People v.

Kamad
G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010

POP VS RAMON FRONDOZO yDALIDA

GR 177164

FACTS
: On October 16, 2002 the Philippine National Police
Drug Enforcement Unit of the Southern
Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig received
information from an asset that a certain Zaida
was selling shabu at Purok IV, Silverio Compound,
Paranaque City. At 10 PM of October 16,2002, SPO2
Sanchez, poseur-buyer, gave marked PHP 300 bills to
accused-appellant for thepurchase of shabu. Upon
receipt of the item, Zaida Kamad and her boyfriend, Leo,
were arrested.The RTC Branch 259 of Paranaque City
found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for violation of Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 for the
illegal sale of 0.20 gram of methamphetamineHCL. On
appeal, the CA affirmed
in toto
the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE
: Is accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165for the illegal
sale of 0.20 gram of shabu?
RULING
: No, the Court ruled that in the prosecution of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs, thethe followingelements must must
be established: (1) proof that the transaction took place,
(2)
corpus delicti
presented as evidence. Records showed that the
prosecution through SPO2 Sanchez,established the sale
of the prohibited drug shabu by accused-appellant but
the RTC and the CA
failed to notice the defects in the prosecutions case
such as (1) lapse in implementing Section
21, Article II of RA 9165 in the handling of the seized
shabu and (2) failure of police to complywith the chain of
custody rule.For violations of Section 21, Article II of RA
9165, no inventory and photographing of seized
drugswas done at the place of arrest as well as the
presence of the accused as it was being done nor
arepresentative of the media, the DOJ, and any elected
pubic official who will confirm thatevidence seized were
as they were found. Neither was it established by the
prosecution why suchthing were not followed by
presenting (1) justifiable cause and (2) preserving the
integrity andevidentiary value of seized evidence as
required by the IRR of RA 9165 Section 21-A.For noncompliance of the chain of custody rule, which requires
the documentation anddescription of evidence as it is
being processed along the system was neither
complied.Court reverses and sets aside the decision of
the CA affirming the final judgment of RTC Branch259 of
Paranaque City for the illegal sale of shabu of accusedappellant. Zaida Kamad is herebyacquitted and ordered
released from detention.

FACTS:
1.That accused was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Sec. 5., Article II of RA 9165 byRTC
& CA;2.That there was a buy-bust operation
conducted;3.That the poseur-buyer received a sachet of
shabu and he handed to the accused the buy-bust
money;4.That poseur-buyer found two arrows with sling,
one fan knife (balisong) and the P100 buy-bust money
fromthe accused.5.That poseur buyer testified that his
teammates never went inside the house.6.That the team
brought accused police station. The specimen and the
items seized from body of theaccused were turned over
to another P/Insp. Richard Ang who marked the
specimen RFD-01 andprepared the request for
laboratory examination.7.That P/Insp. Albert Arturo
made a laboratory examination of the contents of the
plastic sachet. Based onthe physical, chemical and
chromatographic examinations he conducted, it was
found that the specimenyielded positive results for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
ISSUES:
1.Whether or not the post-seizure procedure in taking
custody of seized drugs were followed.2.Whether or not
presumption of regularity can overcome presumption of
innocence.
RULING:
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the
ground of reasonable doubt.
RATIO:
The corpus delicti in this case does not exist.
ELEMENTS FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS:
Jurisprudence clearly sets the essential elements to be
established in the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerousdrugs, viz.:(1) the transaction or sale took
place, (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented asevidence, and (3) the buyer and seller were
identified.What is material in the prosecution for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or
sale actuallytook place, coupled with the presentation in
court of evidence of corpus delicti. Prosecutions for
illegal sale of prohibited drugs necessitate that the
elemental act of possession of prohibited substance be
established withmoral certainty, together with the fact

that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous

drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment
of conviction. Therefore, it is essential that the identity of
the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. To
establish the identity of the shabu seized from Frondozo,
the procedures laid down in Rep. Act No. 9165 shouldbe
complied with. Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Rep. Act No. 9165 clearly outlines
thepost-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized
drugs. It states:(1)The apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure andconfiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s fromwhom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from themedia and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copiesof the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.
MARKING OF SHABU NO PROOF OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED
In this case, the arresting officers failed to strictly comply
with the procedures for the custody and disposition of
confiscated dangerous drugs as prescribed by Rep. Act
No. 9165. The arresting officers did not mark the
shabuimmediately after they arrested Frondozo.Further,
while there was testimony regarding the marking of the
shabuafter it was turned over to the police investigator,
no evidence was presented to prove that the marking
thereof was done in the presence of Frondozo.
FAILURE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER TO TAKE
PHOTOGRAPH
&
INVENTORY
OF
THE
CONFISCATEDMATERIAL.
Also, fatal in the prosecutions case is the failure of the
arresting officers to take a photograph and make
aninventory of the confiscated materials in the presence
of Frondozo. Likewise, there was no mention that
anyrepresentative from the media, DOJ or any elected
public official had been present during the inventory or
that anyof these persons had been required to sign the
copies of the inventory.Clearly, none of the statutory
safeguards mandated by Rep. Act No. 9165 was
observed. Hence, the failure of thebuy-bust team to
comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized
drugs raises doubt as to its origins.Nevertheless, while
the seized drugs may be admitted in evidence, it does
not necessarily follow that the sameshould be given
evidentiary weight if the procedures provided by Rep.
Act No. 9165 were not complied with. Theadmissibility of
the seized dangerous drugs in evidence should not be

equated with its probative value in provingthe corpus

delicti. The admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence while the weight of evidence
pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency
to convince and persuade.

