JALBUNA, DORIS E.S.

Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
------versus------
RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY AND ROBERT CARLIN Y PECDASEN,
ACCUSED, RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY,
Accused-Appellant.

DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The State bears the burden of establishing the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs confiscated during a buy-bust operation. The evidence of the
chain of custody must meet the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Case
In its decision promulgated on November 28, 2008,1 the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed the conviction of Recto Angngao y Makay aka Amboy under the
judgment rendered on December 14, 2006 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch
61 (RTC), in Baguio City for the illegal sale of 250 grams of marijuana resin or
hashish (Criminal Case Nos. 22317-R), and for the illegal possession of 500
milliliters of hashish oil (Criminal Case Nos. 22318-R), and sentencing him in
each case to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.2

Hence, this appeal.

Antecedents
According to the CA, the established antecedent facts are as follows:
On 23 November 2003, SPO4 Marquez Madlon, member of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in the Cordillera
Autonomous Region (PDEA-CAR), received a call on his cellular
phone from a caller who identified himself as Amboy. Amboy, who
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

turned out to be appellant Recto Angngao y Makay, was asking for

the whereabouts of a certain Jun Buguias, from whom he allegedly
got SPO4 Madlon’s number. Recalling that Buguias was one of
those arrested by the PDEA-CAR for selling marijuana hashish,
SPO4 Madlon took interest in the caller and made up a story by
telling him that he was also waiting for Buguias to deliver to him
his order of marijuana hashish. Believing SPO4 Madlon’s story,
appellant disclosed that he had marijuana resin which was
supposed to be delivered to Buguias. Appellant likewise proposed
that SPO4 Madlon should deal with him directly since Buguias is
(sic) nowhere to be found. Appellant offered SPO4 Madlon to sell
two hundred fifty (250) grams of marijuana resin for Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and one (1) liter of marijuana
hashish oil for One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).
He agreed to deliver them to SPO4 Madlon on the same day,
between 7:30 and 8:30 in the evening at the Petron Gasoline
Station in Baguio General Hospital along Marcos Highway.

Forthwith, SPO4 Madlon reported his conversation with appellant

to his superior, Police Supt. Danilo Flordeliza, Regional Director of
PDEA-CAR.

Acting on SPO4 Madlon’s report, P/Supt Flordeliza conducted a

briefing for a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust team was thereafter
formed with Police Senior Inspector Edgar Apalla as the team
leader, SPO4 Arthur Lucas as the back-up guard, SPO2 Cabili
Agbayani as the seizing officer, Police Officer Akia as the arresting
officer and SPO4 Madlon as the poseur buyer. The group brought
with them the buy-bust money consisting of ten (10) Five
Hundred (P500.00) peso bills, amounting to Five thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00), mixed with one (1) bundle of boodle money.
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

Around 7:15 in the evening, SPO4 Madlon proceeded to the target

area on board a rented Tamaraw FX Taxi, while the rest of the
police operatives used another vehicle. Upon arriving at the
Petron Gasoline Station, SPO4 Madlon called up appellant and
informed him that he was already at the area waiting for him.

After waiting for a while, SPO4 Madlon noticed a tamaraw FX Taxi

at the vicinity of the gasoline station. A man with a backpack
alighted from the vehicle. He was with another man and he
seemed to be looking for somebody. To make sure that it was
appellant, SPO4 Madlon dialed appellant’s cellphone number. The
man, who turned out to be appellant, answered the call. SPO4
Madlon therefore instructed him to meet him at the Pancake
House located within the vicinity of the Petron gasoline Station.

SPO4 Madlon sat and waited outside the Pancake House.

Thereafter, appellant arrived and introduced his companion, who
was later identified as appellant’s co-accused Robert Carlin y
Pecdasen. Carlin sat beside SPO4 Madlon while appellant took a
seat opposite SPO4 Madlon. SPO4 Madlon then inquired about
their transaction and asked appellant if he could get a discount on
the price of the marijuana resin. Appellant refused. SPO4 Madlon
then told appellant that he wanted to inspect the marijuana resin
and check if it was of good quality. Appellant was at first hesitant
but later on prevailed upon to bring out a brick of marijuana resin
from his backpack. He showed it to SPO4 Madlon, who after
confirming that it was indeed marijuana resin, took out the buy-
bust money and gave it to Carlin. Carlin, who, all the while was
merely observing the transaction, handed over the money to
appellant. Thereafter, SPO4 Madlon stood up, as a pre-arranged
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

signal to the police operatives that the transaction had been

completed.

