Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Note.—No specific form of ransom is required to

consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as
the ransom was intended as a bargaining chip in exchange
for the victim’s freedom, whether or not the ransom is
actually paid to or received by the perpetrators is of no
moment. (People vs. Jatulan, 522 SCRA 174 [2007])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 181545. October 8, 2008.*

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

MARK DELA CRUZ, appellant.

Criminal Law; Evidence; Dangerous Drugs; 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 elements
necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the
identities 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 common issue that crops out of a
buy-bust operation, like in this case, is whether the drug
submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was
actually recovered from appellant. The Court is cognizant of the
fact that an entrapment operation is open to possibilities of abuse.
It is by this same thrust that the chain of custody rule was
adopted by the Court.
Same; Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; As a method of
authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. Dela Cruz

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.—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.
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.
Same; Same; Same; The failure of the police to comply with
the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubts as to
its origins.—In People v. Orteza, 528 SCRA 750 (2007), the Court
citing People v. Laxa, 361 SCRA 622 (2001), People v. Kimura, 428
SCRA 51 (2004) and Zarraga v. People, 484 SCRA 639 (2006),
reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with
the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to
its origins.
Same; Same; Failure to observe the proper procedure also
negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to
police officers.—As stated by the Court in People v. Santos, Jr.,
536 SCRA 489 (2007), failure to observe the proper procedure also
negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to
police officers. As a general rule, the testimony of the police
officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full
faith and credit because of the presumption that they have
performed their duties regularly. However, when the performance
of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is
effectively destroyed.
Same; Same; While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of
regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption
cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.—While the law enforcers enjoy the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this
presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the
accused to be pre-

275

VOL. 568, OCTOBER 8, 2008 275

People vs. Dela Cruz

sumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. 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.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  The Solicitor General for appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for appellant.

TINGA, J.:

Subject of this appeal is the 12 September 2007 decision1

of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02534,
affirming the 24 August 2006 judgment2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120 of Caloocan City, finding
appellant Mark Dela Cruz y Batac guilty of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
Appellant was charged with illegal sale of shabu in an
Information dated 18 July 2003, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 16th day of July 2003 in Caloocan City,

M.M. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping
one another, without having been authorized by law, did then and
there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to one
PO2 EUGENE C. AMOYO, who posed as buyer, two (2) pcs. of
small transparent plastic sachets containing 0.08 gram, total
weight of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) for [t]wo (2)
pcs of One Hundred Peso Bill with SN DF950395 and KY384741
knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-14, penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, and concurred
in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Arturo G. Tayag.
2 CA Rollo, pp. 13-18; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Oscar P. Barrientos.

276

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dela Cruz

CONTRARY TO LAW.”3

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that
P/Insp. Ericson L. Calabocal conducted a qualitative
examination on two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets evidenced by Physical Science Report No. D-845-03
dated 17 July 2003. It was further stipulated that said
witness had no personal knowledge as to the facts and
circumstances surrounding the arrest of appellant, as well
as the source of the subject specimens.4
Trial ensued. Witnesses for the prosecution narrated
that in the evening of 16 July 2003, a male informant came
to the office of the Northern Police District on Tanigue
Street, Kaunlaran Village, Caloocan City. In the presence
of PO3 Gilbert Velasco (PO3 Velasco) and PO2 Eugene
Amoyo (PO2 Amoyo), the informant complained about the
rampant selling of shabu by a certain Mac-Mac. Said
information was relayed to P/Chief Inspector Rafael
Santiago who immediately instructed PO3 Velasco to form
a buy-bust team. The team was composed of PO3 Velasco,
PO2 Amoyo, PO3 Joel Borda (PO3 Borda), PO2 Loreto
Lagmay, PO1 Renato Ameng, PO1 Allan Reyes and PO1
Joel Cosme. PO2 Amoyo was the designated poseur-buyer.
Two (2) pieces of P100.00 bills were prepared as boodle
money. The initials “ECA” were placed on the bills.
The buy-bust team underwent a briefing and then
proceeded to the target area on board two (2) separate
vehicles. They arrived at a parking lot along Hipon Liit in
Dagat-dagatan at 7:30 p.m. PO2 Amoyo, PO3 Velasco and
PO3 Borda, along with the informant, waited beside a
coconut tree for Mac-Mac.
After two hours, appellant arrived with two male
companions. The informant approached appellant and
introduced

_______________

3 Records, p. 1.
4 Id., at p. 33.

277

VOL. 568, OCTOBER 8, 2008 277

People vs. Dela Cruz

PO2 Amoyo to him as a buyer of P200.00 worth of shabu.

Appellant left for a while to get the shabu from his
companions, who were standing 7 meters away from the
group. He returned ten (10) minutes later and handed two
(2) plastic sachets to PO2 Amoyo, who, in exchange, handed
over the boodle money.
After the exchange, PO2 Amoyo raised his left hand to
signal the other members of the buy-bust team that the
transaction had already been concluded. PO3 Velasco and
PO3 Borda immediately arrested appellant while PO2
Amoyo ran after appellant’s companions. There was an
exchange of gunfire between PO2 Amoyo and an
unidentified companion but the latter was able to escape
unscathed. PO2 Amoyo kept the two (2) plastic sachets in
his pocket.
 A spot investigation was conducted on appellant. It was
revealed that the two (2) male companions were identified
as Amay and Tabo. Appellant was then brought to the
police headquarters. PO2 Amoyo placed his markings
“ECA-BB-1” and “ECA-BB-2” on the plastic sachets before
turning them over, together with the buy-bust money, to
SPO4 Jorge Tabayag. PO2 Amoyo also prepared a request
for laboratory examination addressed to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.
The two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance were found positive for shabu. Said finding was
indicated in Physical Science Report No. D-845-035
prepared by Forensic Chemist and Police Inspector
Erickson L. Calabocal of the PNP Crime Laboratory Group.
Appellant presented a different version of the facts. He
testified that at 8:30 p.m. on 16 July 2003, he was sitting in
the plaza located on Hipon Liit St., Dagat-dagatan,
Caloocan City. He was waiting for his brother to deliver his
boots when the policemen arrived and were looking for an
alias Amay. Appellant then heard a gunshot and saw Amay
firing the

_______________

5 Id., at p. 134.

278

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dela Cruz

shot. Appellant ran towards his house. Later, the

policemen went to his house and handcuffed him. When
appellant asked why he was being arrested, the policemen
claimed that appellant knew Amay. Appellant denied
selling shabu and asserted that the case was filed against
him when he refused to give information about Amay.
Appellant’s testimony was corroborated by his brother,
Balweg Dela la Cruz, who stated in court that appellant
instructed him to get his boots and bring them to the plaza
at around 8:30 p.m.6 As he was about to leave the house,
Balweg saw his brother being arrested by two policemen.
He heard from other people that the policemen were asking
appellant if he knew of a man named Amay.7
In finding appellant guilty, the trial court ruled that
there was a meeting of minds between the poseur-buyer
and appellant as to the delivery of shabu in exchange for
P200.00. The dispositive portion of said judgment reads:

“Premises considered, this Court finds accused MARK DELA

CRUZ Y BATAC “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt for
Violation of Sec. 5, Article II of [R.A. No.] 9165, otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes
upon him the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
The two (2) plastic sachets containing 0.04 gram each of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride is hereby ordered confiscated
in favor of the government to be turned over to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PEDEA) [sic] for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.”8