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IS DESTROYED

WHEN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES IS TAINTED
WITHIRREGULARITIES.
Finally, the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty relied upon by the lower courts cannot
byitself overcome the presumption of innocence nor
constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As a
rule, thetestimony of police officers who apprehended
Frondozo is accorded full faith and credit because of
thepresumption that they have performed their duties
regularly.However, when the performance of their duties
istainted with irregularities, such presumption is
effectively destroyed.All told, the corpus delicti in this
case does not exist.
Carino vs. People Gr No. 178757

AcquitalFacts:Ronald Carino and Rosana Andes assail

the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the joint decision
of the RTC Quezon City, findingpetitioners guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt
of
illegal
possession
of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug
locallyknown as shabu.
Both accused were apprehended by officers conducting
Oplan Sita(conducted to suppress rampant robbery
within the vicinity).
After the arrest and investigation, petitioners were
charged in two separate informations with violation of
Sec. 11, Art. II of RA9165.The prosecution offered the
testimony of PO1 Joseph Tayaban (Tayaban) and PO1
Arnold Eugenio (Eugenio) to prove the chargesagainst
petitioners. Tayaban and Eugenio professed that they
were the ones who arrested both petitioners.Tayaban
testified and corroborated by Eugenio that, at around
2:00 oclock in the afternoon, his colleague, Eugenio,
spottedCarino, about a meter away from their location
and holding a plastic sachet in his hand. Right there and
then, they placed Carinounder arrest and Eugenio
immediately seized the plastic sachet. They asked
Carino who the source of the plastic sachet was andthe
latter immediately identified petitioner Andes. They
approached Andes, and she allegedly became hysterical

when thepolicemen introduced themselves to her. It was

then that Tayaban noticed the woman inserting
something inside the pocket of her 5-year old male child.
Tayaban was suspicious so he inspected the right
pocket of the child and found a plastic sachet inside it
containing shabu.
Petitioners were immediately brought to the Galas Police
Station. The plastic sachets were allegedly submittedto
the desk officer and then to the station investigator who
in the presence of Tayaban marked each of the
specimens with the initials JT
- RA and AE
-RC.The prosecution also submitted the results of the
qualitative examination and yielded positive of
methamphetaminehydrochloride content.The trial court
rendered its joint decision in these cases finding both
petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.Issue: WON the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Sec 11,
Art II RA9165(Illegal Possession).
Held:
No.
The prosecutions evidence is insufficient to provide that
proper precautions
were taken to ensure no change incondition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the item. Only Tabayan andEugenio were
able to testify in court as to the identity of the evidence.
The testimony of the officers who had custody of the
seized item were not offered in court to directly observe
evidence and admit the specific markings thereon as
hisown. (Front desk officer, investigator, forensic
chemist). The prosecution has not in fact reasonably
explained why thesesame witnesses were not able to
testify in court. In view of these loopholes in the
evidence, it can be reasonablyconcluded that the
prosecution was unable to establish the identity of the
dangerous drug and in effect failed toobliterate the quilt
of the accused.While a 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 isnot readily
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or
trial is critical, or when a witness has failed toobserve 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 exhibits level of

susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering

without regard to whether the same is advertent or
otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in the
application of the chain of custody rule.
These flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of
the dangerous drug and together with the failure of the
key persons who handled the same to testify, cast doubt
on the identity of the corpus delicti and also tend to
negate, if not totally discredit, the claim of regularity in
the conduct of official police operation.
Petitioners Ronald Carino y Asunzion and Rosana
Andes y Nobelo are ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt
and areaccordingly ordered immediately released from
custody unless they are lawfully held for another offense.
(Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs
necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a
prohibited substance beestablished with moral certainty,
together with the fact that the same is not authorized by
law. The dangerous drug itself constitutesthe very
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence
is vital to a judgment of conviction. In these cases, it is
thereforeessential that the identity of the prohibited drug
be established beyond doubt.Chain of custody is defined
as 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 forensiclaboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. A method of authenticating
evidence, it 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 theexhibit 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. It is from the testimony
of every witness who handled theevidence from which a
reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence
presented in court is one and the same as that seized
fromthe accused.)

DECISION
Tinga, J.:
This is an appeal filed by Samuel Obmiranis y Oreta
(appellant) who was charged with violation of Section 5
in relation to Section 26 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
[1] He was allegedly caught in a buy-bust operation by
elements of the Manila Western Police District (MWPD)
while offering to sell methylamphetamine hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug locally known as shabu. The criminal
information filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila, Branch 2[2] accused him as follows:
That on or about May 18, 2004, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, not having been
authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to
another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly attempt to sell or offer for sale
one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing TWO
POINT EIGHT ZERO ZERO (2.800) grams of white
crystalline substance known as SHABU containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.[3]
At the pre-trial, both the prosecution and the
defense stipulated on the qualification of Forensic
Chemist Elisa Reyes and, thus, both parties dispensed
with her testimony. The prosecution further admitted
that the forensic chemist who analyzed the seized the
confiscated substancewhich yielded positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride contentdid not
have personal knowledge of the ultimate source of the
drug.[4]
Appellant was brought to trial after having entered a
negative plea.[5] The prosecution then proceeded to
prove the charge against him through the lone testimony
of police officer Jerry Velasco (Velasco). Velasco was
the alleged leader of the raiding team that apprehended
appellant on 18 May 2004 at the corner of G.Tuazon and
Jhocson Streets in Sampaloc, Manila.[6]
The narrative woven by Velasco established the
following facts: On 17 May 2004, Police Superintendent
Marcelino Pedrozo (Pedrozo) of the MWPD organized a
buy-bust team on the information of a confidential
informant that the latter was able to place an order for
half a bulto of shabu with appellant. Velasco was
designated as the team leader and the poseur-buyer,
with Police Officers Wilfredo Cinco, Edgardo Palabay,
Roberto Benitez and one[7]confidential informant as
members.[8] Pedrozo gave the team a marked 500-peso
bill to be used as buy-bust money which was placed on
top of a deck of boodle money. The team informed the

Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) of the

impending operation,[9] entered the same in the
blotter[10] and proceeded to Bambang in G.Tuazon
Street just before 12 a.m. of 18 May 2004the
appointed time and date that the confidential informant
and appellant had agreed to meet. The informant joined
Velasco in his car, and they awaited the arrival of
appellant at the corner of G.Tuazon and Jhocson
Streets.[11] At around 12:30 a.m., appellant on board a
car arrived at the scene and seeing the informant he
approached the latter.
The informant introduced
Velasco to appellant and said that Velasco would like to
buy one-half bulto of shabu. Velasco negotiated with
appellant to lower the price but the latter refused.
Velasco then insisted that he must first see the
merchandise. Appellant went back to his car, took the
item and brought it to Velasco. Velasco readily
recognized the item as a plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance. When appellant asked for
payment, he seemed to have recognized Velascos coofficer because he uttered the words, May pulis yata.
At that point, he was arrested just as he was trying to get
back to his car.[12]
According to Velasco, he was the one who
effected the arrest but it was Cinco who seized the
plastic sachet from appellant. He further stated that
immediately after the arrest, he and his team brought the
seized item to the police headquarters and there, in his
presence, Cinco marked the same with the initials
SOO. At the trial, he identified the plastic sachet as that
seized from appellant as well as the marking made by
Cinco on it. Furthermore, he admitted on crossexamination that there was no evidence custodian
designated and that he could not remember if the seized
item had been inventoried and photographed in the
presence of the accused; that Cinco put the item in his
pocket after the same was recovered and did not mark it
on the spot and that the markings made on the buy-bust
money had not been entered in the blotter.[13]
The chemistry report issued at the instance of
Pedrozo and signed by Forensic Chemical Officer
Maritess Mariano of the PNP Crime Laboratory revealed
that the specimen supposedly seized from appellant
yielded positive of methylamphetamine hydrochloride
content.[14]
Taking the stand, appellant boldly asserted that he
was merely framed up by the buy-bust team, and
strongly denied having transacted the alleged sale of
shabu with Velasco and the confidential informant. He
claimed that he was taken by Velasco and his team not
on 18 May 2004 but rather on 17 May 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
along Santa Teresita Street, Sampaloc, Manila;[15] that

he was there to see his girlfriend who was residing in

that area; that when he was arrested by two men in
civilian clothes, he was not committing any crime; that he
asked them why they were arresting him but neither of
them gave an answer and instead one of them grabbed
him by his shoulder and ushered him inside a police car;
that once inside the car, one of the men pulled out a gun
with which he hit his neck, kicked him and uttered,
Makulit ka ha, yuko!; that he asked them why they
were doing that to him when in fact he merely told them
to park their car properly on the street; that they cuffed
his hands at the back and the driver, Velasco, asked if
he could give them P200,000.00; that he answered he
did not have that much money; that they drove the car
around and told him that if he could not give them the
money then he must just find for them someone who
sells drugs in large-scale (Magturo ka ng nagbebenta
ng droga, iyong malakihan ha!); that because he said
he did not know anyone who was into selling drugs, he
was taken to the U.N. Avenue police headquarters; that
he was not detained at the headquarters but rather, he
was brought to the second floor where the two arresting
officers demanded P50,000.00 from him; that the
demand was then reduced to P30,000.00 in exchange
for the mitigation of his case.[16] Olivia Ismael, another
defense witness who introduced herself as a friend of
appellants girlfriend and who admitted having witnessed
appellants arrest, corroborated the material points of
appellants testimony.[17]
In its 23 February 2006 Decision, the RTC found
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, and to pay a P500,000.00 fine without
subsidiary imprisonment as well as the costs.[18]
Appellant interposed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals in which he reiterated that the prosecution was
unable to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in
view of the failure to establish the chain of custody of the
illegal drugs and that it was likewise unable to establish
the consummation of the alleged sale of drugs.[19] For
its part, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), posited that the fact that all the essential
elements of a consummated sale of dangerous drug had
not been completely shown was immaterial because the
charge involved a mere attempt or offer to sell which had
been duly established by the prosecution.[20] It also
maintained that the chain of custody of the seized shabu
had been duly established because the requirements in
taking custody of seized narcotics provided for in
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, series of
2002[21] admit of liberal interpretation.[22]

