G.R. No.

172953 April 30, 2008

JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Digest by: Narciso Nario III

Facts:

 On February 4, 2003, a team composed of P/Insp. Catalino Bolanos, with PO3 Roberto
Esternon, SPO1 Pedro Docot, SPO1 Danilo Lasala and SPO2 Romeo Gallinera entered
petitioner Junie Mallillin’s house on the strength of a warrant of search and seizure. Junie
was suspected of possessing shabu. Present during the search was Junie’s wife Sheila, his
mother Norma, and barangay kagawad Delfin Licup.
 The search yielded 2 plastic packets of shabu and 5 empty packets containing shabu
residue. Mallillin was thus charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA. No. 9165,
(The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
 The trial commenced as follows:
o Bolanos, the raid leader, testified that he was permitted entry into the house by
Mallillin after showing the search warrant. He assigned Esternon and Licup to
conduct the search, while stationing the rest of the team outside to prevent anyone
from fleeing. He stated that the search yielded five empty packets with shabu
residue, and two full packets that fell from a pillow Esternon was searching in
Mallillin’s presence. He himself remained a meter away from the search, and
testified on cross-examination that he was with Norma so that he could keep watch
on all that was transpiring while updating the latter.
o Esternon testified that the empty packets were found in a denim bag behind the
bedroom door, and that he found the two full packets under a pillow and called
Gallinera to have the items recorded and marked. On cross-examination, he
testified that he conducted the search alone; that Mallillin handed him the pillow
which included the two full packets; and that he brought the items to the police
station for a “true inventory”, then to the trial court, then to the laboratory.
o Lorlie Arroyo, the forensic chemist who examined the items, positively claimed
the substance in the packets as shabu, and that four out of the five empty packets
contained residue of the same. She stated that it was Esternon who delivered the
items to the laboratory on the same day the search was conducted, and that it was a
certain Ofelia Garcia in their office who received the same.
o Raising irregularity of search and seizure, petitioner Mallillin testified that
Esternon began the bedroom search with Mallillin and Licup inside. However, the
search was interrupted when one of the officers noted that Sheila tucked something
inside her underwear. Everyone in the bedroom was asked to step outside with the
sole exception of Esternon, while a lady officer and Sheila entered such that the
 former may proceed with a bodily examination (leaving only Sheila, the lady
officer, and Esternon in the room). While this transpired, Mallillin was asked to buy
cigarettes from a nearby store. Upon his return, he was informed that there was
nothing on Sheila. He was then requested by Esternon to return to the bedroom,
whereupon he was asked to lift the mattress and then the headboard. He was lifting
the headboard when Esternon announced that he found the shabu packet in the
pillow.
o Norma, Sheila and Licup corroborated Mallillin’s testimony. Norma and Sheila
attested to Mallillin not being in the house during the entirety of the search because
of the cigarette errand. Licup stated that he was in the bedroom when the five
empty packets were found, and it was during a 3-minute period when he left the
bedroom that Esternon, the lone person inside the bedroom at the same, announced
his discovery of the two full shabu packets.
 Trial Court: ruled in favor of respondents and declared Mallillin guilty of illegal
possession of drugs, stating that the shabu found in his house constituted prima facie
evidence of the crime charged.
 Court of Appeals: affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the prison term to a
slightly lesser sentence.

Issue/Held:

 W/N there was regularity in the performance of duties of the officers such that the evidence
obtained was sufficient to convict – NO

Ratio:

 The mere fact of unauthorized possession is not sufficient to create the moral certainty to
sustain guilt. The chain of custody requirement is there to ensure that the item seized as
evidence is the same one presented in court.
o This requires that every person who handled the contraband would testify to how it
was handled, to ensure that the item remained in the same condition as it was when
it was retrieved.
o While not every case needs a ‘perfect’ chain of custody to be valid, “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.”
o The contraband’s susceptibility to tampering dictates the strictness of the
application of the chain of custody rule.
 The testimony is insufficient and raises significant doubts in relation to the chain of custody
rule and thus the validity of the evidence.
 o Only two people (Esternon and Arroyo) out of four total (including Gallinera and
Garcia) who personally handled the substance were presented to testify before the
court.
 Since Gallinera was the one who marked and recorded the exhibits, his
testimony was critical.
 The prosecution offered no explanation for the failure to present Gallinera
and Garcia.
 The argument that the search was conducted in a regular manner and must be presumed so
is incorrect.
o There is no logical consistency to Mallillin being tasked, on his own, to buy
cigarettes for the police officers, and Bolanos’ stationing his officers outside the
house to prevent escape.
o Esternon’s claim that Mallillin handed over the pillow which allegedly contained
the two full packets is inconsistent with ordinary human behavior. Why would one
risk discovery of the paraphernalia by handing it, albeit concealed, to the
investigator?
o The necessity by which Sheila had to be searched for allegedly tucking something
in her underwear was successful in drawing attention away from the search
conducted by Esternon.
o The Court also took note of Esternon’s suspicious presence in the bedroom while
Sheila was being searched by the lady officer.
 The raiding team failed to adhere to Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of R.A. No. 9165 which outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized
drugs.
o Simply put, Esternon being the one who initially found the two full packets was
fully responsible for the documenting of the same. Esternon failed to do this as he
brought the items to the police station for a “true inventory”. There was no reason
he couldn’t do the same in the house.
 The raiding team failed to adhere to Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, which
states that items seized be immediately delivered to the trial court with a true and verified
inventory of the same.
o Esternon, again, failed this as he brought the items to the police station first for the
true inventory.
 The irregularities in the performance of duty means that the presumption of regularity does
not obtain, and thus, it fails in attaining the proof beyond reasonable doubt that hurdles the
presumption of innocence.