On 15 September 2006, appellant appealed to the Court

of Appeals via a notice of appeal.9
 

_______________

6 TSN, 15 August 2005, p. 8.

7 Id., at p. 17.
8 CA Rollo, p. 18.
9 Id., at p. 19.

279

VOL. 568, OCTOBER 8, 2008 279

People vs. Dela Cruz

On 12 September 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered

judgment affirming the RTC’s decision in Criminal Case
No. 68601.10 The appellate court gave weight to the
testimony of the poseur-buyer as well as to the Physical
Science Report in concluding that the illegal sale of shabu
was perpetrated by appellant. The appellate court rejected
appellant’s defense of frame-up for failure to substantiate
such allegation and in light of the presumption of
regularity accorded to police officers in the performance of
their official duties. Anent the alleged failure of the police
officers to observe the procedure laid down under Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165, the appellate court held that such
failure is not fatal as the circumstances in the instant case
show that the integrity pertaining to the custody of the
seized shabu was not compromised notwithstanding that
the same were marked only during the investigation held
at the police station.11
After obtaining an unfavorable decision, appellant filed
a notice of appeal before this Court.12
On 9 April 2008, this Court required the parties to
simultaneously file their supplemental briefs.13
In two separate manifestations, both parties expressed
their intention not to file any supplemental brief since all
the issues and arguments have already been raised in their
respective Briefs.14
Appellant maintains that the prosecution was not able
to establish the moral certainty required by law to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that his
defenses of alibi and denial were supported not only by his
testimony but by that of other witnesses. He questions the
identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him as the
marking was

_______________

10 Supra note 1.
11 Rollo, pp. 8-13.
12 Id., at pp. 15-16.
13 Id., at pp. 19-20.
14 Id., at pp. 21-26.

280

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dela Cruz

made only in the police station in front of the investigating

officer, contrary to the requirement laid down in Section 21
(1) of RA No. 9165. He also assails the forensic laboratory
examination result in that it was not covered by a
certification in violation of Section 21 (3) of the same law.
He stresses that the prosecution must not simply rely on
the presumption of regularity for it cannot by itself support
a judgment of conviction.15
In its appellee’s brief,16 the Office of the Solicitor-
General (OSG) supports the conviction of appellant. It
argues that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto
selling shabu in a legitimate buy-bust operation. It claims
that the elements necessary in the prosecution of the illegal
sale of drugs were duly established by the prosecution,
namely: the appellant, as seller of the shabu, and the
poseur-buyer were identified; and the shabu confiscated
from appellant and the money used to buy it were also
presented in court. The OSG emphasizes that the sachets
of shabu presented in court were the same sachets
confiscated from appellant and subjected to laboratory
examination. It justifies the non-observance of Section 21
(1) of R.A. No. 9165 since the corpus delicti of the illegal
sale of drugs was duly established during trial. It adds that
after the confiscation of the sachets of shabu from
appellant, they were immediately submitted for laboratory
examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory.17
The appeal is meritorious.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal
sale of drugs are: (1) the identities 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

_______________

15 CA Rollo, pp. 34-39.

16 Id., at pp. 56-71.
17 Id., at pp. 5-11.

281

VOL. 568, OCTOBER 8, 2008 281

People vs. Dela Cruz

transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the

presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.18
The common issue that crops out of a buy-bust
operation, like in this case, is whether the drug submitted
for laboratory examination and presented in court was
actually recovered from appellant. The Court is cognizant
of the fact that an entrapment operation is open to
possibilities of abuse. It is by this same thrust that the
chain of custody rule was adopted by the Court. In Lopez v.
People,19 we had the occasion to expound on the chain of
custody rule, thus:

“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. 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.
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.
The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is
susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit’s level of
susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering—without
regard to whether the same is advertent
_______________

18 People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430.
19 G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619.

282

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dela Cruz

or otherwise not—dictates 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. Graham v. State positively acknowledged this danger. In
that case where a substance later analyzed as heroin—was
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 possession—was 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 laboratory’s findings
is inadmissible.
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 cases—by accident or otherwise—in
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.”

Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with

unwavering exactitude.20
This Court believes that the prosecution failed to clearly
establish the chain of custody of the seized plastic sachets

_______________

20 Zarraga v. People, G.R. No. 162064, 14 March 2006, 484 SCRA 639.
 283

VOL. 568, OCTOBER 8, 2008 283

People vs. Dela Cruz

containing shabu from the time they were first allegedly

received until they were brought to the police investigator.
PO2 Amoyo testified that he failed to place any marking
on the sachets of shabu immediately after the
apprehension of appellant. In fact, PO3 Amoyo admitted
that he only placed his markings upon being ordered by
SPO4 Tabayag.21
The defense however failed to corroborate PO2 Amoyo’s
claim. While SPO4 Tabayag was presented in court, he
neglected to mention nor was he asked about the markings
on the shabu. On the contrary, the sworn statement of PO2
Amoyo, which was formally offered in evidence, seemed to
suggest that markings were made prior to the submission
of the shabu to SPO4 Tabayag, to wit:
“16—T: Maipapakita mo ba yong sinasabi mong pinaghihinalaang Shabu
na nabili mo dito kay Mark Dela Cruz, alyas Mac Mac?
S: Opo. Ito po. [Affiant presented two (2) pieces of small transparent
plastic sachets (heat-sealed) containing a crystalline substance
believed to be Shabu] at ang plastic po nito ay aking minarkahan ng
aking inisyal na “ECA-BB1” at “ECA-BB2].”22