In its 4 September 2007 Decision,[23] the Court of

Appeals affirmed in toto the trial courts decision.
Appellants Notice of Appeal[24] was approved, and the
records of the case were elevated to this Court. This
Courts 24 March 2008 Resolution[25] allowed the
parties to file their supplemental briefs, but only
appellant complied; the OSG manifested instead that
there was no need for its part to file a supplemental brief
as the merits of the case had already been extensively
discussed in its brief before the appellate court.[26]
The appeal has to be granted.
In criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement
that the elemental acts constituting the offense be
established with moral certainty as this is the critical and
only requisite to a finding of guilt. In prosecutions
involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself
constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact
of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[27] It is therefore
of prime importance that in these cases, the identity of
the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond
reasonable doubt.[28]
In other words, it must be
established with unwavering exactitude that the
dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against
the accused is the same as that seized from him in the
first place. The chain of custody requirement performs
this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[29]
Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 defines chain of
custody as 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.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
custody rule requires that the admission of the exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be.[30] It would thus include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such
that every person who handled the same would admit
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. The
same 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.[31] It is
from the testimony of every witness who handled the

evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived

that the evidence presented in court is one and the same
as that seized from the accused.
The prosecution evidence in the case at bar, however,
does not suffice to afford such assurance. Of all the
people who came into direct contact with the sachet of
shabu purportedly seized from appellant, only Velasco
was able to observe the uniqueness thereof in court.
Cinco, who, according to Velasco, took initial custody of
the plastic sachet at the time of arrest and who allegedly
marked the same with the initials SOO at the police
station, was not even presented in court to directly
observe the uniqueness of the specimen and, more
importantly, to acknowledge the marking as his own.
The same is true with respect to the laboratory
personnel who could have but nevertheless failed to
testify on the circumstances under which he received the
specimen at the laboratory for analysis and testing, as
well as on the conduct of the examination which was
administered on the specimen and what he did with it at
the time it was in his possession and custody. Aside
from that, it was not reasonably explained why these
same witnesses were not able to testify in court. While
indeed the prosecution and the defense had stipulated
on the qualification of the forensic chemist, dispensed
with his testimony and admitted that said forensic
chemist had no personal knowledge of the ultimate
source of the drug submitted for examination,
nevertheless, these stipulations and admission pertain
only to a certain Elisa G. Reyes and not to Forensic
Chemical Officer Maritess Mariano who, based on the
chemistry report, was the one who examined the
contents of the plastic sachet at the crime laboratory.
In view of these loopholes in the evidence adduced
against appellant, it can be reasonably concluded that
the prosecution was unable to establish the identity of
the dangerous drug and in effect failed to obliterate the
hypothesis of appellants guiltlessness.
Be that as it may, although testimony about a perfect
chain does not always have to be the standard because
it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken
chain of custody indeed becomes indispensable and
essential when the item of real evidence is a narcotic
substance.
A unique characteristic of narcotic
substances such as shabu is that they are not distinctive
and are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject
to scientific analysis to determine their composition and
nature.[32] And because they cannot be readily and
properly distinguished visually from other substances of
the same physical and/or chemical nature, they are
susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination,[33]
substitution and exchange[34] whether the alteration,

tampering, contamination, substitution and exchange be

inadvertent or otherwise not.[35] It is by reason of this
distinctive quality that the condition of the exhibit at the
time of testing and trial is critical.[36]
Hence, in
authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard more
stringent than that applied to objects which are readily
identifiable must be applieda 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
contaminated or tampered with.[37]
The Court certainly cannot reluctantly close its eyes to
the possibility of substitution, alteration or contamination
whether intentional or unintentionalof narcotic
substances at any of the links in the chain of custody
thereof especially because practically such possibility is
great where the item of real evidence is small and is
similar in form to other substances to which people are
familiar in their daily lives.[38] Graham v. State[39] in
fact acknowledged this danger.
In that case, a
substance later shown to be heroin was excluded from
the prosecution evidence because prior to examination,
it was handled by two police officers who, however, did
not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of
the exhibit at the time it was in their possession. The
court in that case pointed out that the white powder
seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have
been sugar or baking powder. It thus declared that the
state must be able to 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.[40]
Reasonable safeguards are provided for in our drugs
laws to protect the identity and integrity of narcotic
substances and dangerous drugs seized and/or
recovered from drug offenders. Section 21[41] of R.A.
No. 9165 materially requires the apprehending team
having initial custody and control of the drugs to,
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, and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof. The same requirements
are also found in Section 2[42] of its implementing
rules[43] as well as in Section 2[44] of the Dangerous
Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002.[45]
These guidelines, however, were not shown to have
been complied with by the members of the buy-bust

team, and nothing on record suggests that they had

extended reasonable efforts to comply with the statutory
requirements in handling the evidence. Velasco, the
leader of the raiding team, himself admitted that as soon
as appellant was arrested, Cinco had taken custody of
the plastic sachet of shabu, placed it in his pocket and
brought the same together with appellant to the police
station. It was at the police stationand not at the place
where the item was seized from appellantwhere
according to him (Velasco), Cinco had placed the initials
SOO on the specimen. Velasco never even mentioned
that the identifying mark on the specimen was placed in
appellants presence; he could not even remember
whether or not the specimen had been properly
inventoried and photographed at least in appellants
presence. Even more telling is the fact that, as elicited
from Velasco himself during his cross-examination, no
evidence custodian had been designated by the raiding
team to safeguard the identity and integrity of the
evidence supposedly seized from appellant.[46]
All these aforementioned flaws in the conduct of
the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly
recovered from appellant, taken together with the failure
of the key persons who handled the same to testify on
the whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in
evidence in court, militates against the prosecutions
cause because it not only casts doubt on the identity of
the corpus delicti but also tends to discredit, if not totally
negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official
police operation.
What we can fairly assume is that the Court of Appeals
had overlooked the significance of these glaring details
in the records of the case as it placed blind reliance right
away on the credibility of Velascos testimony and on the
presumption of regularity and thereby it failed to properly
account for the missing substantial links in the chain of
custody of the evidence. In the same vein the liberality,
suggested by the OSG relative to post-seizure custody
of narcotics under paragraph 1 Section 2 of Board
Regulation No. 1, can hardly be given merit precisely
because the proviso in that section of the regulation
requires that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
evidence be properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team in order that non-compliance with the postseizure custody requirements be excused on justifiable
grounds.[47]
It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty must be seen in the
context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing
the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a
procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption,
in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records