The back-up police officers, who were strategically positioned

from a seeing distance, rushed to the aid of SPO4 Madlon and
arrested appellant and Carlin. Upon frisking appellant, the police
operatives recovered from him the buy-bust money and a bottle
of dark-green viscous liquid suspected to be marjuana hashish oil.
The confiscated items were marked with the initials “MKM”
representing the initials of SPO4 Marquez Kilit Madlon, “CJA” for
SPO2 Cabili Julian Agbayani, “AAL” for SPO4 Arthur Apil Lucas and
“DEA” for Police Officer Daniel Esteban Akia.3

The confiscated substances, when brought to the Benguet Provincial Crime

Laboratory Office in Baguio City for processing and identification, tested
positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug. The brick of marijuana resin
weighed 251.02 grams, while the bottle containing the dark green glutinous
substance contained 450 milliliters of marijuana hashish oil.4

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City filed in the RTC two
informations against Angngao and Robert Carlin y Pecdasen, charging them
with the illegal sale of marijuana resin and illegal possession
of marijuana hashish oil in violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

During the trial, Angngao denied the accusations, clarifying that he had been
working as a construction worker in Quirino Hill, Baguio City at the time, and
that on the day of the arrest, was visiting his cousin who had been confined at
the Baguio City General Hospital; and that he was then suddenly accosted and
arrested by police officers in the Pancake House near the hospital where he
was having a snack.5
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

For his part, Carlin, also denying the charges, insisted that he did not know
Angngao; that he was only accompanying a townmate who visited a friend
confined at the Baguio City General Hospital; that after coming from the
hospital, he and his friend had gone to the Pancake House to eat when a
commotion occurred inside the restaurant caused by police officers arresting
a customer, who turned out to be Angngao; and that the policemen then
turned to him and arrested him allegedly for being the cohort of Angngao.6

Judgment of the RTC

On December 14, 2006,7 the RTC convicted Angngao but acquitted Carlin, viz.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in Criminal Case No. 22317-
R finding the accused Recto Angngao y Makay GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt and he is hereby sentenced to suffer Life
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs, and
Criminal Case No. 22318-R finding the accused Recto Angngao y
Makay likewiseGUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and he is
hereby sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00 and the costs.

The accused Roberty (sic) Carlin is ACQUITTED on grounds of

reasonable doubt and isORDERED RELEASED from custody
unless otherwise being held lawfully for some other offense
requiring continued detention.

SO ORDERED.8

Decision of the CA
On November 28, 2008,9 the CA promulgated its assailed judgment affirming
the conviction of Angngao handed down by the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
City, Branch 61, dated 14 December 2006, in Criminal Cases Nos.
22317-R and 22318-R, is AFFIRMED.
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

SO ORDERED.

Issues
In this appeal, Angngao claims that the CA:10
I
x x x GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES
CHARGED.
II
x x x GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS’S FAILURE TO
ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED DRUGS.

In the appellee’s brief filed in the CA, which the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) adopted in this appeal, the State seeks the affirmance of the decision of
the CA by insisting that the police officers who comprised the entrapment
team were entitled to the presumption of the regularity of the performance of
their official duty.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious.

To ensure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
elements constituting the crime must be present, namely: (a) the identities of
the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. Such prosecution for
the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the hasty presentation of evidence
to prove each element of the crime. The presentation of the drugs as evidence
in court is indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs because the drugs are the corpus delictiof the crime.11 As such, the State
should establish beyond doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

that the dangerous drugs offered in court as evidence were the same
substances bought during the buy-bust operation.12 This requirement is
complied with by ensuring that the custody of the seized drugs from the time
of confiscation until presentation in court is safeguarded under what is
referred to as the chain of custody by Republic Act No. 9165, whose objective
is to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence.13

Should the State not definitively establish that the dangerous drugs presented
in court were the very same substances actually recovered from the accused,
the criminal prosecution for drug pushing should fail because the guilt of the
accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt.14According to People v.
Catalan,15 the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable
requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 if
the dangerous drugs are missing, or if there are substantial gaps in the chain
of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court. Indeed, the non-presentation
of the dangerous drugs that constitute the corpus delicti would render the
conviction unfounded.