Verily, PO2 Amoyo’s testimony suggests that he already

placed his markings prior to being questioned by SPO4
Tabayag.
Moreover, no other witness was presented to testify or to
fill the gap from the time SPO4 Tabayag received the
sachets of shabu from PO2 Amoyo up to the time they were
delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Furthermore, nothing on record shows that the
procedural requirements of Section 21, Paragraph 1 of
Article II of R.A.

_______________

21 TSN, 17 January 2005, p. 13.

22  Records, p. 129. Sinumpaang Salaysay date 17 July 2003 by PO2
Amayo.

284

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dela Cruz

No. 916523 with respect to custody and disposition of

confiscated drugs were complied with. There was no
physical inventory and photograph of the items allegedly
confiscated from appellant. Neither did the police officers
offer any explanation for their failure to observe the rule.
The prosecution merely sought refuge in its belief that a
stringent application of the rule may be dispensed with if
the corpus delicti has been duly established.
In People v. Orteza,24 the Court citing People v. Laxa,25
People v. Kimura26 and Zarraga v. People,27 reiterated the
ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the
procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as
to its origins.28

_______________

23 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[.]
24 G.R. No. 173051, 31 July 2007, 528 SCRA 750.
25 414 Phil. 156; 361 SCRA 622 (2001).
26 G.R. No. 130805, 27 April 2004, 428 SCRA 51.
27 Supra note 20.
28 Supra note 24 at p. 758.

285

VOL. 568, OCTOBER 8, 2008 285

People vs. Dela Cruz

In People v. Nazareno,29 the poseur-buyer failed to

immediately place his markings on the seized drugs before
turning them over to the police investigators. The police
officer who placed his markings was not presented to
testify on what actually transpired after the drugs were
turned over to him. The Court equated these circumstances
as failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the
existence of the corpus delicti.30
As stated by the Court in People v. Santos, Jr.,31 failure
to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation
of the presumption of regularity accorded to police
officers.32 As a general rule, the testimony of the police
officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded
full faith and credit because of the presumption that they
have performed their duties regularly.33 However, when
the performance of their duties is tainted with
irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.
While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of
regularity in the performance of their duties, this
presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of
the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself
constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.34 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.35
In fine, the failure to establish the corpus delicti is
detrimental to the cause of the prosecution. The Court is
thus constrained to acquit appellant on reasonable doubt.

_______________

29 G.R. No. 174771, 11 September 2007, 532 SCRA 630.

30 Id., at pp. 637-641.
31 G.R. No. 175593, 17 October 2007, 536 SCRA 489.
32 Id., at p. 505.
33 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 151205, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 516,
522.
34 People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794; 384 SCRA 411, 424 (2002).
35 Lopez v. People, supra note 19.

286

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dela Cruz

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of

Appeals dated 12 September 2007 affirming the judgment
of conviction of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City,
Branch 120 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant
MARK DELA CRUZ y BATAC 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 ORDERED
to implement this decision forthwith and to INFORM this
Court, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, of the date
appellant was actually released from confinement.
Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to the PNP
Director and the Director General of the Philippine Drug
 Enforcement Agency for proper guidance and
implementation. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Velasco,

Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.

Assailed decision reversed and set aside, appellant Mark

Dela Cruz y Batac acquitted.

Note.—Courts are duty-bound to be extra vigilant in

trying drug cases lest an innocent person be made to suffer
the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses—the Court
is not oblivious to the fact that in some instances, law
enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to
extract information or even harass civilians. (Valdez vs.
People, 538 SCRA 611 [2007])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.