is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved

deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as
provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act
in question is irregular on its face, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course.[48] There is
indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives
to make false charges was successfully attributed to the
members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails
that said police operatives had regularly performed their
duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no
showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular.
People v. Dulay[49] and People v. Ganenas[50] in fact
both suggest that the presumption of regularity is
disputed where there is deviation from the regular
performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that
the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police
duty is merely just thata mere presumption disputable
by contrary proof and which when challenged by the
evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.[51]
It must be emphasized at this juncture that what
can reasonably be presumed based on the records of
this case is that Velasco is aware of his duties and
responsibilities as an agent of the government in its antinarcotics campaign. A member of the anti-narcotics
division of the police since 1997,[52] Velasco can be
reasonably presumed to be adept in and mindful of the
proper procedure in apprehending drug offenders,
securing and taking custody of the evidence obtained in
police operations such as this one and preserving the
integrity of the evidence by protecting the chain of
custody thereof.[53] However, for reasons as obvious
as intimated above, even this presumption is unworthy of
credit.
All told, in view of the deviation by the buy-bust team
from the mandated conduct of taking post-seizure
custody of the dangerous drug in this case, there is no
way to presume that the members thereof had
performed their duties regularly. Even granting that we
must blindly rely on the credibility of Velascos testimony,
still, the prosecution evidence would fall short of
satisfying the quantum of evidence required to arrive at a
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as
the evidence chain failed to solidly connect appellant
with the seized drug in a way that would establish that
the specimen is one and the same as that seized in the
first place and offered in court as evidence. The Court
cannot indulge in the presumption of regularity of official
duty if only to obliterate the obvious infirmity of the
evidence advanced to support appellants conviction. In
Mallillin v. People,[54] we categorically declared that the
failure of the prosecution to offer in court the testimony
of key witnesses for the basic purpose of establishing a
sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of

shabu and the irregularity which characterized the

handling of the evidence before the same was finally
offered in court, materially conflict with every proposition
as to the culpability of the accused. For the same plain
but consequential reason, we will not hesitate to reverse
the judgment of conviction in the present appeal.
One final word. In no uncertain terms must it be stressed
that basic and elementary is the presupposition that the
burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the
prosecution which must draw strength from its own
evidence and not from the weakness of the defense. The
rule, in a constitutional system like ours, is invariable
regardless of the reputation of the accused because the
law presumes his innocence until the contrary is shown.
In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability
hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt
inevitably becomes a matter of right.[55]
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02158 affirming the
judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 2, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
Appellant Samuel Obmiranis y Oreta is
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is thus
accordingly ordered released immediately from
confinement, unless he is lawfully confined for another
offense.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
directed to implement this Decision and to report to this
Court his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt
hereof.

DECISION
Tinga, J.:
The presumption of regularity in the performance
of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence. Evidence of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can
eclipse the hypothesis of guiltlessness. And this burden
is met not by bestowing distrust on the innocence of the
accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his
culpability.
In this Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, Junie Malillin y Lopez (petitioner) assails the
Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals dated 27 January
2006 as well as its Resolution[3] dated 30 May 2006
denying his motion for reconsideration. The challenged
decision has affirmed the Decision[4] of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon City, Branch 52[5] which
found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally
known as shabu, a prohibited drug.
The antecedent facts follow
On the strength of a warrant[6] of search and
seizure issued by the RTC of Sorsogon City, Branch 52,
a team of five police officers raided the residence of
petitioner in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City on 4
February 2003. The team was headed by P/Insp.
Catalino Bolanos (Bolanos), with PO3 Roberto Esternon
(Esternon), SPO1 Pedro Docot, SPO1 Danilo Lasala
and SPO2 Romeo Gallinera (Gallinera) as members.
The searchconducted in the presence of barangay
kagawad
Delfin Licup as well as petitioner himself, his wife Sheila
and his mother, Normaallegedly yielded two (2) plastic
sachets of shabu and five (5) empty plastic sachets
containing residual morsels of the said substance.
Accordingly, petitioner was charged with violation of
Section 11,[7] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, in a criminal information whose
inculpatory portion reads:
That on or about the 4th day of February 2003, at about
8:45 in the morning in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City,
Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control two (2) plastic sachets of
methamphetamine hydrochloride [or] shabu with an