As the means for the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of
R.A. No. 9165 provides thus:
(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.

Complementing Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 is the following guideline

under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case
of warrantless seizures;Provided, further, that non-compliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items;

The manner and timing of the marking of the seized drugs or related items in
accordance with the foregoing statutory rules are crucial in proving the chain
of custody. The marking by the arresting officer of the drugs, being the
starting point in the custodial link, should be made immediately upon the
seizure, or, if that is not possible, as close to the time and place of the seizure
as practicable under the obtaining circumstances. This immediate marking is
essential because the succeeding handlers of the drugs would use the
markings as their reference to the seizure, and because it further serves to
segregate the marked seized drugs from all other evidence from the time and
point of seizure until the drugs are disposed of at the end of the criminal
proceedings. The deliberate taking of these identifying steps is statutorily
aimed at obviating switching, “planting” or contamination of the
evidence.16 Verily, the preservation of the chain of custody vis-à-vis the drugs
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

ensures the integrity of the evidence incriminating the accused, and fulfills the
element of relevancy as a requisite for the admissibility of the evidence.

The Court accepts that “while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in
reality it is not, ‘as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain.’”17 This limitation on the chain of custody is well recognized in Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165’s IRR, which states that non-compliance with the rules’
requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team. In resolving drug-related offenses, therefore, the
courts should deem to be essential “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.”18

The conviction would have been watertight. SPO4 Madlon, who acted as the
poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, succeeded in purchasing from the
appellant the brick of marijuana resin weighing 251.02 grams, more or less,
for a total consideration of P50,000.00. The payment was received by the
appellant through Carlin. The ensuing physical search conducted on the
appellant further yielded the marijuana hash oil. The elements constituting
the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were seemingly established.

However, the conviction must have to be undone. The integrity of the

evidence presented – thecorpus delicti no less – became suspicious by the
mysterious silence of the record on what transpired after the transaction. On
its part, the RTC, after reliving the buy-bust operation, uncharacteristically
jumped to the conclusion that the accused was guilty as charged by declaring
that “the prosecution was able to establish these elements [of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs] beyond moral certainty,”19and that the accused “was validly
searched by the police officers after his lawful arrest and same yielded
approximately one-half liter of the potent dangerous drug hash oil or
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

resin.”20 In the same breath, the RTC rejected the accused’s denial and alibi as
inherently weak defenses.21 In turn, the CA devoted little, if any, discussion on
the chain of custody vis-à-vis the seized drugs.

Such treatment by the two lower courts of a matter as essential to the

conviction as the chain of custody is not surprising. An examination of the
record indicates that no testimony on the links in the chain of custody from
the time the drugs were confiscated up to the time they were offered as
evidence in court was given by the arresting lawmen and the others who
could have handled the drugs. This omission deprived the lower courts of the
means of knowing the details as to every person who touched the drugs, as to
how and from whom the drugs were received, as to where the drugs were at
any given point in that interval, and as to what happened to the drugs while in
the possession of each handler, including the relative condition in which the
drugs were received and the state in which they were delivered to the next
links in the chain. It is quite notable that the officers who served as the only
witnesses to the buy-bust operation neither described the precautions taken
to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the drugs nor
specified that there was no opportunity for any person not in the chain to
have possession of the drugs.

To be more specific, the assailed decisions of both the RTC and the CA do not
show that the arresting lawmen had marked the seized drugs immediately
upon confiscation at the site of the arrest, or even later on in the police station.
In fact, the RTC did not advert to any markings at all. Although the CA noted
that the drugs were marked with the initials of the apprehending police
officers, the circumstances attendant to such markings, like when and where
the markings were done, were not sufficiently revealed. In particular, SPO4
Madlon, SPO4 Lucas and SPO2 Agbayani did not indicate whether the seized
items had been marked right away following the confiscation, or later on in
the police station, as the following excerpts of their testimonies show:
PROSECUTOR [CATRAL]
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

Q: As far as Amboy is concerned, what items were retrieved from him?

