women who tried to pull the accused from the
hold of Cabigas and the police officers who were with
Cabigas because they insisted that the accused was not
selling shabu at that time when he was arrested?

[WITNESS:] No, sir, they were interfering with our job, sir.

[ATTY CARIDAD:] Interfering you said, what do you mean by interfering? What
did they do by way of interfering?

[WITNESS:] They tried to stop us by pulling, grabbing and pushing us from

arresting Alioding Sultan, sir.[20]

xxxx

[ATTY CARIDAD:] He never made any inventory of those sachets in that place
where the same were confiscated?

[WITNESS:] We could not, sir.

[ATTY CARIDAD:] The answer is yes or no.

 [WITNESS:] No, sir.

[ATTY CARIDAD:] Also you did not mark except the markings that you made
before the alleged buy-bust operation was conducted, after
confiscating the same from the possession of the accused,
you never marked the same?

[WITNESS:] If you mean the money, sir, no, sir.

[ATTY CARIDAD:] So it is very clear now, Mr. Witness, that you never made an
inventory in the place where the arrest was made by placing
or wrote in the very place the three (3) sachets in that
inventory together the money, alleged money that was used
in the buy-bust operation, is that it?

[WITNESS:] We could not, sir.

[ATTY CARIDAD:] Now, no pictures were taken on those articles that were
confiscated as well as the buy-bust money allegedly used in
that buy-bust operation, is it not, there were none?

[WITNESS:] The investigators, I do not know if the investigators took pictures,

sir.

[ATTY CARIDAD:] Took pictures, where are those pictures now, Mr. Witness, if
you say that the investigators took pictures of those
evidences?

[WITNESS:] No. I said I am not sure if the investigators took pictures, sir.

[ATTY CARIDAD:] I see. But you are very sure that no pictures were taken at the
place where the confiscation was made, is it not?

[WITNESS:] It is impossible, sir.[21]

It was the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of strictly complying with

Section 21 of Rep. Act No. 9165 during the actual apprehension and arrest
which justifies the slight deviation by the arresting officers from the rule. The
strong resistance of the appellant to the arrest and the interference of several
persons made it imperative upon the apprehending police officers to withdraw
from the place immediately. Consequently, the confiscated items were marked only
upon turn over to the evidence custodian.
 But were the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs
preserved despite the justified infraction of Section 21? We rule in the affirmative.

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following
elements must be established: (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 its
payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. All
these requisites were met by the prosecution in this case.

The chain of custody in the instant case did not suffer from serious flaws as
appellant argues. The identity of the regulated drug, as well as the buy-bust money,
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The prosecution was
able to establish the chain of custody in the presentation of the evidence custodian
whose testimony was dispensed with upon the admission of the defense that
he made the identifying markings on the items confiscated from the possession of
the [appellant] and personally submittedthem to the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime
Laboratory Office at Camp Juan, Laoag City.[22] They were received on August 19,
2005 at 1415H by PO3 Silverio Abrera from SPO2 Ancheta himself, as evidenced
by the rubber stamp[23] at the bottom of the endorsement letter[24] which bore SPO2
Anchetas signature on the space after Delivered by. Upon receiving the sachets
containing the illegal drugs, PO3 Abrera recorded the letter request and the
specimens, after which he immediately endorsed them to Police Inspector Valeriano
Laya II, the Forensic Chemical Officer who, as also admitted by the defense,
[25]
marked them upon receipt and on the same day, examined the specimens and
found the contents thereof to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride as
shown by his Initial Laboratory Report[26] and confirmatory Chemistry Report No.
D-059-2005.[27]

The prosecution witnesses were further able to present and identify in court
the confiscated items and the marked money. PO2 Cabigas identified in open court
the three (3) sachets that the appellant gave in the course of the illicit sale
transaction. In particular, he pointed to the smallest plastic sachet [28] as the plastic
sachet that the appellant gave away as bonus while the two (2) other sachets bigger
in size[29] were the ones that the appellant sold, pointing in the process the markings
that SPO2 Ancheta made in his presence, specifically, the initial signature of SPO2
Ancheta, the letters LCPS which is the acronym for the Laoag City Police Station,
the initials AS of the appellant and the letters BB which stand for buy bust. [30] He
also identified the marked money, the serial numbers of which were placed in the
police blotter after the operation. Further, SPO3 Balolong who was also present
and looking when the markings were made by the evidence custodian, made a
similar identification.[31] He also identified the four (4) P500 bills buy-bust money
that he marked before the operation with his initials. The trial court observed that
the bills presented in court had the same serial numbers as those mentioned in the
Joint Affidavit[32] of the arresting police officers. Thus, it is clear that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were not affected by the failure to comply
strictly with Section 21. There is no doubt in our minds that the seized drugs
obtained from the appellant at the Muslim Compound in Barangay 1, Laoag City,
were the same ones which were brought to the crime laboratory and analyzed as
positive for shabu.