aggregate weight of 0.0743 gram, and four empty

sachets containing shabu residue, without having been
previously authorized by law to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Petitioner entered a negative plea.[9] At the ensuing
trial, the prosecution presented Bolanos, Arroyo and
Esternon as witnesses
Taking the witness stand, Bolanos, the leader of the
raiding team, testified on the circumstances surrounding
the search as follows: that he and his men were allowed
entry into the house by petitioner after the latter was
shown the search warrant; that upon entering the
premises, he ordered Esternon and barangay kagawad
Licup, whose assistance had previously been requested
in executing the warrant, to conduct the search; that the
rest of the police team positioned themselves outside the
house to make sure that nobody flees; that he was
observing the conduct of the search from about a meter
away; that the search conducted inside the bedroom of
petitioner yielded five empty plastic sachets with
suspected shabu residue contained in a denim bag and
kept in one of the cabinets, and two plastic sachets
containing shabu which fell off from one of the pillows
searched by Esternona discovery that was made in
the presence of petitioner.[10] On cross examination,
Bolanos admitted that during the search, he was
explaining its progress to petitioners mother, Norma, but
that at the same time his eyes were fixed on the search
being conducted by Esternon.[11]
Esternon testified that the denim bag containing the
empty plastic sachets was found behind the door of the
bedroom and not inside the cabinet; that he then found
the two filled sachets under a pillow on the bed and
forthwith called on Gallinera to have the items recorded
and marked.[12] On cross, he admitted that it was he
alone who conducted the search because Bolanos was
standing behind him in the living room portion of the
house and that petitioner handed to him the things to be
searched, which included the pillow in which the two
sachets of shabu were kept;[13] that he brought the
seized items to the Balogo Police Station for a true
inventory, then to the trial court[14] and thereafter to the
laboratory.[15]
Supt. Lorlie Arroyo (Arroyo), the forensic chemist who
administered the examination on the seized items, was
presented as an expert witness to identify the items
submitted to the laboratory. She revealed that the two
filled sachets were positive of shabu and that of the five
empty sachets, four were positive of containing residue
of the same substance.[16] She further admitted that all

seven sachets were delivered to the laboratory

Esternon in the afternoon of the same day that
warrant was executed except that it was not she
rather a certain Mrs. Ofelia Garcia who received
items from Esternon at the laboratory.[17]

by
the
but
the

The evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity

of the search and seizure conducted by the police
operatives. Petitioner testified that Esternon began the
search of the bedroom with Licup and petitioner himself
inside. However, it was momentarily interrupted when
one of the police officers declared to Bolanos that
petitioners wife, Sheila, was tucking something inside
her underwear. Forthwith, a lady officer arrived to
conduct the search of Sheilas body inside the same
bedroom. At that point, everyone except Esternon was
asked to step out of the room. So, it was in his
presence that Sheila was searched by the lady officer.
Petitioner was then asked by a police officer to buy
cigarettes at a nearby store and when he returned from
the errand, he was told that nothing was found on
Sheilas body.[18] Sheila was ordered to transfer to the
other bedroom together with her children.[19]
Petitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he
was summoned by Esternon to the bedroom and once
inside, the officer closed the door and asked him to lift
the mattress on the bed. And as he was doing as told,
Esternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion
of the headboard. In that instant, Esternon showed him
sachet of shabu which according to him came from a
pillow on the bed.[20] Petitioners account in its entirety
was corroborated in its material respects by Norma,
barangay kagawad Licup and Sheila in their testimonies.
Norma and Sheila positively declared that petitioner was
not in the house for the entire duration of the search
because at one point he was sent by Esternon to the
store to buy cigarettes while Sheila was being searched
by the lady officer.[21] Licup for his part testified on the
circumstances surrounding the discovery of the plastic
sachets. He recounted that after the five empty sachets
were found, he went out of the bedroom and into the
living room and after about three minutes, Esternon, who
was left inside the bedroom, exclaimed that he had just
found two filled sachets.[22]
On 20 June 2004 the trial court rendered its Decision
declaring petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the offense charged. Petitioner was condemned to
prison for twelve years (12) and one (1) day to twenty
(20) years and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.[23] The
trial court reasoned that the fact that shabu was found in
the house of petitioner was prima facie evidence of
petitioners animus possidendi sufficient to convict him of
the charge inasmuch as things which a person

possesses or over which he exercises acts of ownership

are presumptively owned by him.
It also noted
petitioners failure to ascribe ill motives to the police
officers to fabricate charges against him.[24]
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.[25] In his
Appeal Brief[26] filed with the Court of Appeals,
petitioner called the attention of the court to certain
irregularities in the manner by which the search of his
house was conducted. For its part, the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) advanced that on the contrary,
the prosecution evidence sufficed for petitioners
conviction and that the defense never advanced any
proof to show that the members of the raiding team was
improperly motivated to hurl false charges against him
and hence the presumption that they had regularly
performed their duties should prevail.[27]
On 27 January 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the
assailed decision affirming the judgment of the trial court
but modifying the prison sentence to an indeterminate
term of twelve (12) years as minimum to seventeen (17)
years as maximum.[28]
Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but the same was denied by the
appellate court.[29] Hence, the instant petition which
raises substantially the same issues.
In its Comment,[30] the OSG bids to establish that the
raiding team had regularly performed its duties in the
conduct of the search.[31] It points to petitioners
incredulous claim that he was framed up by Esternon on
the ground that the discovery of the two filled sachets
was made in his and Licups presence. It likewise notes
that petitioners bare denial cannot defeat the positive
assertions of the prosecution and that the same does not
suffice to overcome the prima facie existence of animus
possidendi.
This argument, however, hardly holds up to what is
revealed by the records.
Prefatorily, although the trial courts findings of fact are
entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on
appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight
and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended
or misapplied in a case under appeal.[32] In the case at
bar, several circumstances obtain which, if properly
appreciated, would warrant a conclusion different from
that arrived at by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs
necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a
prohibited substance be established with moral certainty,
together with the fact that the same is not authorized by
law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence

is vital to a judgment of conviction.[33] Essential

therefore in these cases is that the identity of the
prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.[34] Be
that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession
will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral
certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than
just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance
illegally possessed in the first place is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit must also be
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that
requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.[35]
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to
be.[36] It would include testimony about every link in the
chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not
in the chain to have possession of the same.[37]
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard because it is almost always impossible to
obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes
indispensable and essential when the item of real
evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable,
or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness.[38] The same standard likewise obtains in
case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination[39] and even substitution and exchange.
[40] In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to
fungibility, alteration or tamperingwithout regard to
whether the same is advertent or otherwise 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.[41] Graham vs. State[42]
positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where
a substance later analyzed as heroinwas handled by