[SPO4 MADLON]
A: The marijuana hashish together with 1 liter marijuana hash oil, sir.
xxxx
Q: So after you have already effected the arrest and the search was made
in the persons of the accused, what happen (sic) next?
A: We prepared for physical examination request, for chemical analysis
of the confiscated dangerous drugs from the suspect, request for drug
test, the inventory of the evidences (sic) confiscated on the suspect
and our Affidavit of Arrest, sir.22
xxxx
Q: Actually who among you conducted the search in the person of the 2
accused?
[SPO4 LUCAS]
A: SPO2 Agbayani, sir.
xxx
Q: And after that what happen (sic) next?
A: We proceeded in our office, sir.
Q: And at your office what happen (sic)?
A: For documentation that’s the time we were able to identify the suspect
as Recto Angngao and Robert Carlin, sir.23
xxxx
Q: There are markings here, CJA, what does that represent?
[SPO2 AGBAYANI]
A: My initials, Sir.
Q: Who placed that?
A: I was the one, Sir.
Q: How about this MKM?
A: Marquez K. Madlon, Sir.
Q: How about AEL?
A: Arthur E. Lucas, Sir.
Q: How about DEA?
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

A: Daniel E. Akia, Sir.

Q: How about this entry?
A: That is during the arrest of the suspect, Sir.24
xxxx

Other than the response of SPO2 Agbayani to the question pertaining to the
date appearing on the markings, nothing shows how such markings were
obtained and the circumstances surrounding that important link in the chain.
The members of the buy-bust team did not even mention in the Joint Affidavit
of Arrest or in the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer that they had marked the drugs.

The Prosecution cannot avoid confronting the issue of the broken chain of
custody by embellishing its case with the presumption of regularity. This
presumption, which is not conclusive, vanishes upon the slightest hint or taint
of irregularity.25 It stands only when nothing suggests that the law enforcers
involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in
the law. But where, like here, the official act in question is irregular on its face,
the presumption does not arise as a matter of course.26 As such, the non-
conformity with the requirements for preserving the chain of custody on the
part of the arresting lawmen closed the door to the application of the
presumption of regularity.

There were other indicia of non-conformity with the requirements. It is

beyond dispute, for one, that no photograph was taken of the recovered items
for documentation purposes. It was also not shown why, despite the
requirement of the law itself, no representative from the media, from the
Department of Justice, or any elective official was present to serve as a
witness during the arrest. The Prosecution’s testimonial evidence is actually
bereft of the showing of the efforts undertaken by the law enforcers to see to
the presence of any of such representatives during the operation against the
appellant from his apprehension until the seizure of the drugs.
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

It is true that Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 only requires a substantial
compliance with the requirements of markings and photographing instead of
an absolute or literal compliance. Hence, an accused can still be held guilty
provided that a justifiable ground for excusing the non-compliance with the
requirements has been satisfactorily established by the Prosecution.27

Such justifiable ground is wanting here. SPO4 Madlon and the rest of the buy-
bust team tendered no explanation for the non-compliance. They were
required to render sufficient reasons for their non-compliance during the
trial; otherwise, the persons they charged would be acquitted on the ground
of reasonable doubt.28 Yet, they even seemed unaware that such requirements
existed at all. We are aghast at their dismissive treatment of the requirements.

There is no question that the State had the responsibility to explain the lapses
in the procedures taken to preserve the chain of custody of the dangerous
drugs. Without the explanation by the State, the evidence of the corpus
delicti became unreliable, and the acquittal of the accused should follow on the
ground that his guilt had not been shown beyond reasonable doubt.29 Absent
the justification by the arresting lawmen for their non-compliance with the
requirement of an intact chain of custody, the trial court and the CA did not
fairly convict the appellant in whose favor the safeguards have been erected
by the law. As the Court well stated in People v. Relato:30

Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated

prohibited drugs and related items are designed to ensure the
integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against
the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful
prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of prohibited
drugs.

Consequently, we reverse the conviction of the appellant for possession of or

JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

for the sale of illegal drugs under R.A. No. 9165 for failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the November 28, 2008
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Recto
Angngao y Makay by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, in Baguio City for the
illegal sale of 250 grams of marijuana resin or hashish (Criminal Case Nos.
22317-R), and for the illegal possession of 500 milliliters of hashish oil
(Criminal Case Nos. 22318-R); and ACQUITS him of the offenses charged
based on reasonable doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY

RELEASE Recto Angngao yMakay from custody upon receipt hereof, unless he
is being held for some other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

CASE DIGEST

People of the Philippines vs. Recto Angngao and Robert Carlin

This is an appeal concerning the chain of custody of dangerous drugs acquired as evidence during a
buy-bust operation of herein appellants. The State seeks to affirm the decision of the Court of
Appeals by asserting that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation should be given
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties.