The non-presentation of the chemist who tested the illegal drugs, contrary to
appellants contentions, is insufficient to acquit him. As we ruled in People v.
Zenaida Quebral y Mateo, et al.,[33] which dealt with a similar issue,
The accused-appellants also point out that, since the chemist who
examined the seized substance did not testify in court, the prosecution was unable
to establish the indispensable element of corpus delicti. But this claim is
unmeritorious. This Court has held that the non-presentation of the forensic
chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. The corpus
delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means
that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.

Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the

laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official
forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of
regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised
Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty
are prima facie evidence of the facts they state. Therefore, the report of Forensic
Chemical Officer Sta. Maria that the five plastic sachets PO3 Galvez gave to her
for examination contained shabu is conclusive in the absence of evidence proving
the contrary. At any rate, as the CA pointed out, the defense agreed during trial to
dispense with the testimony of the chemist and stipulated on his findings.

Notably, similar to the above-cited case, the parties in this case also
stipulated on the content of the would-be testimony of the chemist.[34]
 Also undeserving of serious consideration is appellants defense that there
was no buy-bust operation. The trial court found undeserving of credence
appellants self-serving testimony and defense witness Chona Martins assertion
that it was merely by chance that she saw appellant and pointed him to the police
officers as the person peddling illegal drugs. The trial court, in fact, branded
Chona Martins testimony as obviously fabricated. [35] It is a fundamental rule that
findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve
credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of
facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from
such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to
decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. [36] The rule finds an
even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.
[37]
As there appears no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the trial
court and the CA, we stand by their findings.

Having been caught in flagrante delicto, the appellants identity as seller of

the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, appellants plain denial of the offenses charged,
unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.
[38]
Moreover, there is no showing that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by
ill motives to testify falsely against the appellant. As appellant himself has
testified, he has never met the police officers prior to the arrest.[39]

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the October
17, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02646 which
affirmed the August 28, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City.

Costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

AT T E S TAT I O N

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, Third Division

C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and the Chairpersons
Attestation, 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
Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
 Chief Justice

Additional member per Special Order No. 843.

[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo
(now a member of this Court) and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok concurring.
[2]
CA rollo, pp. 37-48. Penned by Judge Philip G. Salvador.
[3]
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - 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) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging
from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or
shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in
any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a
controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of
death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or
acts as a financier of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon
any person, who acts as a protector/coddler of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
[4]
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972,
AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
[5]
Records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 1.
[6]
Records (Criminal Case No. 11868), p. 1.
[7]
Records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 15.
[8]
Id. at 9.
[9]
TSN, November 15, 2005, pp. 4-7.
[10]
Chemistry Report No. D-059-2005, records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 7.
[11]
TSN, January 23, 2006, pp. 5-8.
[12]
Id. at 9.
[13]
Id. at 10-11; TSN, January 10, 2006, pp. 2-3.
[14]
Id. at 10.
[15]
TSN, April 17, 2006, pp. 3-16.
[16]
TSN, May 25, 2006, pp. 3-5.
[17]
Records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 72.
[18]
Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[19]
See People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633.
[20]
TSN, November 15, 2005, pp. 20-21.
[21]
Id. at 18-19.
[22]
TSN, January 10, 2006, pp. 2-3.
[23]
Exhibit B-1, records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 16; TSN, February 15, 2006, pp. 3-5.
[24]
Exhibit B, id.
[25]
TSN, October 6, 2005, pp. 2-5.
[26]
Exhibit C, records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 17.
[27]
Exhibit D, id. at 18.
[28]
Exhibit D-3, TSN, January 23, 2006, p. 15.
[29]
Exhibit D-1 and D-2, id. at 15-16.
[30]
TSN, January 23, 2006, pp. 15-16.
[31]
TSN, November 15, 2005, pp. 10-11.
[32]
Records (Criminal Case No. 11867), pp. 3-4.
[33]
G.R. No. 185379, November 27, 2009, pp. 6-7, citing People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009,
581 SCRA 762, 781, Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 631-632 and People
v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 586-587.
[34]
TSN, October 6, 2005, pp. 2-6.
[35]
CA rollo, p. 47.
[36]
People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil. 895, 910 (2001).
[37]
People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547.
[38]
People v. Sy, G.R. No. 171397, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 772, 783.
[39]
TSN, May 25, 2006, p. 7.