two police officers prior to examination who however did

not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of
the exhibit at the time it was in their possessionwas
excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court
pointing out that the white powder seized could have
been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or
baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show
by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of
the exhibit at least between the time it came into the
possession of police officers until it was tested in the
laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of the
state as to the laboratorys findings is inadmissible.[43]
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that
they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject
to scientific analysis to determine their composition and
nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the
likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the
links in the chain of custody over the same there could
have been tampering, alteration or substitution of
substances from other casesby accident or 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.
A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises
significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets of
shabu allegedly seized from petitioner. Of the people
who came into direct contact with the seized objects,
only Esternon and Arroyo testified for the specific
purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence.
Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over
the confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as
well as Garcia, the person to whom Esternon directly
handed over the seized items for chemical analysis at
the crime laboratory, were not presented in court to
establish the circumstances under which they handled
the subject items. Any reasonable mind might then ask
the question: Are the sachets of shabu allegedly seized
from petitioner the very same objects laboratory tested
and offered in court as evidence?
The prosecutions evidence is incomplete to provide an
affirmative answer. Considering that it was Gallinera who
recorded and marked the seized items, his testimony in
court is crucial to affirm whether the exhibits were the
same items handed over to him by Esternon at the place
of seizure and acknowledge the initials marked thereon

as his own. The same is true of Garcia who could have,

but nevertheless failed, to testify on the circumstances
under which she received the items from Esternon, what
she did with them during the time they were in her
possession until before she delivered the same to Arroyo
for analysis.
The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its
burden of establishing the identity of the seized items
because it failed to offer not only the testimony of
Gallinera and Garcia but also any sufficient explanation
for such failure. In effect, there is no reasonable
guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits inasmuch as it
failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the
exhibits, which cannot but inure to its own detriment.
This holds true not only with respect to the two filled
sachets but also to the five sachets allegedly containing
morsels of shabu.
Also, contrary to what has been consistently claimed by
the prosecution that the search and seizure was
conducted in a regular manner and must be presumed to
be so, the records disclose a series of irregularities
committed by the police officers from the
commencement of the search of petitioners house until
the submission of the seized items to the laboratory for
analysis. The Court takes note of the unrebutted
testimony of petitioner, corroborated by that of his wife,
that prior to the discovery of the two filled sachets
petitioner was sent out of his house to buy cigarettes at
a nearby store. Equally telling is the testimony of
Bolanos that he posted some of the members of the
raiding team at the door of petitioners house in order to
forestall the likelihood of petitioner fleeing the scene. By
no stretch of logic can it be conclusively explained why
petitioner was sent out of his house on an errand when
in the first place the police officers were in fact
apprehensive that he would flee to evade arrest. This
fact assumes prime importance because the two filled
sachets were allegedly discovered by Esternon
immediately after petitioner returned to his house from
the errand, such that he was not able to witness the
conduct of the search during the brief but crucial
interlude that he was away.
It is also strange that, as claimed by Esternon, it was
petitioner himself who handed to him the items to be
searched including the pillow from which the two filled
sachets allegedly fell. Indeed, it is contrary to ordinary
human behavior that petitioner would hand over the said
pillow to Esternon knowing fully well that illegal drugs are
concealed therein. In the same breath, the manner by
which the search of Sheilas body was brought up by a
member of the raiding team also raises serious doubts
as to the necessity thereof. The declaration of one of

the police officers that he saw Sheila tuck something in

her underwear certainly diverted the attention of the
members of petitioners household away from the search
being conducted by Esternon prior to the discovery of
the two filled sachets. Lest it be omitted, the Court
likewise takes note of Esternons suspicious presence in
the bedroom while Sheila was being searched by a lady
officer. The confluence of these circumstances by any
objective standard of behavior contradicts the
prosecutions claim of regularity in the exercise of duty.
Moreover, Section 21[44] of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clearly outlines the postseizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In a
language too plain to require a different construction, it
mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of
drugs under a search warrant must conduct the
photographing and the physical inventory of the item at
the place where the warrant has been served. Esternon
deviated from this procedure. It was elicited from him
that at the close of the search of petitioners house, he
brought the seized items immediately to the police
station for the alleged purpose of making a true
inventory thereof, but there appears to be no reason
why a true inventory could not be made in petitioners
house when in fact the apprehending team was able to
record and mark the seized items and there and then
prepare a seizure receipt therefor. Lest it be forgotten,
the raiding team has had enough opportunity to cause
the issuance of the warrant which means that it has had
as much time to prepare for its implementation. While
the final proviso in Section 21 of the rules would appear
to excuse non-compliance therewith, the same cannot
benefit the prosecution as it failed to offer any
acceptable justification for Esternons course of action.
Likewise, Esternons failure to deliver the seized items to
the court demonstrates a departure from the directive in
the search warrant that the items seized be immediately
delivered to the trial court with a true and verified
inventory of the same,[45] as required by Rule 126,
Section 12[46] of the Rules of Court. People v. Go[47]
characterized this requirement as mandatory in order to
preclude the substitution of or tampering with said items
by interested parties.[48]
Thus, as a reasonable
safeguard, People vs. Del Castillo[49] declared that the
approval by the court which issued the search warrant is
necessary before police officers can retain the property
seized and without it, they would have no authority to
retain possession thereof and more so to deliver the
same to another agency.[50] Mere tolerance by the trial
court of a contrary practice does not make the practice
right because it is violative of the mandatory
requirements of the law and it thereby defeats the very
purpose for the enactment.[51]

Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon

from the standard and normal procedure in the
implementation of the warrant and in taking post-seizure
custody of the evidence, the blind reliance by the trial
court and the Court of Appeals on the presumption of
regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly
misplaced. The presumption of regularity is merely just
thata mere presumption disputable by contrary proof
and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be
regarded as binding truth.[52] Suffice it to say that this
presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption
of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.[53] In the present case the
lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs
allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the
irregularity in the manner by which the same were
placed under police custody before offered in court,
strongly militates a finding of guilt.
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the
presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an
accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the
strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of
the defense. The rule is invariable whatever may be the
reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his
innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.[54] In
dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability
hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt
inevitably becomes a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 27 January 2006 affirming with
modification the judgment of conviction of the Regional
Trial Court of Sorsogon City, Branch 52, and its
Resolution dated 30 May 2006 denying reconsideration
thereof, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner
Junie Malillin y Lopez is ACQUITTED on reasonable
doubt and is accordingly ordered immediately released
from custody unless he is being lawfully held for another
offense.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to
implement this Decision and to report to this Court the
action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.

Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008

Section 21-of the Implementing Rules and Regulations

of R.A. No. 9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure
procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In a
language too plain to require a different construction, it
mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of
drugs under a search warrant must conduct the
photographing and the physical inventory of the item at
the place where the warrant has been served. Esternon
deviated from this procedure. It was elicited from him
that at the close of the search of petitioners house, he
brought the seized items immediately to the police
station for the alleged purpose of making a true
inventory thereof, but there appears to be no reason
why a true inventory could not be made in petitioners
house when in fact the apprehending team was able to
record and mark the seized items and there and then
prepare a seizure receipt therefore. Lest it be forgotten,
the raiding team has had enough opportunity to cause
the issuance of the warrant which means that it has had
as much time to excuse non-compliance therewith, the
same cannot benefit the prosecution as it failed to offer
any acceptable justification for Esternons course of
action.
Likewise, Esternons failure to deliver the seized items to
the court demonstrates a departure from the directive in
the search warrant that the items seized be immediately
delivered to the trial court with a true and verified
inventory of the same,-as required by Rule 126, Section
12 of the Rules of Court. People v. Go characterized
this requirement as mandatory in order to preclude the
substitution of or tampering with said items by interested
parties. Thus, as a reasonable safeguard, People vs.
Del Castillo declared that the approval by the court
which issued the search warrant is necessary before
police officers can retain the property seized and without
it, they would have no authority to retain possession
thereof and more so to deliver the same to another
agency. Mere tolerance by the trial court of a contrary
practice does not make the practice right because it is
violative of the mandatory requirements of the law and it
thereby defeats the very purpose for the enactment.
-

People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007

The records do not show that police officers complied

with the proper procedure in the custody of seized drugs
and/or paraphernalia should, immediately after seizure
or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried
and photographed in the presence of the accused, if

there be any, and or his representative, who shall be

required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with
the requirement raises doubt whether what was
submitted for laboratory examination and presented in
court was actually recovered from appellant. It negates
the presumption that official duties have been regularly
performed by the police officers.

CONVICTION:

People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25,

2010

Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact

science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render
an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seize/confiscated
from him inadmissible.
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.
In the instant case, there was substantial compliance
with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from
appellant was preserved.
People v. Ventura, G.R.No. 184957, October 27,
2009

The purpose of the procedure outlined in the

implementing rules (Sec. 21 RA 91665) is centered on
the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items. All evidence, including the markings
on the plastic sachet containing the shabu, prove that
the substace tested by the forensic chemist, whose
laboratory tests were well-documented, was the same as
that taken from accused-appellant.
Moreover, the
integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved,
unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof
that the evidence has been tampered with.
People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380,
October 12, 2009

Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately

mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the
integrity of chain of custody.
People v. Sanchez
explains that RA 9165 does not specify a time frame for
immediate marking, or where said marking should be
done. To be able to create a first link in the chain of
custody, then, what is required is that the marking be
made in the presence of the accused and upon
immediate confiscation. Immediate confiscation has no
exact definition.
Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen,
testimony that included the marking of the seized items
at the police station and in the presence of the accused
was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on
chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation

contemplates even marking at the nearest police station

or office of the apprehending team.
People v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16,
2009

The prosecutions evidence sufficiently established the

unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs beginning
from the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to
the forensic chemist whose laboratory tests were welldocumented, up to the time there were offered in
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. The arresting
officers also strictly complied with the guidelines
prescribed by law regarding the custody and control of
the seized drugs._There was testimony regarding the
marking of the seized items at the police station and in
the presence of appellant. Likewise there was mention
that an elected official was present during the inventory.
In addition, it appears on record that the team
photographed the contraband in accordance with
law._Absent any indication that the police officers were
ill-motivated in testifying against appellant, full credence
should be given to their testimonies. In sum, contrary to
appellants lone argument, the prosecution established
the corpus delicti with moral certainty. Finally, it bears
underscoring that appellant himself admitted that he was
carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest and even
though he knew it was against the law to so possess it in
any amount.
People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23,
2008

Non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an

accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated
from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance 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.
In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the
custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from
him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter of
this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory
examination which examination gave positive result for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Thus, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug
seized from appellant not to have been compromised.
Similarly, 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. Nothing in the law,
however, 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.