FACTS:
SPO4 Marquez Madlon of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in the Cordillera
Autonomous Region (CAR) received a call on November 23, 2008 from a man who called himself as
“Amboy”. The said caller was asking for the whereabouts of Jun Buguias. Amboy turned out to be
appellant Recto Angngao. Buguias was arrested by the PDEA-CAR for selling marijuana hashish.
SPO4 Madlon made up a story and told Amboy/Angngao that he was also waiting for Buguias to
deliver to him some marijuana hashish. Appellant bought SPO4 Madlon’s story and offered to sell
him 250 grams of marijuana resin for P50,000.00 and 1 liter of marijuana hashish oil for
P150,000.00 which were supposed to be delivered to Buguias. SPO4 Madlon and Amboy agreed to
meet in the evening of the same day at the Petron Gasoline Station in Baguio General Hospital along
Marcos Highway.
SPO4 Madlon reported to his superior, Police Supt. Danilo Flordeliza. Thereafter, a team was
formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. SPO4 Madlon met with Angngao and Carlin later that
evening. SPO4 Madlon then proceeded with the transaction and inquired of the product sold to him.
Appellant Angngao was hesitant but complied and brought out a brick of marijuana resin from his
backpack. SPO4 Madlon handed the buy-bust money to Carlin, who handed the same to Angngao.
The police operatives, who were stationed within the area, proceeded to arrest Angngao and Carlin.
The arresting officers were able to recover the buy-bust money and a bottle of dark green viscous
liquid suspected to be marijuana hashish oil. The confiscated items were marked with the initials of
the officers composing the buy-bust team.
Two informations were filed in the RTC against Angngao and Carlin, charging them with the illegal
sale of marijuana resin and illegal possession of marijuana hashish oil in violation of RA No. 9165.
Carlin was acquitted and Angngao was convicted of the crimes charged against them. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court in sentencing appellant to life imprisonment.

ISSUES:
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Angngao claims that the Court of Appeals:
1) Gravely erred in finding the Accused-Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes charged.
2) Gravely erred in convicting the Accused-Appellant despite the prosecution’s failure to
establish the chain of custody of the alleged confiscated drugs.
JALBUNA, DORIS E.S. Criminal Procedure
LLB II-A University of San Agustin – College of Law

HELD:
The presentation of the drugs as evidence in court is indispensable in every prosecution for the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the drugs are the corpus delicti of the crime.
To ensure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements constituting
the crime must be present, namely: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale,
and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. The
State should be able to establish the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing that the dangerous
drugs presented in court as evidence were the same substances retrieved from the buy-bust
operation. Such requisite is complied with by ensuring that the custody of the seized drugs from the
time of confiscation until presentation in court is safeguarded under the chain of custody by R.A.
No. 9165, whose objective is to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence.

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish on record during the trial that the officers
present during the buy-bust operation complied with the guidelines in establishing the chain of
custody, as provided for by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The manner and timing of the marking of
the seized drugs or related items in accordance with the foregoing statutory rules are crucial in
proving the chain of custody. Performing the steps in order to establish the chain of custody is
essential in obviating, switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence. Likewise, it also
preserves the integrity of the evidence in proving the guilt of the accused. However, the officers
failed to mention in their Joint Affidavits that they were able to mark the seized drugs upon
confiscation at the site of the arrest or ever later at the police station. Also, record shows that no
testimony concerning the links in the chain of custody, from the time the drugs were confiscated up
to the time they were offered as evidence in court, was presented by the arresting officers and the
others who possibly handled the drugs.
The issue of the broken chain of custody cannot be avoided by the Prosecution by merely raising in
its defense the presumption of regularity. This presumption becomes defeated when there is a
slightest hint or taint of irregularity. Moreover, the requirements in marking or photographing the
seized dangerous drugs only require a substantial compliance, but the arresting officers failed to
provide sufficient reasons for the non-compliance of the same.
Wherefore, the Court reverses and sets aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the
conviction of Recto Angngao by the Regional Trial Court for the illegal sale of 250 grams of
marijuana resin or hashish and for the illegal possession of 500 milliliters of hashish oil; and acquits
him of the offenses charged based on reasonable doubt.