PEOPLE vs. TENG MONER G.R. No.

202206 | March 5, 2018

Topic: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 | Procedure as to seizure, custody, disposition
(Sec. 21); presumption of regularity, etc. Chain of Custody Rule
Petitioner: People of the Philippines Respondent: Teng Moner y Adam
Emergency Recit:
Doctrine: We have consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a buy-bust
operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear
showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved, i.e.,
the illegal drugs being offered in court as evidence is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item
recovered in the buy-bust operation.
Facts:
1. Police operatives of Las Piñas Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force
(SAIDSOTF) had arrested a certain Joel Taudil for possession of illegal drugs. Upon
investigation, they gathered from Taudil that the source of the illegal drugs was Teng Moner
(herein accused-appellant) who hails from Tandang Sora, Quezon City.
2. As per this information, Police Chief Inspector Jonathan Cabal formed a team that would
conduct a buy-bust operation for the apprehension of accused-appellant.
3. At the target area, PO2 Panopio and Taudil went to accused-appellant's house. Taudil
introduced PO2 Panopio as his friend to accused-appellant and told him that PO2 Panopio was
interested to buy shabu. PO2 Panopio asked for the price of five (5) grams of shabu.
4. Accused-appellant replied that the same would cost him P8,000.00 and asked him if he has
the money. When PO2 Panopio confirmed that he has the money with him, accused-appellant
asked them to wait and he went inside the house.
5. When he returned after a few minutes, he handed a plastic sachet containing a substance
suspected as shabu to PO2 Panopio who in turn gave him the marked and boodle money.
Accused-appellant was about to count the money when PO2 Panopio gave the pre-arranged
signal to his team and introduced himself as [a] police officer.
6. Accused-appellant resisted arrest and ran inside the house but PO2 Panopio was able to catch
up with him. The other members of the team proceeded inside the house and they saw the
other accused gather[ed] around a table re-packing shabu. PO3 Lirio confiscated the items
from them and placed the same inside a plastic bag.
7. After accused-appellant and his co-accused were arrested, the team proceeded to the Las
Piñas City Police Station.
8. The items confiscated from them were turned over by PO2 Panopio to PO3 Dalagdagan
who marked them in the presence of the police operatives, accused-appellant and his
co-accused.
9. PO3 Dalagdagan prepared the corresponding inventory of the confiscated items. The
specimens were then brought to the police crime laboratory for testing. The specimens
yielded positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Issue/s: WON prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody in consonance with the
requirements of law
Held: NO. For a successful prosecution of an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
essential elements must be proven:

(1) that the transaction or sale took place;

(2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and
(3) that the buyer and seller were identified.

A perusal of the records of this case would reveal that the aforementioned elements were established
by the prosecution. The illegal drugs and the marked money were presented and identified in court.
More importantly, Police Officer (PO2) Joachim Panopio (PO2 Panopio), who acted as poseur-buyer,
positively identified Moner as the seller of the shabu to him for a consideration of P8,000.00.
To ensure that the drug specimen presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same
material seized from him or that, at the very least, a dangerous drug was actually taken from his
possession, we have adopted the chain of custody rule. The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) has
expressly defined chain of custody involving dangerous drugs and other substances in the following
terms in Section 1 (b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:

b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs
or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation
in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition[.]

Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165
relevantly states:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(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 noncompliance 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[.]

We have consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of

Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a
buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required
if there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs
have been preserved, i.e., the illegal drugs being offered in court as evidence is, without a
specter of doubt, the very same item recovered in the buy-bust operation.

With regard to the foregoing, Moner asserts that he should be acquitted of the criminal charges levelled
against him specifically because of the following serious lapses in procedure committed by the
apprehending officers: (a) the physical inventory was not conducted at the place where the seizure was
made; (b) the seized item was not photographed at the place of seizure; and (c) there was no physical
inventory and photograph of the seized item in the presence of the accused, or his representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The aforementioned concerns can be addressed by a review of the records of this case accompanied
by a liberal application of relevant jurisprudence in support thereof. Both object and testimonial
evidence demonstrate that the apprehending officers were able to mark the dangerous drugs seized
and to prepare a physical inventory of the same at the Las Piñas Police Station which was the place
where Moner and his co-accused were brought for processing.

To reiterate, noncompliance with the chain of custody rule is excusable as long as there exist
justifiable grounds which prevented those tasked to follow the same from strictly conforming to
the said directive. The preceding discussion clearly show that the apprehending officers in this
case did not totally disregard prescribed procedure but, instead, demonstrated substantial
compliance with what was required. It was likewise explained that the divergence in procedure
was not arbitrary or whimsical but because the buy-bust team decided that they could not
linger at the crime scene as it would unduly expose them to security risks since they were
outside their area of responsibility.

The fact that the apprehending officer marked the plastic sachet at the police station, and not at
the place of seizure, did not compromise the integrity of the seized item. Jurisprudence has
declared that "marking upon immediate confiscation" contemplates even marking done at the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending team. Neither does the absence of a physical inventory
nor the lack of photograph of the confiscated item renders the same inadmissible. What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as these
would be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

It bears repeating that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to
prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Admittedly, the buy-bust
team did not follow certain aspects of procedure to the letter but this was excusable under the
saving clause of the chain of custody rule and prevailing jurisprudence. As a consequence
thereof, their arrest of Moner in the performance of their duty cannot be described as having been done
so irregularly as to convince this Court to invalidate the credibility and belief bestowed by the trial court
on the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, Moner must provide clear and convincing evidence to
overturn the aforesaid presumption that the police officers regularly performed their duties but the
records show that he has failed to do so. Absent any proof of mishandling, tampering or switching of
evidence presented against him by the arresting officers and other authorities involved in the chain of
custody, the presumption remains.

We find it apropos to highlight this Court's discussion in Zalameda v. People, which was restated in the
recent case of Saraum v. People:

We would like to add that noncompliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the
inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs
inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible
when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule,
the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the court x
x x.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-
admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is noncompliance 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.

Stated differently, if the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled precisely in the manner
prescribed by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to inadmissibility that
would automatically destroy the prosecution's case but rather to the weight of evidence
presented for each particular case. In the case at bar, the trial court judge convicted Moner on
the strength of the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses despite an imperfect chain of
custody concerning the corpus delicti.
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT.